|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
After the backing-up of the establishment by the U.S. against the revolt of its population, the U.S. called their freedom fighters the narcoguerillas. After a fake war on drugs, the U.S. supported and financed governments and paramilitaries that slaughtered indiscriminately both locals and combatants... forgetting to tell us, that they were protecting their economical interests. Which interests? Is it coincidental that in 2009 Colombia provided 685.82 barrels a day to the U.S., becoming its 10th largest provider? Who wants to deal with an unstable country with so much at stake? Not the U.S.!
Let's not forget the U.S. state of mind: it needs reserves in case of global conflict
Their real intention is to protect their interests. If the communist group had to take power it will lead to the nationalization of the wealth like in most countries that experienced a putch! The drugs are the least of their concerns!
They were/are against communism because it is the antithesis of capitalism. But in 2012, communism, the way it was during the cold war, is obsolete. The U.S. like the certainty of a good bilateral relationship. Iran is the perfect example, when Mossaddegh after his election decided to nationalize oil, the CIA planned a coup. Had he not, he would have ruled!
But it shows the extent of their actions when their interests are at play!
by Susan Reid4 years ago
I hate that term, but didn't quite know how to phrase it better.Obviously, there have been a LOT of incidents and investigations in the last fewmonths that have raised terrorists and US security to new levels of...
by Wesman Todd Shaw6 years ago
Let's face it, if you believe that our large corporations in this nation give a damn about the death of our soldiers, or innocent persons over seas somewhere - you are one delusional person, and I absolutely feel sorry...
by cooldad5 years ago
Now that we all have had time to reflect, was the United States war on terrorism valid?Or, did our instant gratification culutre, react to quickly based on emotion and fear?I think American people are easily led by fear...
by Chris Mills2 years ago
Could the war on terror ever be called World War III?The Wikipedia definition of World War is "a war involving many or most of the world's most powerful and populous countries. World wars span multiple countries on...
by Gary Anderson8 years ago
The goal was oil, not terrorism. It is well documented that Bush could care less about Bin Laden. Why do you suppose that was? Don't you ever wonder? Here is the answer: http://www.pissedonpolitics.com/2007/05 …...
by ahorseback3 years ago
Who can be so blind as to believe that it could ever end ? Terror and all that we know about it , is eternal , and so the war against it ! Much like the history of war itself ....
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.