If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#701
|
|||
|
|||
Doug Carter wrote
THE ASSERTION: The US installed numerous dictatorships in South America for one reason: the fear that somehow communism would take hold of what US considered its "backyard". THE EVIDENCE: Have you ever heard of a movie called "Missing"? This is a 1982 nonfiction movie, with Jack Lemmon and Sissy Spacek. Unless you fear your beliefs can be shaken by a simple movie, I dare you to watch it. Look, I feel like I'm talking to brainwashed zombies here. You'll obviously resort to the lowest means just to avoid a straight answer. You don't want to listen to other points of view? You don't want to know what it is like outside of the US? Fine. Have it your way. You're gona have it anyway, because you can come to my home to kill me and be a hero at the same time. Good for you. Bye. |
#702
|
|||
|
|||
Doug Carter wrote
I was sort of hoping for specific cases with verifiable assertions of fact instead of vague demogarary. As I said to Rob, go search google. There you can find verifiable assertions. I don't know where you can read your government's declasified documents to actually verify what you find in the net, but I'm sure you know. I understand; you have no actual data, just emotional outrage driven by the last vague collection of "facts" you picked up somewhere. Neither did I say I had actual data, nor did you demand it. You asked for "specific cases with verifiable assertions of fact". I gave you one: http://www.crimesofwar.org/special/condor.html There you can find verifiable data. Do your verification. Search for the declasified documents mentioned in this site and many others. You asked for verifiable data, I gave it to you. Now you say I have no actual data? The truth is you don't want to listen. |
#703
|
|||
|
|||
Doug Carter wrote in message ...
Before you tell me that a movie can lie, please remember that you are talking with a witness of the kind of horror that this movie shows. We find many witnesses in South America: http://www.rense.com/general32/abduct.htm http://www.labyrinthina.com/contact.htm http://www.barbelith.com/topic/7409 http://www.para-normal.com/compendium/550.htm http://www.ufoorganisation.com/Repor...y2003No001.htm Doug, my sister has been tortured by the military while she was "missing". She gave birth in jail. She and her son are exceptional in that she survived and he wasn't taken away. Nobody in the world denies this kind of things happened, not even the militaries. The democratic government that followed recognized the state did wrong and payed her and countless outher survivers money in damages. Last week our president publicly asked for forgiveness in the name of the State. You compare my country's well documented and universally accepted history and my own family's history to a bunch of ufo sighters, which, by the way, are by no means exclusive of South America? Doug: you are a despicable asshole. |
#704
|
|||
|
|||
Alex wrote:
You compare my country's well documented and universally accepted history and my own family's history to a bunch of ufo sighters... The point of that post was to satire the rather persistant lack of documentation. With what you have presented so far you may be correct and accurate or a Turing machine Doug: you are a despicable asshole. With a sense of humor. |
#706
|
|||
|
|||
"pacplyer" wrote in message om... (Alex) wrote in message . com... (pacplyer) wrote in message . com... Alex, is one sick puppy. Just because he finds someone's ramblings searching google doesn't make it true. Ok, so you say Kissinger and Nixon had nothing to do with southamerican dictatorships and their crimes. Ok, I can accept your disagreement. I have no proof myself, I am only saying what I found, and I do believe it because it is consistently mentioned throughout a lot of very different sources. But it could be false, of course, like anything else. I never said either way. But giving support to people in charge to influence their behaviors is something that happens when you are Secretary of State. My government frequently has to deal with unsavory characters who wield power in a particular region. I'm just pointing out that it seems like to me you are oversimplifying everything. When you walk into a pig sty and have to deal with a pig, you're going to get dirty. Your other choice is Isolationism. Stay home and tell yourself that the murders are not happening and that you won't find any mass graves if you go down there. His poison pen diatribes are really deluded. All he can say is: the U.S. is bad bad bad bad bad. The U.S., you moron, is nearly 300 million people. Ninety-Nine percent who have nothing to do with the frequently up to 100 wars/conflicts being waged around the world. These struggles would occur with or without our involvement. All nations have problems with operatives in the field. Don't blame us because human life is worth nothing below Texas. Firtly, I never blamed all of US population. I blamed the succesive US governments for their foreign policy. I'm blaming politicians, not farmers or salesmen! The sub-human military we got in southamerica are our own. That we did to ourselves. I never said otherwise. I only said the US backed it up and helped. I don't think you'll reach many politicians on this website. Where do you live Alex? in Latin America? Are you a German immigrant? Kissinger was trying to stabilize the situation. Sometimes it works out, other times it doesn't. The fallacy of Alex's assertion that domestic U.S. standards must exist outside the U.S. is very very naive. Now you're saying Kissinger *did* have something to do with southamerican dictatorships and their crimes. Okey... So, Pacplayer, you are making exactly my point! US foreign policy is not guided by domestic standards, but hey, it was Rob who said it was, not me! Rob is right. So is Doug. The U.S. objective is always to stabilize the region so commerce can flourish and standards of living can come up. The disagreement arises for me when we ask: whose standards of living come up? Corporate CEO's or the people? I am trying to tell him and Doug that they are deluded if they believe the US acts acording to law, human rights, etc, in their foreign policy. Contrary to what law? International law? Local law? Religious law? Martial law? Again, this old saw about the U.S. breaking laws is a play on words. War is legal. If you can't rid your own country of despots, and your countryman's cries reach the U.S. media.look out! Our do-gooders will get everybody upset and before you know it, the U.S. intel or war machine may start on the way down to clean up these perceived injustices. And odds a they're going to screw it up big time. And guys like you are going to bitch and moan about how unfair we are. Well I'm tired of your sad sad song. You want to convince people here of U.S. oppression, post pictures of people being tossed out of C-130's by U.S troops and then I'll believe it. Until you do, I say it's bull****, and that you are one impressionable young man for only believing one side of the argument. I try to keep an open mind. I believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I believe U.S. corporate CEO's are morally bankrupt, and cause most of these hard feelings by abusing int'l labor and trashing the third world for profit. These assholes are the guys that prop up dictators with cushy oil/drug/lumber kickbacks and then economically enslave the local workers. After a number of years of this the workers get fed up. They join guerrilla movements and start shooting up villages. Police are called out. The national Military gets involved. The CEO's convince the president/dictator/despot to call Washington and ask for assistance. Citizens like me are going to try to vote out Bush and other incombants this November to pay for this misbehavior. But can the U.S. gov just decree that the whole world must obey human rights? No! All we can do is take out a few of the biggest offenders. And during that process there's going to be some heartbreak. People are going to get killed. Human rights are going to be violated. Half of the strongmen we support are going to stab us in the back later. That is the nature of intervention. "All we can do is take out a few of the biggest offenders." You mean we take out those where we can steal their oil or other assets and leave the worst offenders who would crush us if we tried it in their country. One rule for Iraq, another for China. Iraq with no WMD, China full of them and both with human rights abuses. The fact is China would whip the ass of the US if it tried to do anything. You guys are so one eyed |
#707
|
|||
|
|||
"Martin Hotze" wrote in message ... "Peter Gottlieb" wrote: The "evidence" is far too vague and weak to be consistent with the reported quantity and quality of aledged encounters. I'm not saying this is all false, just that there is not nearly enough to convince me otherwise. what do you need more than the witness? ok, you can doubt his credibility. A witness may be completely credible, yet still wrong. Here's one thing that would completely convince me - bring me a piece of the visiting craft and let me have it analyzed by a credible lab of my choice, under peer (and other) supervision. No BS rocks or other junk, I'm talking a piece of their frame or other technology. |
#708
|
|||
|
|||
"S Green" wrote
"All we can do is take out a few of the biggest offenders." You mean we take out those where we can steal their oil or other assets and leave the worst offenders who would crush us if we tried it in their country. What dumb comments! We import 80% of all our oil from Saudi Arabia. Iraq is not producing squat. It is not even a drop in the bucket. The war is costing us hundreds of Billions. There are no "assets" worth that much that we could have stolen. We invaded Iraq because they were menacing and disruptive to the region. Now if their tyranny had spread out of Iraq into the real oilfields then our economy would be jeopardized. One rule for Iraq, another for China. Iraq with no WMD, China full of them and both with human rights abuses. Apples and Oranges. I've been going to mainland China since 87'. It's clear to me you've never been there. They are one of the U.S.'s biggest trading partners. We get along fine with them as long as they stay away from Taiwan. Since you obviously don't read the papers you wouldn't know that we parked two aircraft carriers in the Formosa Straight to prevent them from abusing the people of Formosa. China is massively over populated. Years ago the Chinese gov issued a law that all female babies must be killed. If they hadn't done that massive famine would surely have followed. As it is now they have over 2 billion people in poverty over there right now. Human rights concepts have been seeded by the British in Hong Kong and western style business is succeeding in Scezen and Shanghai and other places. It's slow but they are making progress, where old Sadamizer in Baghdad was regressing. So we clobbered him again because he was asking for it. Suddenly Libya got real friendly. Can you figure out why Momar Kadafi has renounced terrorism Mr.Green? The fact is China would whip the ass of the US if it tried to do anything. You guys are so one eyed Naw, we use both eyes. You see, even you'd be pushing up daisies where you live after a full China/US thermonuclear exchange. Ever hear of Nuclear Winter? I have a suggestion for you Green: Try going to college instead of just parroting headlines. You'll learn a lot more. pacplyer - out in message ... "pacplyer" wrote in message om... (Alex) wrote in message . com... (pacplyer) wrote in message . com... Alex, is one sick puppy. Just because he finds someone's ramblings searching google doesn't make it true. Ok, so you say Kissinger and Nixon had nothing to do with southamerican dictatorships and their crimes. Ok, I can accept your disagreement. I have no proof myself, I am only saying what I found, and I do believe it because it is consistently mentioned throughout a lot of very different sources. But it could be false, of course, like anything else. I never said either way. But giving support to people in charge to influence their behaviors is something that happens when you are Secretary of State. My government frequently has to deal with unsavory characters who wield power in a particular region. I'm just pointing out that it seems like to me you are oversimplifying everything. When you walk into a pig sty and have to deal with a pig, you're going to get dirty. Your other choice is Isolationism. Stay home and tell yourself that the murders are not happening and that you won't find any mass graves if you go down there. His poison pen diatribes are really deluded. All he can say is: the U.S. is bad bad bad bad bad. The U.S., you moron, is nearly 300 million people. Ninety-Nine percent who have nothing to do with the frequently up to 100 wars/conflicts being waged around the world. These struggles would occur with or without our involvement. All nations have problems with operatives in the field. Don't blame us because human life is worth nothing below Texas. Firtly, I never blamed all of US population. I blamed the succesive US governments for their foreign policy. I'm blaming politicians, not farmers or salesmen! The sub-human military we got in southamerica are our own. That we did to ourselves. I never said otherwise. I only said the US backed it up and helped. I don't think you'll reach many politicians on this website. Where do you live Alex? in Latin America? Are you a German immigrant? Kissinger was trying to stabilize the situation. Sometimes it works out, other times it doesn't. The fallacy of Alex's assertion that domestic U.S. standards must exist outside the U.S. is very very naive. Now you're saying Kissinger *did* have something to do with southamerican dictatorships and their crimes. Okey... So, Pacplayer, you are making exactly my point! US foreign policy is not guided by domestic standards, but hey, it was Rob who said it was, not me! Rob is right. So is Doug. The U.S. objective is always to stabilize the region so commerce can flourish and standards of living can come up. The disagreement arises for me when we ask: whose standards of living come up? Corporate CEO's or the people? I am trying to tell him and Doug that they are deluded if they believe the US acts acording to law, human rights, etc, in their foreign policy. Contrary to what law? International law? Local law? Religious law? Martial law? Again, this old saw about the U.S. breaking laws is a play on words. War is legal. If you can't rid your own country of despots, and your countryman's cries reach the U.S. media.look out! Our do-gooders will get everybody upset and before you know it, the U.S. intel or war machine may start on the way down to clean up these perceived injustices. And odds a they're going to screw it up big time. And guys like you are going to bitch and moan about how unfair we are. Well I'm tired of your sad sad song. You want to convince people here of U.S. oppression, post pictures of people being tossed out of C-130's by U.S troops and then I'll believe it. Until you do, I say it's bull****, and that you are one impressionable young man for only believing one side of the argument. I try to keep an open mind. I believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I believe U.S. corporate CEO's are morally bankrupt, and cause most of these hard feelings by abusing int'l labor and trashing the third world for profit. These assholes are the guys that prop up dictators with cushy oil/drug/lumber kickbacks and then economically enslave the local workers. After a number of years of this the workers get fed up. They join guerrilla movements and start shooting up villages. Police are called out. The national Military gets involved. The CEO's convince the president/dictator/despot to call Washington and ask for assistance. Citizens like me are going to try to vote out Bush and other incombants this November to pay for this misbehavior. But can the U.S. gov just decree that the whole world must obey human rights? No! All we can do is take out a few of the biggest offenders. And during that process there's going to be some heartbreak. People are going to get killed. Human rights are going to be violated. Half of the strongmen we support are going to stab us in the back later. That is the nature of intervention. |
#709
|
|||
|
|||
Pacplayer, thanks for a reasonable answer. Comments inserted.
... When you walk into a pig sty and have to deal with a pig, you're going to get dirty. Your other choice is Isolationism. Stay home and tell yourself that the murders are not happening and that you won't find any mass graves if you go down there. Ok, but in this case the mass graves came after US intervention, not before. I don't think you'll reach many politicians on this website. Where do you live Alex? in Latin America? Are you a German immigrant? Guilty on both accounts. Rob is right. So is Doug. The U.S. objective is always to stabilize the region so commerce can flourish and standards of living can come up. The disagreement arises for me when we ask: whose standards of living come up? Corporate CEO's or the people? This sounds nice, but I am too cynical to believe it. I think a country's objective is mostly what benefits the people in power, be it politicians, military or CEOs. I am trying to tell him and Doug that they are deluded if they believe the US acts acording to law, human rights, etc, in their foreign policy. Contrary to what law? International law? Local law? Religious law? Martial law? Again, this old saw about the U.S. breaking laws is a play on words. War is legal. If you can't rid your own country of despots, and your countryman's cries reach the U.S. media?look out! There were no countryman's cries reaching the US in South America. Our do-gooders will get everybody upset and before you know it, the U.S. intel or war machine may start on the way down to clean up these perceived injustices. And odds a they're going to screw it up big time. And guys like you are going to bitch and moan about how unfair we are. Well I'm tired of your sad sad song. You want to convince people here of U.S. oppression, post pictures of people being tossed out of C-130's by U.S troops and then I'll believe it. Until you do, I say it's bull****, and that you are one impressionable young man for only believing one side of the argument. There are no such pictures because it wasn't US soldiers but local ones. I never said the US did that. I said the US knew about it and supported it. Again, I have no proof other than Kissinger's own declasified words, which you should be able to find documented. That should be as good as pictures, in my opinion. I try to keep an open mind. I believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I believe U.S. corporate CEO's are morally bankrupt, and cause most of these hard feelings by abusing int'l labor and trashing the third world for profit. These assholes are the guys that prop up dictators with cushy oil/drug/lumber kickbacks and then economically enslave the local workers. After a number of years of this the workers get fed up. They join guerrilla movements and start shooting up villages. Police are called out. The national Military gets involved. The CEO's convince the president/dictator/despot to call Washington and ask for assistance. Which, when they come, create more hatred and people start blaming the US. Yes, it's an irrational spiral of violence, and there is not one guilty side. As I said, we have our share of responsibility for it was our own military who held the turture instruments. It was Saddam who decided to gas his own people. It was Bin Laden who decided (maybe not directly) to hit the towers. And it was the US foreign policy that helped it happen, directly and knowingly as in South America or indirectly and unknowingly (but should have known) in other cases. I'm not saying "the US is bad, bad, bad"... I'm only trying to shed some light into the heads of people in this newsgroup who candidly believe in the Hollywod message that the US is marvelous and who can't imagine why so many people throughout the world don't agree. I am trying to balance the somewhat monotone and unrealistic chant of "the US is right, everybody else is wrong". Citizens like me are going to try to vote out Bush and other incombants this November to pay for this misbehavior. Thank you for that! But can the U.S. gov just decree that the whole world must obey human rights? No! All we can do is take out a few of the biggest offenders. And during that process there's going to be some heartbreak. People are going to get killed. Human rights are going to be violated. Half of the strongmen we support are going to stab us in the back later. That is the nature of intervention. Yes, but again, that is not what happened here, and I can't avoid the suspicion that it neither is the case in other US interventions. It's legal to kill your wife in Argentina if she embarrasses you. Do we like that law? (divorced guys don't answer this one.) No, of course not. But we can not impose all our domestic American standards on the rest of the world just because we want to. Is it legal for the president of Columbia to declare war on his own citizens and ask for military help from the U.S. to stop drug farms? Yes it is. Do I like it? No. Do I want to pay for it? No. Can I do anything about it? I'm voting against all incumbents this November. Hey, these are almost exactly my words a few weeks earlier in this thread! If I understand you Alex, you're basically blaming the U.S. government for picking sides, right? Well, they're often forced to pick between two evils. Support Sadamn Hussein or a radical Iattola or Sheik? They all murder, bomb, rape and wage war. We hope that the thug we support will eventually mend his ways and give in to our pressure to treat his subjects better. But guess what Alex? We can't dictate this. Not unless we show up with warships. Which, we actually hate to do. And then everybody loses. Agreed. |
#710
|
|||
|
|||
"S Green" wrote
"All we can do is take out a few of the biggest offenders." You mean we take out those where we can steal their oil or other assets and leave the worst offenders who would crush us if we tried it in their country. One rule for Iraq, another for China. Iraq with no WMD, China full of them and both with human rights abuses. The fact is China would whip the ass of the US if it tried to do anything. You guys are so one eyed Well, I don't blame the US for not going into China. But I still haven't seen a credible justification for invading Iraq. Hussein was not a threat to the US (inspectors were not finding WMD and the Scuds couldn't reach the US), when he gased his people the US did not send troops, even oil doesn't seem to be the cause (apparently the cost of war is greater than oil revenues even if the production was up to 100%, which it is not)... The rush to invade in spite of UN wanting to wait makes me wonder. What would have happened to the reconstrucion contracts if the UN invaded Irak instead of the US? I'm asking out of ignorance, I'm not trying to prove this was the real cause. It's just a question, ok? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|