Would you die for your country?

[Crispy]

What does it stand for?? Your Constitution dont mean ****. Nor does your Bill of Rights. And if you think you got freedom your dead wrong. This country was founded on the belief that you where free. Sicne then congress has done away with your freedoms.

If you think its ok now stick around a few more years.

So again I ask?! What's your definition of Freedom and Morality? Simple question. Perhaps I'm way off base, why don't you enlighten me!

 

[Crispy]

This thread went waaaaaaay off topic.

No **** dude, way off topic lol.

 

[Tetracide]

I leave for 24 hours, and look what happens?

 

[stsburns]

Would you die for your country?

Yes, without a doubt. Yep, Even for the ungrateful people that sit on their couches and complain about Bush. Hey did you know that if a soldier disobeys an officer or does an act of treason, they have the right to shoot them! That should give you something to think about.

 

[SKILMATIC]

I leave for 24 hours, and look what happens?

Tell me about it, I say this everytime.

 

[FiremanRyan]

What would be a reason to die for America? America the free is no longer. If you say it is you are extremely uneducated.

is that right? may i ask what the extent of your education is? i could go on and on telling you why you are so wrong but theres no point, you're losing your own arguement. making a statement like yours is pretty extreme, yet you give no explanations or specific reasons why America is no longer free. i could tell you all day long that our country is secretly run by aliens, but until i explain why, it means absolutely nothing.

back on topic, i would gladly die for the United States because, if the time came, thats what it would take to fufill my obligation to my forefathers and those who arent yet alive. you might see America merely as a 'piece of property' that you pay taxes to live on, but this piece of property gives us the freedoms that we love. if those freedoms were being taken away by either a foriegn entity or by powers within and i did nothing to help stop it, i would not only fail my grandfather who died for them, but my children who deserve them too.

 

[SKILMATIC]

is that right? may i ask what the extent of your education is? i could go on and on telling you why you are so wrong but theres no point, you're losing your own arguement. making a statement like yours is pretty extreme, yet you give no explanations or specific reasons why America is no longer free. i could tell you all day long that our country is secretly run by aliens, but until i explain why, it means absolutely nothing.

Go on brotha. You tell him. Then may I also ask why do still reside here in the good ole USofA? Mabe you just like being in a totalitarianistic regime?

 

[SKILMATIC]

To say this nation isnt free is like telling speaking to a def man. It just doesnt make sense. We are the most free aqnd most opportnistic country this world has ever known. I guess half the population of mexico hops the border daily casue we are such a Niziistic regime?

 

[freethought6t9]

Oh yeah? I am under no illusions...how is this for flippant....

We have spent half a century backing the wrong players. Oil smeared our vision and we concentrated on the self-destructive Arab states and oil-rich Iran. We insist that Saudi Arabia, a police state that funds Islamic extremism around the world, is our friend. This is wrong and has been a mistake that has been glorified for decades. Our President (As much as I appreciate him) even plays host to its de facto king at his ranch. And we are pledged to protect those bazaars of terror, the Gulf states, with our blood.
The Arab world, rich and poor, is nearly hopeless. With a few, strategically less than important exceptions (Jordan, Kuwait), it has given itself over to the narcotic effects of hatred and blame. Arab civilization cannot compete on a single productive front in the 21st century. And there is nothing we can do about it. If the Arab world will not repair itself, no amount of indulgence will make a difference. We have wasted decades on governments and populations who need us as an enemy to justify their profound failures. The spark in Iraq represents the last chance for the Middle East.
When well-meaning officials, academics or pop singers assure us that Islam is not the problem, they are utterly wrong. Do not be fooled or fall into their state of confusion and Politically Correct blindness. Islam, as promoted by Saudi Arabia and practiced by fanatics elsewhere in the Arab world, is precisely the problem. The military addresses today’s problems; tomorrow’s challenges are already fermenting. Plenty of hope remains for non-Arab, Muslim-majority states to reward their citizens with progress and tolerance. But, instead of wasting further efforts on the Middle East, where the military remains our optimal and almost only tool, we should work vigorously on the borders of the Islamic world, in those cultures where the fundamentalists have not yet been able to destroy all hope of a better future, and where Islam is still a developing faith, not merely a tomb for the living.
So far, we haven’t even gotten the numbers right. Arab populations are a minority within Islam, but their regressive form of religion has been poisoning one non-Arab state after another with an infusion of petrodollars, dogma and anti-Western vitriol. Three non-Arab countries, Indonesia, India and Pakistan, contain nearly half the world’s Muslims. Add those of Central Asia, Turkey, the Philippines, Malaysia, Kosovo, Bosnia, Azerbaijan and that struggling, vilified democracy, Iran, and the Arab states begin to look overvalued. If we want to roll back the inhumane variants of Islam and to promote constructive cooperation and the emergence of rule-of-law, market-driven states, then we should turn our energies to the lands of possibility, rather than wasting further efforts on Arab states utterly opposed to reform. If we really believe that Islam is a great world religion, we need to treat it as such and engage it where it is still developing--on its vibrant frontiers, not in its arthritic Arab homelands.

The success or failure of Iraq will prove once and for all and to everyone if Islam in the Middle East is truly beyond self-repair. Maybe a civil war is exactly what they need.

Your extremely eloquent and asountdingly factually correct argument just seems to have one fatal flaw. You are extremely critical of U.S. foriegn policy in the region for the past 50 years, yet you still refuse to make the connection between this and the problems of the region. U.S. interference has been extreme and almost apocalyptic for many many people, their countries are ravaged and poor, they are brutalised mercilessly and the miserable Kurds are seemingly constantly murdered with U.S. support, primarily in Iraq and Turkey, then of course there are the Palestinians, oppressed in even other Arabic states, but constantly cheated, murdered and 'penned up' by Israel with the ever-present shadow of pracically 1/3 of all U.S. foriegn aid, and the most advanced terrorist weapons on the planet, all courtesy of the American tax-payer are constantly turned on their homes and children.

So yes, they fought back, they fight just as mercilessly, brutally and immorally as their enemy and with whatever tools they have to fight against the brutality, murder, oppression, infanticide and rape that has become the landmark of U.S. and European 'intervention' all over the world, they kill our children as we kill theirs, but they don't have the advantage of being conveniently ignored by the world and so we condemn them, and we use Islam as a tool against these fanatics, just as they use it, and they draw on a vast swathe of devout Muslims, sick and weary of Western aggression, and support for the stick that continually beats them, and they seek change.

Do you really think they are going to shower Americans with chocolates and flowers for 'freeing' them, freeing them from what? American invasion and interference? By once again invading countries, blowing up peoples homes and calling civilian casualties (1 of the ostensible reasons for the invasions) as 'collateral damage". If that is the level of naivete and 'logical' thought operating today, then it is no small wonder that we are losing "the war for mens minds".

 

[AlbqOwl]

Your extremely eloquent and asountdingly factually correct argument just seems to have one fatal flaw. You are extremely critical of U.S. foriegn policy in the region for the past 50 years, yet you still refuse to make the connection between this and the problems of the region. U.S. interference has been extreme and almost apocalyptic for many many people, their countries are ravaged and poor, they are brutalised mercilessly and the miserable Kurds are seemingly constantly murdered with U.S. support, primarily in Iraq and Turkey, then of course there are the Palestinians, oppressed in even other Arabic states, but constantly cheated, murdered and 'penned up' by Israel with the ever-present shadow of pracically 1/3 of all U.S. foriegn aid, and the most advanced terrorist weapons on the planet, all courtesy of the American tax-payer are constantly turned on their homes and children.

So yes, they fought back, they fight just as mercilessly, brutally and immorally as their enemy and with whatever tools they have to fight against the brutality, murder, oppression, infanticide and rape that has become the landmark of U.S. and European 'intervention' all over the world, they kill our children as we kill theirs, but they don't have the advantage of being conveniently ignored by the world and so we condemn them, and we use Islam as a tool against these fanatics, just as they use it, and they draw on a vast swathe of devout Muslims, sick and weary of Western aggression, and support for the stick that continually beats them, and they seek change.

Do you really think they are going to shower Americans with chocolates and flowers for 'freeing' them, freeing them from what? American invasion and interference? By once again invading countries, blowing up peoples homes and calling civilian casualties (1 of the ostensible reasons for the invasions) as 'collateral damage". If that is the level of naivete and 'logical' thought operating today, then it is no small wonder that we are losing "the war for mens minds".

If the 'good' Iraqis--the ones who want to be free of brutal dictatorship and chart their own destiny--don't want us there, why have they asked us to stay? Have you talked to the men and women who have been over there? Are they telling you the rank and file Iraqi is hostile to them? Does not want them there? Is ungrateful? I have talked with them and also with loved ones who have been and are over there. That isn't what they are telling me.

Those same 'good Iraqis' will be subject to increased targeting, torture, murder, and devastation of their property and livelihood if we pull out before the terrorist aggression is put down or the Iraqis are strong enough to deal with it themselves. Perhaps you can name another country that transformed itself from brutal dictatorship to a self-determined and free market society without years of blood and treasure being expended? Costa Rica is one. I cannot think of another. The USA certainly did not transform itself overnight.

Kuwait is controlled by a benevolent dictatorship which are rare so it isn't a very good model for what we're shooting for. Turkey, however, has been able to throw off the shackles of tribal oppression and has forged itself into a reasonably democratic state that is still culturally Islamic and friendly to the world. Nobody worries about Turkish aggression anymore. It is an example of what Iraq can be.

My gut feeling is that if Iraq succeeds in becoming a self-determined free nation, others will follow suit within a decade or two. I believe a yearning for freedom and self determination exists in every human and I don't consider any people hopeless.

Our purpose in going to Iraq was not to transform them into a peaceful people but to eliminate them as a threat to other peaceful people. The mission changed when we got there. It's still a worthy mission and I encourage all Americans to get behind it and push for its success.

 

[Aryan Imperium]

Rather too simplistic.
I would not die for a government,particularly a government who allows millions of immigrants to flood the land and denies an effective voice to the indigenous population in resisting this genocide.
One should distinguish between one`s Volk and one`s "country" as most western countries are currently "occupied".Hence I have voted "no".

 

[freethought6t9]

Your reference to Turkey is fairly puzzling as it was home for intense violence against Kurds in the 90's at a time when it was one of the biggest recipients of U.S. foriegn aid, so to call them 'friendly' is to once again ignore the victims of your own violence, and does absolutely nothing to decrease terror, itself being an increase in terrorism, only it's our terrorism so we can call it counter-terrorism and is a 'legitimate' form of violence againdst civilian populations. And you do as usual seek to define the issue far to much, where are the Afghans in all of this, what about the Saudis, Iranians, Palestinians, Syrians, Libyans and Egyptians, surely these are the states that are funding and enabling terrorism, and Iraq is simply an act of nation building against a hostile target to further step up operations, 'counter' terrorism, in the region, a plan which backfired magnificently.

What you fail to understand about Iraq is that the country is under foriegn military occupation, and a rather brutal insurgency, responded to by brutal 'counter' insurgency, although both have similar aims and targets. To undermine the actions of the enemy, and target the participants, i.e. Iraqi security forces, or the insurgents, any civilian casualties either tragic victims or collateral damage, depending on who was holding the gun. What civilian population is going to be hostile towards a power capable of destroying their homes froms hundreds of miles away and are already conducting intense propaganda campaigns on the civilian population.

It's easy to paint the world in black and white, to define the world in the context of 'us' and 'them', but if you do, you will never understand, and if you continue to ignore, or even support the violent crimes of your own country, and condemn the violent crimes of others (Jesus described this as hypocrisy) then progress will never be made.

By the way, I condemn terrorism in the strongest terms, I've just learned not to distinguish between the terrorism of states against individuals, and the terrorism of individuals against states. The dead are the always tragic, it doesn't matter who killed them.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Your reference to Turkey is fairly puzzling as it was home for intense violence against Kurds in the 90's at a time when it was one of the biggest recipients of U.S. foriegn aid, so to call them 'friendly' is to once again ignore the victims of your own violence, and does absolutely nothing to decrease terror, itself being an increase in terrorism, only it's our terrorism so we can call it counter-terrorism and is a 'legitimate' form of violence againdst civilian populations. And you do as usual seek to define the issue far to much, where are the Afghans in all of this, what about the Saudis, Iranians, Palestinians, Syrians, Libyans and Egyptians, surely these are the states that are funding and enabling terrorism, and Iraq is simply an act of nation building against a hostile target to further step up operations, 'counter' terrorism, in the region, a plan which backfired magnificently.

What you fail to understand about Iraq is that the country is under foriegn military occupation, and a rather brutal insurgency, responded to by brutal 'counter' insurgency, although both have similar aims and targets. To undermine the actions of the enemy, and target the participants, i.e. Iraqi security forces, or the insurgents, any civilian casualties either tragic victims or collateral damage, depending on who was holding the gun. What civilian population is going to be hostile towards a power capable of destroying their homes froms hundreds of miles away and are already conducting intense propaganda campaigns on the civilian population.

It's easy to paint the world in black and white, to define the world in the context of 'us' and 'them', but if you do, you will never understand, and if you continue to ignore, or even support the violent crimes of your own country, and condemn the violent crimes of others (Jesus described this as hypocrisy) then progress will never be made.

By the way, I condemn terrorism in the strongest terms, I've just learned not to distinguish between the terrorism of states against individuals, and the terrorism of individuals against states. The dead are the always tragic, it doesn't matter who killed them.

I think you did not read my post carefully, and if you did, you did not understand it. What puts things more into simplistic black and white terms?: saying that there is more good than bad in something? Or in saying that if something is incomplete or flawed or doesn't encompass the full scope of possibilites, it is all bad?

I go with the former. I can acknowledge imperfections, setbacks, incompleteness, and limitations of something while appreciating that more good than bad is being accomplished and that possibilities exist for even greater good to be done.

You seem to think if there are negatives, then it is all negative.

I like my belief best.

 

[freethought6t9]

Put simply, my post wasn't about the good the U.S. does in the world, but yeah, U.S. foriegn policy is mainly bad, in that it affects more people negatively than it does positively, you still seem to dispute that 9/11 and the unrest in the middle-east is a result and response to U.S. actions, that it simply came out of nowhere, because of Islam people want to kill Americans, and that is the only reason, well it's not and when your system has more victims than beneficiaries it causes hatred, when people see the wealth of their land plundered, see their families killed and bury their children, and when nearly a third of all foriegn aid goes to a sworn enemy and brutaliser of the Arab population, they do not see the great munificence of the United States as you and others do, they see a system designed to prop up the rich and the powerful, this is true in so many ways I can't even go into it, but look at U.S. foriegn policy, don't expect your own press to reflect the views of anyone other than the beneficiaries, so of course America is a force for good, and of course America spreads democracy, and fights despotism, genocide and injustice, it is tireless in these efforts and the enemies of peace are many, but don't worry because we will blow alll those f**kers up!

If you want to talk about the good America does, go talk to someone who benefitted, the Saudi Royal Family, Augustus Pinochet, Saddam Hussein Suharto, Anastasio Samoza and countless other dicators and despots found all over the third world, the U.S. is a nation that places stability above freedom, at least for the poor and under-developed, and if this stability means a dictator who commits mass murder and genocide, enslaves and oppresses his people but most importantly, indeed the only factor in deciding who is 'good' or 'bad', an enemy state or a 'client' state, ensures profits run to the west, and not their own people, then why should the U.S. give a flying f**k. Well, they don't, not at all, and they use the propagandistic media, and entirely servillient intellectual elites to convince you that peace is war, and lies are truth, knowledge is ignorance and freedom is slavery. Orwell would be proud of their progress, or horrified, intensely horrified, can't get to sleep at night horrified, checks under his bed, and constantly on the look out for wire taps and hidden microphones horrified, because one day, if this continues, Orwell, like so many other things in the minitrue, will cease to exist.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Put simply, my post wasn't about the good the U.S. does in the world, but yeah, U.S. foriegn policy is mainly bad, in that it affects more people negatively than it does positively, you still seem to dispute that 9/11 and the unrest in the middle-east is a result and response to U.S. actions, that it simply came out of nowhere, because of Islam people want to kill Americans, and that is the only reason, well it's not and when your system has more victims than beneficiaries it causes hatred, when people see the wealth of their land plundered, see their families killed and bury their children, and when nearly a third of all foriegn aid goes to a sworn enemy and brutaliser of the Arab population, they do not see the great munificence of the United States as you and others do, they see a system designed to prop up the rich and the powerful, this is true in so many ways I can't even go into it, but look at U.S. foriegn policy, don't expect your own press to reflect the views of anyone other than the beneficiaries, so of course America is a force for good, and of course America spreads democracy, and fights despotism, genocide and injustice, it is tireless in these efforts and the enemies of peace are many, but don't worry because we will blow alll those f**kers up!

If you want to talk about the good America does, go talk to someone who benefitted, the Saudi Royal Family, Augustus Pinochet, Saddam Hussein Suharto, Anastasio Samoza and countless other dicators and despots found all over the third world, the U.S. is a nation that places stability above freedom, at least for the poor and under-developed, and if this stability means a dictator who commits mass murder and genocide, enslaves and oppresses his people but most importantly, indeed the only factor in deciding who is 'good' or 'bad', an enemy state or a 'client' state, ensures profits run to the west, and not their own people, then why should the U.S. give a flying f**k. Well, they don't, not at all, and they use the propagandistic media, and entirely servillient intellectual elites to convince you that peace is war, and lies are truth, knowledge is ignorance and freedom is slavery. Orwell would be proud of their progress, or horrified, intensely horrified, can't get to sleep at night horrified, checks under his bed, and constantly on the look out for wire taps and hidden microphones horrified, because one day, if this continues, Orwell, like so many other things in the minitrue, will cease to exist.

Well I do not accept your pessimistic outlook or assessment, nor do I accept that your opinion is based anywhere close to fact. I am not at all pessimistic and I try very hard to base my opinion on reality.

I still prefer my belief to yours.

 

[freethought6t9]

My opinion is not pessimistic and it is a statement born of facts, if you want to print a nice long list of all the good the U.S. does in the world, I guarantee it wouldn't be as long, or perhaps as influential, as a list of atrocities commited, funded or supported by the U.S. I am not a pessimist, I look forward to an end to this, but in order to stop it, we have to acknowledge it, not hide from it and hope it goes away.

 

[MSgt]

Your views very much reflect a pessimist. You do state facts, but so does AlbqOwl. It will never go away. Such is the price of diplomacy. Instead of recognizing the majority of good America does for the world, you seem to wallow in America's mistakes of diplomacy. There is an old military maxim...Never let the Battalion get bogged down by a Sniper. Reflecting on the mundane day-to-day details only serves to disrupt the whole of the mission.

Appeasing a tyranical nation for the sake of peace has hurt our allies in the past. No doubt about it. Our most recent black mark was with the Kurds last year. We appeased a Sunni Cleric over our truest friends in that region for the sake of a unified Iraq. Pacifist and liberals preach on the power of diplomacy over war, but don't realize that diplomacy is never absolute. Somebody always winds up hurt and future frictions are nurtured. If we were to turn our backs on every "less than honorable" nation, then we would be in a constant state of war. While the liberal or the pacifist screams for peace, they want perfect peace where there can not be one. They want what America's foreign policies offer them - a false peace.

America can not win. We can appease, but wind up imprisoning Europeans behind a wall of concrete in Berlin. We can appease, but wind up allowing a tyrant like Saddam to inflict mass murder. All the while, a liberal will glorify America's blame. The other side of appeasal is confrontation. We can fight the flow of Communism in Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan and we can fight to take down a tyrant dictator to prevent a threat to us by sparking democracy in a hate filled region and any future killings of his own people, but the result of said actions is the liberal and pacifist march against the killing of civilians and war.

To some, the best thing to do would be to do nothing and stay within our borders. That way we can't be blamed for any attrocity around the globe. The problem with this is that we would to be blamed for ignoring said attrocities by the same bunch of self-righteous people that think they could do better with this world of diversity. Not to mention, isolationalism, in the past, offered us two world wars in which more lives were lost by everybody.

I believe, despite the details of human nature and the diplomatic decisions that place global interests before our own, we are doing the best we can. I love our nation and the government that holds it together. Our government is strong and does not crumble in the face of finger pointing. We place our dirty laundry out for all to see and we improve with every new decade. Find any other nation out there that does so much around the world. If there was one, I'm sure they would make mistakes too.

 

[freethought6t9]

Once again you are missing the point I am contending. This awe-inspiring belief in the benevolence of the United States of America, and using strict definitions to support your argument, you refer to the entire Middle-East as a region filled with hate, so any death and destruction you carry out are O.K. because these people are 'breeding hate'. This flies in the face of all of the facts about U.S. intervention in the region, the support for Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Israel and Turkey have led to countless deaths;

http://www.alternet.org/story/11592/

I suggest you check out the link, and then try to tell me there is no connection between U.S. intervention and the spread of anti-americanism, that it would have happened anyway, it's all Islams fault. And then take a look at some other places around the world, find out the effects of U.S. foreign and economic policy in East Timor, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Brazil, the Balkans, Vietnam, Cambodia, Venezuela, Indonesia, Laos, the Philippines and countless African nations, and then come back and tell me that the U.S. is a force for good in the world.

Check out the U.N. voting record of the most advanced nation in the world, its refusal to make all nations adhere to international law, its opposition to resolutions supporting the rights of children, women and workers, look at it's history with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the repeated rebukes it would have recieved were it not for the abilty to veto the Security Council and the ability to make any resolutions in the General Assembly worthless simply by being the only nation to vote against it. Look at the representatives George Bush sends to the W.H.O., religious fanatics, and who do Iran send, a female doctor, an ob/gyn to be precise. And then look at the utter contempt the U.S. shows to any international institution that might dare to disagree with or contend a policy of the United States. You know Europe in general is pretty bad, Britain in particular, but it is nothing compared to the utter hypocrisy and arrogance that is U.S. foreign policy.

 

[MSgt]

First, I don't care what the UN has to say about anything. They do not act in Americ'a absence where they should and they have proven to be a huge problem of corruption. They oppose the war in Iraq all the while breaking their own rules with Iraq. Your wasting your time using them with me.

Second, I have written scores of commentary on America's hypocricy with the world and our government's role with the shaping of it. How many lives did we condemn behind a wall to communism by appeasing the Soviets after WWII? Sadly, this goes largely unnoticed by many. We have a habit of creating a false peace which only result in bigger conflicts later. I have written on how we have allowed oil to smear our vision as we have protected the House of Saud (the true lords of terror) and maintained stability between oil rich states like Iraq and Iran. Your link does not enlighten me to anything I wasn't already aware of. I am not arguing this with you. What I am arguing is that the Islamic problem in the Middle East goes way beyond the current Presidency. It goes way beyond our foreign policies. Our policies are world wide, but only in the Middle East do we encounter such wide spread hatred and violence that would cheer on the killing of American civilians. America didn't just decide to "mistreat" the Middle East. We are not at war with Islam, despite the attempts of Middle Eastern sentiments as preached by Mullahs to their people. They are at war with us. Islam is world wide. We only have problems with one region and it is spreading. From northern Africa where 2 million Christians were slaughtered in a ten year period, to southern Europe to the fringes of Asia, fundamental Islam is using their religion to wage war and we are ignoring it for the sake of looking where we have "erred." The Sunni Arab has made a gory mess of their faith and we face a failing civilization. History has seen this before in other religions. It is a civilization that stagnated centuries ago and cannot compete on any front (save one) with the western world. It has been oppressed through the Arab's version of Islam and offering us as the scapegoat for what their own leaders have done to their world is how the youth explain away their lack of opportunity. "Surely, it's not Allah's fault....it's got to be the infidels." This whole thing started, because we choose to defend our ally just like we have defended our European allies for so long. For some reason, our European allies don't see Israel as worthy as they are. I guess they think they are more special. We could throw isolated incidents back and forth that show that not all of the Middle East is a breeding ground for hatred and violence. Remaining "politically correct" will not change the facts of what the general problem is over there. Blaming American foreign policy, while it holds credibility, does not strike the target.

 

[freethought6t9]

Well, to say that the Middle-East is the only region with open hostility to the U.S. is a lie, throughout Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe and especially Latin America, there are deep roots of anti-americanism that have led to violence. Your confusing whats going on with what your hearing about, but yes, it is the source of the most unrest at the minute, specifically in Iraq, Afghanistan and Israel, no common links there. But yes, the wide base of support for anti-american agendas has spread throughout the whole middle east, but as you are familiar with all of the facts I needn't post any, you know the effect of the United States and it's neverending quest for the mid-east oil.

Yet you still refuse to make the logical leap that this is to blame for anti-americanism and terrorist attacks, that the majority of the middle east support Bin Ladens kind, not ofr their actions which are horrific, not for their wish to set up a fundamentalist and oppressive Islamic state (the likes of which they know too well anyway) but because of their opposition to the brutal regimes supported by the U.S. and the economic policies of U.S. corporation, bribing heads of state to ensure maximum profits run to the West, and using the U.S. government as a tool in this 'game'.

As to your characterisation that you were only defending your ally, while it has a certain truth to it, it ignores U.S. sponsored Israeli 'counter' terrorism that has led to the deaths of thousands and the illegal occupation of many areas over the years.

I can't say Islam is not a factor, that would be ludicrous, but it is little more than a recruiting tool, and an ineffective one at that, far more effective is evidence of U.S. crimes and wars, the state of their own economies, whether or not you have a job or education. Arabs aren't cheering for the deaths of Americans because they are Muslims, but because they are sick and tired of Western intervention destroying their country, they don't hate Westerners for their beliefs but their hypocrisy and see someone making a stand against it, so they support the terrorists, Osama and Al Qaeda, but that doesn't mean they agree with everything the terrorists say.

If you want to see the effects of trying to withstand American aggression legally, Nicaragua is a good example, and perhaps it can show us why men resort to the lengths they have gone to.

 

[freethought6t9]

And I wasn't using the U.N. per se, simply thevoting record the U.S. has in the U.N. It's quite easy to see that the U.S. does not have the best interests of the population at heart without even finding out the U.N. opinion in the matter, or examining the organisation as a whole, although it must be said that no-one has undermined or bullied the U.S. in the past and the simple fact is that without U.S. support the U.N. is useless, the U.S. and Britain set it up that way. Both with the veto power in the security council and the massive financial constraints of the organisation without U.S. support. But none of this is relevant to my argument, that the U.S. is not the benevolent force it claims to be (and by that I mean the ruling elite).

 

[RightinNYC]

Rather too simplistic.
I would not die for a government,particularly a government who allows millions of immigrants to flood the land and denies an effective voice to the indigenous population in resisting this genocide.
One should distinguish between one`s Volk and one`s "country" as most western countries are currently "occupied".Hence I have voted "no".

So how do you determine your lebensraum. Did you call shotgun no blitz on it? Or do certain types of people hark from certain areas? Where do you draw the lines?

One quick question...so, assuming that you believe every race has a specific lebensraum, where is the Aryans? And if the Aryans were given back every last inch of their lebensraum, you are claiming that they would have no right to attack another country to expand theirs, no matter what?

(edited for incorrect nazi word usage)

 

[freethought6t9]

So how do you determing your Volk. Did you call shotgun no blitz on it? Or do certain types of people hark from certain areas? Where do you draw the lines?

One quick question...so, assuming that you believe every race has a specific volk, where is the Aryans? And if the Aryans were given back every last inch of their volk, you are claiming that they would have no right to attack another country to expand theirs, no matter what?

I think this guy is an advocate for Native American rights, either that or he's a European and a Nazi, either one is possible from that fairly odd comment, and "volk" means people if that clears it up any.

 

[RightinNYC]

I think this guy is an advocate for Native American rights, either that or he's a European and a Nazi, either one is possible from that fairly odd comment, and "volk" means people if that clears it up any.

He's a Nazi hailing from London. And thank you for the reminder about volk, it's been a while since Nazi Germany studies.

 

[freethought6t9]

He's a Nazi hailing from London. And thank you for the reminder about volk, it's been a while since Nazi Germany studies.

Then the guy is an unspeakable bigot, I thought it would have been funny if a Native American advocate was using Nazi terminology to describe a real injustice, not just a radical too dumb to see the kind of overt propaganda these guys peddle.

Just so you know, when a BBC reporter did an undercover report on the British National Party (Nazis) there was huge public outcry and a few of the leaders were imprisoned for inciting racial hatred. Not that I necessarily agree with this kind of action (legislating speech, however hateful) but just so you know Aryan is by no means representative of any kind of plurality in British politics. And the Indigenous population of Britain have been subject to invasion and "racial impurity" (im sorry im sorry im sorry im sorry) for at least 2000 years so unless he's still prattling on about the Romans then I haven't got a f**king clue about what he is on about. I know it can't be Anglo-Saxons because they came over here in around the 8th century from the areas of Angle and Saxon in what would later become Germany.

I'm not really going to go off on one about all of the hypocrisies and lies concerning any kind of Nazi movement so I'll end it there.