September 11

लिखा द्वारा AirForCe, 11.09.2012 at 18:15

I already said that may they all R.I.P, none can argue that it was a catastrophe and act of terrorism that affected not only innocent american lives but the whole world, but seems you have no valid argument here.
no hard feelings.


Just so that you have a better picture here :



[i'm out]

We did such a great job getting Ron Paul elected.

Fine, time to get political.

The Iran vs USA image... don't you think it would be more apt to make it USSR vs USA? You know... given the context of the Cold War and the emergence of domino theory the interference in the affairs of other weaker nations was an essential and justifiable foreign policy decision for the US because the alternative was much worse.

Controlling the affairs of smaller less powerful nations occurs across the world and throughout history, it's just that no power has ever had the ability to meddle in the affairs of any country on the planet. Technology has enabled the USA to do this and I think it's worth noting that China does the same over the South China Sea, Japan and Korea are having a hissy fit regarding an unpopulated rock, Pakistan and India remain the most likely powers to engage in nuclear war on each other, Russia invaded Georgia a few years back and cut off gas supplies to the Ukraine. Europeans pretty much invented Genocide as we know it and honed it to perfection. The DRC has been fighting insurgencies from Uganda and Rwanda for decades now (Fun fact: The most destructive war since World War 2 in terms of human casualities was The Second Congolese War. If you've never heard of it then don't post again) What do all these nations lack? They certainly don't lack motive or ambition, they simply lack the capability to meddle on the scale that the US can.

I mean if we wanted to post distorted images why not post NATIONS INVADED BY BRAZIL (Paraguay, Bolivia etc. etc.) vs NATIONS INVADED BY SWITZERLAND list? If your entire understanding of a subject can be boiled down to a single image or a t-shirt then I'd say that you need to think way harder.

P.s. Hugo it's possible to be in support of a country but not be from that country.

I think you all don't understand how much america helps. for example Afghanistan would be a hell hole if it wasn't for America. Ask there people and ask there military that work with Americans each day. They don't want us to leave and they know how much we have helped them.. I know many that would love if America would stay there for 20 more years. Then maybe for once Afghanistan would have peace.

लिखा द्वारा Barrymore, 12.09.2012 at 01:42

The Iran vs USA image... don't you think it would be more apt to make it USSR vs USA? You know... given the context of the Cold War and the emergence of domino theory the interference in the affairs of other weaker nations was an essential and justifiable foreign policy decision for the US because the alternative was much worse.

The alternative was much worse, I see.

So a socialist president that was democratically elected by his people in Chile was much worse than "3 thousand dead, 30 thousand tortured and 80 thousand 'interned'". Somehow this reminds me of the Chuck Norris yt video which was posted earlier in this forum, where he warns the American people of "socialism and much worse to come". Man, that was some retarded shit.

Let's talk about Vietnam. How were two million dead and poisoning the land with Agent Orange worth trying to keep them from becoming socialist, when the country now is just fine being socialist? What did the US achieve? Anything? Nothing. They only killed millions of people for the sake of- what exactly? Was it an extreme threat to the safety of the US immediately after the war? Is it now?
Another thing is staging the Gulf of Tonkin incident to enter the war, which was nothing short of what Hitler did with Poland to have an excuse for attack.

Now Iran. What evil alternative did the US prevent when they overthrew the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran in 1953? What evil did the CIA prevent when they trained the sickos of the SAVAK for the newly installed Shah? What about arming Saddam Hussein with chemical WMDs when he attacked Iran, after the Iranian people freed themselfs from the American backed dictatorship of the Shah? The same WMDs they used for an excuse to attack the Iraq in 2003. What a vicious cycle that is.


I really can't see any worse alternatives than what happend after the US meddled in the internal matters of these sovereign countries. Why not let Chile become socialist? Why not Vietnam? These three mentioned examples are only the tip of the iceberg and the thing is that the "worst alternative" from the US point of view mostly will never be the worst alternative for the people in the respective countries, but the complete opposite. The US only acts out of selfish motifs, exploiting it's extreme power and the sickest part of it all is, that they brainwash their people into believing that America is the beacon of democracy, an example to all of the world. That's why people like Pinheiro (I presume) and I can't stand all that fuzz about 9/11. Nothing bad about them commemorating their dead, but the full picture of American ignorance is just enormous. And then it's the American politicians who defile the 9/11 dead by using them for their own agendas. Take George Bushs speech for an example, where he admits that there are no WMDs to be found in Iraq- he instantly started to mention 9/11 and the 3000 dead. Why did no American object to this? There was no connection between 9/11 and the Iraq war, Bush only used the dead for his agenda. The same with Rudy Giuliani when he ran for presidency and so many more. Why did nobody find that offensive?

लिखा द्वारा Barrymore, 12.09.2012 at 01:42

I mean if we wanted to post distorted images why not post NATIONS INVADED BY BRAZIL (Paraguay, Bolivia etc. etc.) vs NATIONS INVADED BY SWITZERLAND list?

Because Brazil doesn't threaten Switzerland with sanctions and war. Can you see the diffrence?

@MarcJr: of course America also helps people, but that will never make up for the dead. And I by no means hate your country nor your government, because what Barrymore said is true. Every country that finds itself in a position like America is today would do the same. It's only natural to abuse a position of power and I don't care if the American people don't want to see that because I will never be able to change their views, I only feel like discussing this right here and now.
Oh and one last thing, it's naive of you to think that there would be peace in Afghanistan if America stayed.

I can't hope to justify Americas stance on containment during the Cold War because it was following it's own rabid doctorine just like the USSR and yeah, it lead to a lot of democratically elected socialists being overthrown and replaced by dictators who murdered their own people. Even thinking that a genocidal dictator is preferable to a Lefty is proof of the ideologies full blown retardation.

But even so I'd prefer the American superpower to the USSR or China or Nazi Germany or Imperialist Britain. I can understand how a Maoist or Marxist or Fascist or just a full blown Racist would disagree with that sentiment but can you appreciate the distinction that I'm trying to make here? We've no way of knowing how the world would have turned out if the US hadn't interfered but I dare say the numbers lost through terrible 5 year plans would at least be equal to those killed directly and indirectly by the US.

लिखा द्वारा Fruit, 11.09.2012 at 13:54

WHAT'S THAT EUROPEANS? I CAN'T HEAR YOU OVER THE SAVING YOU IN WW2

Actually, America helped just one part of the Europe, Europe would "win" in any case.

लिखा द्वारा MarcJr, 12.09.2012 at 10:01

I think you all don't understand how much america helps. for example Afghanistan would be a hell hole if it wasn't for America. Ask there people and ask there military that work with Americans each day. They don't want us to leave and they know how much we have helped them.. I know many that would love if America would stay there for 20 more years. Then maybe for once Afghanistan would have peace.

I was in Afghanistan, i worked with amercan Soldiers, talked to people in Kosovo and Afghanistan. And most people there do not have a good opinion about the Americans. Where we talked to the people, partroled thought the City, the Americans siting in Tanks, guarded by Helicopters, absolutly overacting (specially in Kosovo). The people in Afghanistan or Kosovo would nearly all love to see them going.
Like in every Country there are Idiots and normal people, but in the Army there seems to be more then normal. I remeber so many Situations where just a facepalm fits...
When a Offizer asked me if Hitler still is the German Leader... or if i were part of the SS...

Peace and Democracie are fine, not to talk about, but you can not invade a land, and say: "Now here is Democracy" after Years or Centurys of a other political System. Freedom and peace starts in the minds and can not be forced.

लिखा द्वारा Barrymore, 12.09.2012 at 10:47

But even so I'd prefer the American superpower to the USSR or China or Nazi Germany or Imperialist Britain. I can understand how a Maoist or Marxist or Fascist or just a full blown Racist would disagree with that sentiment but can you appreciate the distinction that I'm trying to make here? We've no way of knowing how the world would have turned out if the US hadn't interfered but I dare say the numbers lost through terrible 5 year plans would at least be equal to those killed directly and indirectly by the US.

I see what you did there and agree, only to a certain extend though. The fact that American superpower might not be as bad as the others mentioned doesn't make any of the things happened better.

लिखा द्वारा Tzeentch, 12.09.2012 at 13:44

Like in every Country there are Idiots and normal people, but in the Army there seems to be more then normal.

Only wanted to point this out, even though it doesn't have much to do with the topic. From my experience there's mostly retards and idiots in the army, in any army of volunteers for that matter.

Also, I wonder why so many people even care to answer to Fruits trolling. You guys are only making fools out of yourselfs.

non-trolling post here

लिखा द्वारा learster, 12.09.2012 at 10:26

when the country now is just fine being socialist?

1. the country is still a 3rd world shithole and their currency is literally the worst in the world
2. they have lost land and sea to land claims from China, in the least, if USA would have won the war they would have kept that from happening: example is Taiwan, when China tried to push some claims and move some military units on the border to put some pressure; USA stationed some aircraft carriers there.
3. south Vietnamese obviously wanted to win, so It wasn't like we showed up and invaded them. It would have been a great tactical ally like South Korea, and even if some of this was propaganda you can see once we pulled out the massive amount of south Vietnamese migrating to the US shows this. The problem really was, we didn't want to completely destroy Vietnam (We could have literally bombed it to the ground if we wanted to, but we didn't) and this is why we lost many soldiers, too many to justify such a long war.

लिखा द्वारा Caulerpa, 12.09.2012 at 13:15

Actually, America helped just one part of the Europe, Europe would "win" in any case.

Depends, If Japan wasn't severely weakened(before joining the war even) and defeated by USA they would have eventually joined against the Europeans (be it going through India/Iran over to Europe or putting more pressure on the east/south of USSR), so overall It would have been less of a European victory and Japan probably would have gotten the most gains.

Just saying, Fruit is totally right here. The USA was the integral part of winning both World Wars because of the money/military vehicles & equipment it gave to Europe. Sure we may have not lost as many lives as say Russia, but in war cash can go much further than number of soldiers.

लिखा द्वारा Acquiesce, 12.09.2012 at 17:28

Fruit is totally right here.

लिखा द्वारा reckoner., 12.09.2012 at 18:23

लिखा द्वारा Acquiesce, 12.09.2012 at 17:28

Fruit is totally right here.

लिखा द्वारा Fruit, 12.09.2012 at 15:20

non-trolling post here

First- apart from it being far from a shithole, Vietnam could have done way better already. But then the US didn't leave Vietnam without sanctions and enormous economical embargos, much like the ones imposed on Cuba. Those embargos pretty much crippled Vietnamnese economy since they were extremly isolated once the Soviet Union fell apart. Still they didn't suffer famine despite pushing 5-year plans through (Hi Barrymore). Anyways, only when the embargos where lifted in the mid 90s Vietnam was actually able to expand it's economy, with some of the highest growth rates in the world even during the worldwide economic crisis of 2008. And that despite it only becoming a member of the WTO in 2006.

Second- care to point out what land they lost to China? I may have missed something here, since I'm not all-knowing, but to my knowledge they managed to repulse every Chinese attack, even the full-scale invasion of 1979 very well on their own.

Third- no, it wasn't like you showed up and invaded. But Americas Casus Belli was still staged, they've only waited to jump the shark. Read up on the Tonkin incident if you like. Anyways, saying that the "problem" was that you didn't want to completly destroy Vietnam is first off a cruel thing to say and secondly, to some extend wrong. Instead of using proper bombs you covered Vietnam in chemics and that pretty extensivly, as seen -> here
With the effect of -> this and -> this.
Leaving out proper bombs and using chemicals doesn't make it any better.

लिखा द्वारा Garde, 12.09.2012 at 18:31

लिखा द्वारा reckoner., 12.09.2012 at 18:23

लिखा द्वारा Acquiesce, 12.09.2012 at 17:28

Fruit is totally right here.

He's not totally right. World War 1 was lost to Germany long before the American offensive of 1918. Our population suffered famine because of the allied blockade and before wars end ~700,000 civilians had already died from hunger. Then there were the sailors of the High Seas Fleet that started to rebell against their superiors, sparking the German revolution of 1918. It may have taken a year longer, but Germany was bound to collapse, the Spring Offensive only being the last desperate effort.
I will give you the integral part in WW2 though, still for very diffrent reasons than the ones Fruit stated.
Apart from this we are discussing post WW2 politics here, so I do not see how this affects the topic.

लिखा द्वारा learster, 13.09.2012 at 04:39

First- apart from it being far from a shithole, Vietnam could have done way better already. But then the US didn't leave Vietnam without sanctions and enormous economical embargos, much like the ones imposed on Cuba. Those embargos pretty much crippled Vietnamnese economy since they were extremly isolated once the Soviet Union fell apart. Still they didn't suffer famine despite pushing 5-year plans through (Hi Barrymore). Anyways, only when the embargos where lifted in the mid 90s Vietnam was actually able to expand it's economy, with some of the highest growth rates in the world even during the worldwide economic crisis of 2008. And that despite it only becoming a member of the WTO in 2006.

well yes of course a country will have economic build up after being communist/socialist then going more capitalist, people predict Vietnam will be full-blown Capitalist within our lifetimes. Still though their infrastructure is horrible, they are 128 on HDI (behind some African countries) they are less than even kazakhstan and syria in terms of nominal GDP
so yes, in my opinion it is a shithole. While it may soon become a non-shithole, that does not mean it isn't now. Btw for the famine, It's mostly farmland anyway, I kind of expect that.

अवतरण:

Second- care to point out what land they lost to China? I may have missed something here, since I'm not all-knowing, but to my knowledge they managed to repulse every Chinese attack, even the full-scale invasion of 1979 very well on their own.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spratly_Islands
"The PRC, the ROC and Vietnam claim all of the Spratly Island Chain, including some features that are just 50 km from other countries like the Philippines and Malaysia. The Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei have claims on parts of the area. Here are the islands claimed but are not occupied by these three countries (flags refer to the country currently occupying the feature):"
It says that it is not occupied and that is true but recently (I think within the last 10 years) PRC has been taking many resources from it, specifically oil, which Vietnam has complained about. This is almost the same as losing land, as they can't do anything about it and will likely be taken by the PRC eventually.

अवतरण:

Third- no, it wasn't like you showed up and invaded. But Americas Casus Belli was still staged, they've only waited to jump the shark. Read up on the Tonkin incident if you like. Anyways, saying that the "problem" was that you didn't want to completly destroy Vietnam is first off a cruel thing to say and secondly, to some extend wrong. Instead of using proper bombs you covered Vietnam in chemics and that pretty extensivly, as seen -> here
With the effect of -> this and -> this.
Leaving out proper bombs and using chemicals doesn't make it any better.

with the support from USSR for Northern Vietnam, It makes sense we would join in to fight them - really there was little need for casus belli as we all know why we helped, to fight the USSR and block influence wherever possible(if you notice though It doesn't really mention being mad about some sea battles, but rather fighting communism which was indeed our goal; maybe it is a weak claim but at least it wasn't lying 100%). Saying anything is cruel while talking about War seems kind of redundant, Violence in itself is cruel but it is something that happens all the time. I agree using chemical weapons is not any better than using proper bombs, however we could have used more of both is what I mean. Innocents are going to die either way, when it comes down to it the kind of scum that goes into the military (not saying all, but most go into it as they have no other option or are forced into it or want to do it due to desensitization or mental illness) are the kind of people to not care about innocents, you can see this often in current wars in the middle east that US is involved in and many other occupations throughout history. It's not unlike countries to be cruel to the enemy, I can't think of any case where a country was 100% clean of an atrocity against innocents. This is just another case of that, and It's just the way it is.

Xaxaxaxa american apologism

So Im just casually looking at the forums

And then I come here

and look at all the butthurt people
lol

लिखा द्वारा Fruit, 13.09.2012 at 08:09

post

First part- yes, it's your opinion based on internet statistics. I've been there and I didn't see anything that gave me this impression, except maybe for most of the toilets actually being shitholes. Still I can't see how that's bad, they are just very simple people who lack behind because they didn't have anything like an enlightenment or industrial revolution. They straight went from middle ages to the information age, the only thing inbetween was half a century of devastating war. So of course they have low literacy rates and their life expectency is lower than compared to others, with all the bombs and chemics still left in their country. I mean, there were more bombs dropped in Vietnam than in WW2 and even here we still find active bombs every week, theres still people burning from phosphorus when they do vacation at the Baltic Sea, etc.
Now they might be way more prosperous already if they only had discovered capitalism earlier, but that doesn't give anyone the right to force it upon them. After all it's a sovereign country that should be allowed to have it's own progression and may only be assisted in it.

Second part- apart from you aleady admitting that it's not the same as losing land, I can see in the Wikipedia link you gave me that the Philippines too claim these islands. As far as I'm informed the Philippines are the longest standing ally of the US in Asia, so why is nothing done about the Phillies claim when you suggest that the US would help Vietnam with it if they had won the war?

Third part- as I already said, how was the USSRs influence over Vietnam any bad to the US? Did anything change after they withdrew from Vietnam and it finally became united in socialism? I know it was part of your foreign policy to fight communism wherever possible, but that doesn't justify anything in my book. Apart from this, the Soviet support to Vietnam was limited to weapons and military advisors in which they only mirrored the US early in the war. It wasn't them who took it on a whole new level.
I agree with you that in war innocents always die and that mostly because of the people who go to the military, or rather the people they are made by war- but that too is no excuse when the war was so unnecessary in the first place. Look at the world as it is. Now imagine the Vietnam War had never taken place. What would be diffrent?
There'd still be two million Vietnamnese and ~50.000 Americans alive. Apart from that, nothing would change.

I don't know about you, but to me that is an extreme mindfuck. I know there is the saying that one dead is a tragic and millions are only a statistic, but behind that number is so much sorrow and it's unbearable to me that it all was for the shitter.

अवतरण:

Second part- apart from you aleady admitting that it's not the same as losing land, I can see in the Wikipedia link you gave me that the Philippines too claim these islands. As far as I'm informed the Philippines are the longest standing ally of the US in Asia, so why is nothing done about the Phillies claim when you suggest that the US would help Vietnam with it if they had won the war?

The philippines claim the whole chain of islands, and US has helped to keep influence out of the ones in the east. That specific one is the only one Vietnam claims though, since it is near Vietnam itself.

अवतरण:

Third part- as I already said, how was the USSRs influence over Vietnam any bad to the US? Did anything change after they withdrew from Vietnam and it finally became united in socialism? I know it was part of your foreign policy to fight communism wherever possible, but that doesn't justify anything in my book. Apart from this, the Soviet support to Vietnam was limited to weapons and military advisors in which they only mirrored the US early in the war. It wasn't them who took it on a whole new level.
I agree with you that in war innocents always die and that mostly because of the people who go to the military, or rather the people they are made by war- but that too is no excuse when the war was so unnecessary in the first place. Look at the world as it is. Now imagine the Vietnam War had never taken place. What would be diffrent?
There'd still be two million Vietnamnese and ~50.000 Americans alive. Apart from that, nothing would change.

the point was the USA did not seek justification, just to stop communism at all costs because It spreads very quickly (because the usually uneducated and poverty-middle class citizens who make the majority everywhere would want it the most of any ideology). I assume they did not expect Vietnam to last so long, let alone end in a defeat but once it went downhill they stayed for pride, or just to keep the fire going that is nationalism. It's amazing how much was produced in the USA just based on that war, or any war really. As for the causalities, as the population of the world grows those will only get worse and worse, It's about the same comparatively to huge wars in the middle ages, I'm sure someday that many people will be lost in even a small war; especially in Asia with their huge populations and the advancement of technology. While I don't think it would have changed much which side won, It was through these small proxy wars with the USSR and spread of influence they eventually collapsed economically trying to keep up.

I feel like we're walking in circles here, so I will withdraw from this conversation now. And once again, I do not want to paint the US as the great Satan of our time, I would only like more people to know about all this, as I believe it would help to make the US the country you guys want it to be. But that won't be achieved in our good Afterwind forums anyways, because they of course are solely made for Gardys self-expression and nothing else.

USA USA USA

NEVER FORGET