Jump to content
Clubplanet Nightlife Community
Sign in to follow this  
igloo

A Real War-One the left does not understand

Recommended Posts

A Real War

Fighting the worst fascists since Hitler.

Victor Davis Hanson

Saddam's Baathists recently blew apart Japanese diplomats on their way to a meeting in Tikrit to discuss sending millions of dollars in aid to Iraq's poor. Their ghosts join those of U.N. officials who likewise were slain for their humanitarian efforts. On the West Bank, three Americans were killed: Their felony was trying to interview young Palestinians for Fulbright fellowships for study in the United States. In turn, their would-be rescuers were stoned by furious crowds — not unlike the throngs that chant for Saddam on al Jazeera as they seek to desecrate or loot the bodies of murdered Spanish and Italian peacekeepers in Iraq while the tape rolls. All this, I suppose, is what bin Laden calls a clash of civilizations.

Jews at places of worship are systematically being blown up from Turkey to Morocco — along with British consular officials murdered in Istanbul, American diplomats murdered in Jordan, and Western tourists, Christians, and local residents murdered by Muslims in Bali, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. The new rule is that the more likely you are to help, give to, or worship in the Middle East, the more likely you are to be shot or blown up.

Most of the recent dead were noncombatants. All were either attempting to feed or aid Muslims, or simply wished to be left alone in peace. Their killers operate through the money and sanctuary of Middle East rogue regimes, the implicit support of thousands in the Muslim street, and the tacit neglect of even "moderate" states in the region — as long as the tally of killing is in the half-dozens or so, and not noticeable enough to threaten foreign investment or American aid, or to earn European disapproval.

But when the carnage is simply too much (too many Muslims killed as collateral damage or too many minutes on CNN), then suspects are miraculously arrested in Turkey or Saudi Arabia, or in transit to Iran or Syria — but more often post facto and never with any exegesis about why killers who once could not be found now suddenly are. No wonder Pakistani intelligence officers, Palestinian security operatives, Syrian diplomats, and Iraqis working for the Coalition are all at times exposed as having abetted the terrorists.

Yet it hasn't been a good six months for the Islamists' public relations. Billions the world over are slowly coming to a consensus that the Islamists' killing has cast as a shadow over the Middle East — a deeply disturbed place, better left to stew in its own juices. Only its exports of oil, religious extremism, and terror — not its manufacturing, science, medicine, banking, tourism, humanitarianism, literature, research, or philanthropy — seem to earn global attention. This is all a great tragedy, but one that, after September 11, gives us no time for tears.

Remember, even apart from all the killing in Israel and Iraq, all of the deadly terrorism since 9/11 — the synagogue in Tunisia, French naval personnel in Pakistan, Americans in Karachi, Yemeni attacks on a French ship, the Bali bombing, the Kenyan attack on Israelis, the several deadly attacks on Russians in both Moscow and Chechnya, the assault on housing compounds in Saudi Arabia, the suicide car bombings in Morocco, the Marriott bombing in Indonesia, the mass murdering in Bombay, and the Turkish killing — has been perpetrated exclusively by Muslim fascists and directed at Westerners, Christians, Hindus, and Jews.

We can diagnose the cause of this new fascism's growth — which has very little to do with the old canard that racism, colonialism, and the CIA are to blame. Instead, corrupt thugs in the Middle East have for years looted state treasuries. They have imposed Soviet-style state autocracy on tribal societies. And they have stripped basic human rights from a skyrocketing population — one that has received just enough Western medicine and technology to ensure an explosive birth rate, but not enough to encourage the commensurate social, economic, and cultural reform that would prevent such growth from making life in a Baghdad or Cairo desolate.

The demise of the Soviet Union left a terrible legacy — one rarely acknowledged by our own Middle East specialists. Its Stalinist machinery was left in place to kill and torture in awful places like Libya, Iraq, and Syria — but without the coercive force of the Soviets to ensure that such deadly antics did not expand across borders to draw the Russians into unwanted confrontations with the United States. In turn, without Communists to worry about, so-called moderates in places like Egypt and Jordan — excepting, of course, the petrol states of the Gulf — had very little in common, or much leverage, with the United States.

So with the demise of the Cold War, these pathologies came to full maturity. Globalization enticed the appetites of the impoverished — as cell phones, the Internet, and videos, along with fast food and cheap imported goods, gave the patina of prosperity. In fact, internationalization only reminded 400 million that they could have the junk of the West, but without its freedom, material security, education, health care, and recreation. It is one thing to call a friend on a cell phone, and quite another to realize that one's society cannot make the phone, cannot fix it, cannot improve upon it, and cannot even use it as desired — and is reminded of these failures by the very fact of the imported device's daily use.

If the onset of democracy in India, Malaysia, and Indonesia suggested that Islam was not incompatible with consensual government, that hopeful message apparently did not catch on in much of the Middle East. Far from attempting to end the endemic problems of sexual apartheid, illiteracy, religious intolerance, polygamy, and everything from "honor" killings to state-sanctioned legal barbarism, most autocracies in the region allowed Islamic extremists and apologists to champion just such "differences" — as if the existence of such Dark Age protocols and endemic anti-Semitism were proof that the Arab world suffered none of the weakness and decadence of a soft West. Enough fools in the West were always around to nod rather than to challenge such Hitleresque romance — and even to invite such fascists from the Middle East to speak in Europe and the United States to the "oohs" and "ahs" of a few stupid and spoiled self-hating elites.

Into this vacuum stepped the Islamists — fed by Saudi money, blackmailing dictators as they saw fit, championing the poor and dispossessed who found their messages of hatred against the United States and Israel a salve for their own wounded pride and misery. It did not hurt that their enmity of the West was about the only topic of free expression allowed in censored state media.

In their defense, the mullahs in the madrassas at least realized that if it were left to corrupt tyrants like Saddam Hussein, Khadafi, and Assad to offer alternatives to the West, the Arab world would soon be caught up in the same liberalization that had swept Asia and parts of South America and Africa — to the chagrin of the patriarch, imam, and warlord, whose currency is deference received rather than freedom granted.

This strange new fascism explains why millions in the Middle East who in theory do not like a Yasser Arafat, Saddam Hussein, or Osama bin laden still find consolation in the unrelenting opposition of these killers to the West. Kids whose parents were butchered by Saddam Hussein and are now fed and protected by American money and manpower nevertheless dance upon a burned out Humvee while shouting for Saddam to return. The same is true of those on the West Bank who have their capital looted by the Palestinian Authority, their relatives jailed or murdered, and their votes and speech curtailed: They will still praise Arafat to the skies — if he at least mutters some banality about hating the West. Because these are irrational responses — people acting from their appetites and impulses rather than their heads — we here in the United States, in our arrogant worship of our god Reason, with no confidence in or appreciation of our singular civilization, have gone about things pretty much all wrong.

Remember the worry about "getting the message out"? We all know the tiresome refrain: If the Arab world just knew about all the billions of dollars we give; all the Muslims we saved from the Balkans to Kuwait; all the censure we incurred to ease Orthodox Russians' treatment of Muslims in Chechnya, to stop Orthodox Serbian massacres of Albanians, or to discourage Chinese attacks on their own Muslim tribes; then surely millions of the ill-informed would reverse their opinion of us.

Sorry, the truth is just the opposite. The Arab street knows full well that we give billions to Jordan, Egypt, and the Palestinians — and are probably baffled that we don't cut it out. They also know we have just as frequently fought Christians on their behalf as Muslims; they know — if their voting feet tell them anything — that no place is more tolerant of their religion or more open to immigration than the United States. Yes, Islamists all know that opening a mosque in Detroit is one thing, and opening a church in Saudi Arabia is quite another. Hitler wasn't interested in Wilson's 14 Points or how nicely Germans lived in the U.S. — he cared only that we "cowboys" would not or could not stop what he was up to.

No, the message, much less getting it out, is not the problem. It is rather the nature of America — our freewheeling, outspoken, prosperous, liberty-loving citizens extend equality to women, homosexuals, minorities, and almost anyone who comes to our shores, and thereby create desire and with it shame for that desire. Indeed, it is worse still than that: Precisely because we worry publicly that we are insensitive, our enemies scoff privately that we in fact are too sensitive — what we think is liberality and magnanimity they see as license and decadence. If we don't have confidence in who we are, why should they?

To arrest this dangerous trend requires a radical reappraisal of our entire relationship with the Middle East. A Radio Free Europe, though valuable, nevertheless did not free Eastern Europe; nor did Voice of America. Containment and deterrence did. As long as governments in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and many Gulf states encourage hatred of the United States, we must quietly consider them de facto little different from a Libya, Syria, or Iran. For all the glitter and imported Western graphics, al Jazeera and its epigones are not that much different from Radio Berlin of the 1930s.

We had also better reexamine entirely the way we use force in the Middle East. We did not drive on to Baghdad in 1991 out of concern for the "coalition" — and got 350,000 sorties in the no-fly zones in return. We chose to worry about rebuilding before the current war ended, and let thousands of Baathist killers fade away, and in the aftermath allowed mass looting and continual killing before our most recent get-tough policy.

In fact, anytime we have showed restraint — using battleship salvos and cruise missiles when our Marines were killed, our embassies blown up, and our diplomats murdered; allowing the killers on the Highway of Death to reach Basra in 1991; letting Saddam use his helicopters to gun down innocents — we have earned disdain, not admiration. In contrast, the hijackers chose not to take the top off the World Trade Center, but to incinerate the entire building — proof that they wished not to send us a message but to kill us all, and to kill us to the applause of millions, if the recent popularity of Osama bin Laden and his henchmen in the Arab street is any indication.

We had better rethink the entire notion of dealing with the mythical moderates within regimes like Iran and Syria. I am sure that they exist, as they existed in Saddam's Iraq. But we see the moderates now in Iraq and — with all due respect — they are not exactly the stuff of Ethan Allan, Paul Revere, or the Swamp Fox. In fact, in the Middle East, tens of thousands of democrats are more passive in their desire for freedom than are a few hundred fascists in their zeal for tyranny. We should accept that dissidents would never have toppled Saddam on their own — and are not quite sure what to do even in his absence. Victory alone, not stalemate or a bellum interruptum, will free the Arab people and extend to them the same opportunities now found in Eastern Europe.

In short, there is no reason for any American diplomat to have much to do in Teheran or Damascus — the haven of choice for many of the killers who bomb in Turkey, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. "Getting the message out" to a Syria is like traveling to Warsaw in 1950 to convince the government there how nicely Poles are treated in Chicago; sending peace feelers to Teheran is analogous to doing the same to Cuba in about 1962; discussing policy with Saudi Arabia is like talking to Gen. Franco about the perils of Mussolini or Hitler; incorporating Jordan in our resistance is like counting on a France circa 1940.

Peace and harmony will come, but only when the Middle East, not us, changes-which, tragically, will be brought along more quickly by deterrence and defiance than appeasement and dialogue. President Bush was terribly criticized for his exasperated "bring them on," but that was one of his most honest, heartfelt — and needed — ex tempore remarks of this entire conflict.

We are not in a war with a crook in Haiti. This is no Grenada or Panama — or even a Kosovo or Bosnia. No, we are in a worldwide struggle the likes of which we have not seen since World War II. The quicker we understand that awful truth, and take measures to defeat rather than ignore or appease our enemies, the quicker we will win. In a war such as this, the alternative to victory is not a brokered peace, but abject Western suicide and all that it entails — a revelation of which we saw on September 11.

Despite some disappointments about the postbellum reconstruction and the hysteria of our critics, our military is doing a wonderful job. We should understand that they have the capability to win this struggle in Iraq and elsewhere — but only if we at home accept that we have been all along in a terrible war against terrible enemies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ahahhahahah this is funny as fuck.

Igloo...

do you know anything about the us, mainly CIA involvement in the overthrow of the Iranian Prime Minister in the 50s?

nope again?

well lemme explain THEN you might begin to understand some of the reasons why the US is facing such difficulty in the arab world, a world, which, unlike the us, has a good sense of their own history.

"Fariba Zarinebaf, a historian at Northwestern University, said the most profound long-term result of the 1953 coup may be that it led many Iranian intellectuals to conclude that although Western leaders practiced democracy at home, they were uninterested in promoting it abroad. "The growing disillusion of Iranian intellectuals with the West and with Western-style liberal democracy was a major development in the 1960s and '70s that contributed to the Islamic revolution," she said."

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,565035506,00.html

and I wonder what the situation in Iraq makes them think...

this is an extract from the book I'm reading at the moment, worth getting from the library Iggy

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/Iran_KH.html

"So this is how we get rid of that madman Mossadegh," announced John Foster Dulles to a group of top Washington policy makers one day in June 1953. The Secretary of State held in his hand a plan of operation to overthrow the prime minister of Iran prepared by Kermit (Kim) Roosevelt of the CIA. There was scarcely any discussion amongst the high powered men in the room, no probing questions, no legal or ethical issues raised.

"This was a grave decision to have made," Roosevelt later wrote. "It involved tremendous risk. Surely it deserved thorough examination, the closest consideration, somewhere at the very highest level. It had not received such thought at this meeting. In fact, I was morally certain that almost half of those present, if they had felt free or had the courage to speak, would have opposed the undertaking."

"Roosevelt, the grandson of Theodore and distant cousin of Franklin, was expressing surprise more than disappointment at glimpsing American foreign-policy-making undressed.

The original initiative to oust Mossadegh had come from the British, for the elderly Iranian leader had spearheaded the parliamentary movement to nationalize the British owned Anglo-lranian Oil Company (AIOC), the sole oil company operating in Iran. In March 1951, the bill for nationalization was passed, and at the end of April Mossadegh was elected prime minister by a large majority of Parliament. On 1 May, nationalization went into effect. The Iranian people, Mossadegh declared, "were opening a hidden treasure upon which lies a dragon".

"As the prime minister had anticipated, the British did not take the nationalization gracefully, though it was supported unanimously by the Iranian parliament and by the overwhelming majority of the Iranian people for reasons of both economic justice and national pride. The Mossadegh government tried to do all the right things to placate the British: It offered to set aside 25 percent of the net profits of the oil operation as compensation; it guaranteed the safety and the jobs of the British employees; it was willing to sell its oil without disturbance to the tidy control system so dear to the hearts of the international oil giants. But the British would have none of it. What they wanted was their oil company back. And they wanted Mossadegh's head. A servant does not affront his lord with impunity.

"A military show of force by the British navy was followed by a ruthless international economic blockade and boycott, and a freezing of Iranian assets which brought Iran's oil exports and foreign trade to a virtual standstill, plunged the already impoverished country into near destitution, and made payment of any compensation impossible. Nonetheless, and long after they had moved to oust Mossadegh, the British demanded compensation not only for the physical assets of the AIOC, but for the value of their enterprise in developing the oil fields; a request impossible to meet, and, in the eyes of Iranian nationalists, something which decades of huge British profits had paid for many times over.

"The British attempt at economic strangulation of Iran could not have gotten off the ground without the active co-operation and support of the Truman and Eisenhower administrations and American oil companies. At the same time, the Truman administration argued with the British that Mossadegh's collapse could open the door to the proverbial communist takeover. When the British were later expelled from Iran, however, they had no alternative but to turn to the United States for assistance in toppling Mossadegh. In November 1952, the Churchill government approached Roosevelt, the de facto head of the CIA's Middle East division, who told the British that he felt that there was "no chance to win approval from the outgoing administration of Truman and Acheson. The new Republicans, however, might be quite different."

"John Foster Dulles was certainly different. The apocalyptic anti-communist saw in Mossadegh the epitome of all that he detested in the Third World: unequivocal neutralism in the cold war, tolerance of Communists, and disrespect for free enterprise, as demonstrated by the oil nationalization. (Ironically, in recent years Great Britain had nationalized several of its own basic industries, and the government was the majority owner of the AIOC.) To the likes of John Foster Dulles, the eccentric Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh was indeed a madman. And when the Secretary of State considered further that Iran was a nation exceedingly rich in the liquid gold, and that it shared a border with the Soviet Union more than 1,000 miles long, he was not unduly plagued by indecision as to whether the Iranian prime minister should finally retire from public life.

"The young Shah of Iran had been relegated to little more than a passive role by- Mossadegh and the Iranian political process. His power had been whittled away to the point where he was "incapable of independent action", noted the State Department intelligence report. Mossadegh was pressing for control of the armed forces and more say over expenditures of the royal court, and the inexperienced and indecisive Shah-the "King of Kings"-was reluctant to openly oppose the prime minister because of the latter's popularity.

"Earlier in the Year, the New York Times had noted that "prevailing opinion among detached observers in Teheran" was that "Mossadegh is the most popular politician in the country". During a period of more than 40 years in public life, Mossadegh had "acquired a reputation as an honest patriot".

In July, the State Department Director of Iranian Affairs had testified that "Mossadegh has such tremendous control over the masses of people that it would be very difficult to throw him out. "

A few days later, "at least 100,000" people filled the streets of Teheran to express strong anti-US and anti-Shah sentiments. Though sponsored by the Tudeh, the turnout far exceeded any estimate of party adherents.

"But popularity and masses, of the unarmed kind, counted for little, for in the final analysis what Teheran witnessed was a military showdown carried out on both sides by soldiers obediently following the orders of a handful of officers, some of whom were staking their careers and ambitions on choosing the winning side; some had a more ideological commitment. The New York Times characterized the sudden reversal of Mossadegh's fortunes as "nothing more than a mutiny ... against pro-Mossadegh officers" by "the lower ranks" who revered the Shah, had brutally quelled the demonstrations the day before, but refused to do the same on 19 August, and instead turned against their officers.

"For the next 25 years, the Shah of Iran stood fast as the United States' closest ally in the Third World, to a degree that would have shocked the independent and neutral Mossadegh. The Shah literally placed his country at the disposal of US military and intelligence organizations to be used as a cold-war weapon, a window and a door to the Soviet Union-electronic listening and radar posts were set up near the Soviet border; American aircraft used Iran as a base to launch surveillance flights over the Soviet Union; espionage agents were infiltrated across the border; various American military installations dotted the Iranian landscape. Iran was viewed as a vital link in the chain being forged by the United States to "contain" the Soviet Union. In a telegram to the British Acting Foreign Secretary in September, Dulles said: "I think if we can in coordination move quickly and effectively in Iran we would close the most dangerous gap in the line from Europe to South Asia.'' In February 1955, Iran became a member of the Baghdad Pact, set up by the United States, in Dulles's words, "to create a solid band of resistance against the Soviet Union"."

"The standard "textbook" account of what took place in Iran in 1953 is that-whatever else one might say for or against the operation-the United States saved Iran from a Soviet/Communist takeover. Yet, during the two years of American and British subversion of a bordering country, the Soviet Union did nothing that would support such a premise.

When the British Navy staged the largest concentration of its forces since World War II in Iranian waters, the Soviets took no belligerent steps; nor when Great Britain instituted draconian international sanctions which left Iran in a deep economic crisis and extremely vulnerable, did the oil fields "fall hostage" to the Bolshevik Menace; this, despite "the whole of the Tudeh Party at its disposal" as agents, as Roosevelt put it. Not even in the face of the coup, with its imprint of foreign hands, did Moscow make a threatening move; neither did Mossadegh at any point ask for Russian help.

"One year later, however, the New York Times could editorialize that "Moscow ... counted its chickens before they were hatched and thought that Iran would be the next 'People's Democracy'. At the same time, the newspaper warned, with surprising arrogance, that "underdeveloped countries with rich resources now have an object lesson in the heavy cost that must be paid by one of their number which goes berserk with fanatical nationalism."

"A decade later, Allen Dulles solemnly stated that communism had "achieved control of the governmental apparatus" in Iran. And a decade after that, Fortune magazine, to cite one of many examples, kept the story alive by writing that Mossadegh "plotted with the Communist party of Iran, the Tudeh, to overthrow Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlevl and "hook up with the Soviet Union."

"And what of the Iranian people? What did being saved from communism do for them? For the preponderance of the population, life under the Shah was a grim tableau of grinding poverty, police terror, and torture. Thousands were executed in the name of fighting communism. Dissent was crushed from the outset of the new regime with American assistance. Kennett Love wrote that he believed that CIA officer George Carroll, whom he knew personally, worked with General Farhat Dadsetan, the new military governor of Teheran, "on preparations for the very efficient smothering of a potentially dangerous dissident movement emanating from the bazaar area and the Tudeh in the first two weeks of November, 1953".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice try blowhard...your long post does nothing to hide the fact, that as usual, you avoid the point of the article....

You are a blowhard, a fraud, and anti-American....plain and simple....

A pathtic loser hell-bent on focusing on the imperfections of something that will always be imperfect....and not because you have good intentions, or in the name of progressive thought and evolution, or because you care on improving the world's only superpower...

It is simply because you are a pathetic loser who feels better by taking an anti-American stance to hide your own shortcomings as an individual and have someone to blame, for something, for anything......your kind is a bore, destined to become nothing but someone of dissent, not because there is a higher purpose or constructive intentions, but simply because dissent makes you feel better and elite, and provides a convenient scapegoat

You are a fraud......but you keep on avoiding the articles I posted ( by design) by simply coming back with American failures....it only further exposes your true thoughts, the imbalance of your thinking, and the hypocrisy of your views......

History as shown that Chomsky-lite clowns like you simply end up irrelevant, destined to become another ANSWER clone, and blaming your empty existence on big oil and the big, bad, Americans....

sucker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by igloo

Nice try blowhard...your long post does nothing to hide the fact, that as usual, you avoid the point of the article....

You are a blowhard, a fraud, and anti-American....plain and simple....

A pathtic loser hell-bent on focusing on the imperfections of something that will always be imperfect....and not because you have good intentions, or in the name of progressive thought and evolution, or because you care on improving the world's only superpower...

It is simply because you are a pathetic loser who feels better by taking an anti-American stance to hide your own shortcomings as an individual and have someone to blame, for something, for anything......your kind is a bore, destined to become nothing but someone of dissent, not because there is a higher purpose or constructive intentions, but simply because dissent makes you feel better and elite, and provides a convenient scapegoat

You are a fraud......but you keep on avoiding the articles I posted ( by design) by simply coming back with American failures....it only further exposes your true thoughts, the imbalance of your thinking, and the hypocrisy of your views......

History as shown that Chomsky-lite clowns like you simply end up irrelevant, destined to become another ANSWER clone, and blaming your empty existence on big oil and the big, bad, Americans....

sucker

Oh boy...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes Igloo, dissent makes me feel part of a small elite.

that TINY TINY group made up of Hundreds of Thousands of people in London this February sure looked like the elite of Britain. Shit. Wait a minuite. it was ORDINARY people worried about the future of the world...

I thought I'd point out to you some of the real US involvement in the past.

this article reads like some piece of anti-communist bullshit propganda your country produced ever since 1918 scared the shit out of it.

forgetting that russia in 1945 had lost 40 million lives since 1914 and was in no position to even consider challenging the even then world's de facto super power in an unwinnable war - look at the fact that Russia did not intervene in USA sponsored coup when Iran BORDERS Russia. evil commies interfering over seas.

I've not got time or the facts and knowledge to hand to go through the 20th century debunking the modern myths in mainstream american political thought with regards to the cold war, it's origins, content and 'victory'.

suffice to say, the war on terror is fought for similar reasons to anti-communism, and is as equally spurious, but potentially a great deal more damaging than the cold war actually was.

well. cold is a bit of a misnomer. there were quite a few hundreds of thousands of people killed by the CIA and people working for their schemes, to save them from anti-communism.

anyway, I've gone off topic, back to the article:

"Sorry, the truth is just the opposite. The Arab street knows full well that we give billions to Jordan, Egypt, and the Palestinians"

we = U.S.A in that

how much does the US give to the Palestinians let's find out!

"The United States currently supplies approximately $70 million annually for development projects in the West Bank and Gaza through the U.S. Agency for International Development and an additional $120 million to United Nations relief organizations. The P.A. receives approximately $1 billion a year in direct aid from the European Union and from Arab donors."

http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.07.04/news4.html

also, do you think the Arab street feels glad that the Jordanian and Egyptian and indeed the palestinian governments are reliant on American donations?

does it make them feel proud to need to rely on that jolly old uncle sam, that lovely old uncle who offers them candy one minute then violently abuses them at night, denying it in the morning.

you just don't get it do you igloo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by marksimons

you just don't get it do you igloo.

No ass hole, you don't get it and never will....

Amazing and laughable that your anti-Americanism, even when clearly pointed out to you, is something you do not get....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but I love america.

I want to see more of it.

I want to meet more americans, I want to learn more about the place.

but you've gotta take the rough with the smooth.

why do you insist I am anti-american.

I will talk with any american I meet. I'll happily buy American products, and happily go to the country, hell I've had some real good times in america.

by the same token I will not be in denial about what has happend in the past, in the present and looks like happening as a result of american actions.

how the fuck does this make me anti-american Igloo?

oh that's right.

it doesn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by marksimons

I've been trying to work this out as well...

I think you'll notice it in right leaning americans who believe in the sanctity and holyness of their great nation, unblemished and unblamable.

No jerkoff......."right leaning" Americans and plenty of liberal Americans are just tired of you blowhards who are simply.....anti-American......

And retard, no one claims that America is unblemished or unblamable,...not even close jerkoff...

That is just the tired response from assholes like you when faced with people who are sick of the anti-Americansim that continually spews from your asshole......

As soon as someone exercises their freedom of speech and choice to oppose your bullshit, your auto-response kicks in that you are a "blind" patriot unwilling to admit the country has faults .....YAWN...

And retard, stop asking why you are considered anti-Americanism..I have certainly posted comprehensive papers on what it is, how it is defied, and why you fit the bill...in addition, I have exposed your ass very easily....

So stop making a bigger dick out of yourself by continually asking, especially when it is slapping you in your anti-American face....I would have more respect for you if you just admit that this is your platform than continuing with this charade of not knowing what anti-Americanism is....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

heheh, well I am still a little confused as to what it is, and how i fit into it.

but a lot of what I've been posting - that I've not written isn't bullshit.

you're the one who seems so far up bush's ass that I'm lost as to why you support the man.

I'm trying to show you some of the sides of things which you may not have seen before.

admittedly, some of my comments may be made in the heat of the moment - you do seem to be getting very pissed off, which is confusing.

I don't get why you're so quick to defend policies and politicians who actually don't give two shits about you or the world - that's what confuses me.

I want to you to see that it is vitally important for so much of the world to get knowledge and real debate started so that the US does not elect bush and starts to have a real look at the state of the political system.

I also want the same thing to happen in the UK, but our election is probably gonna be the year ofter yours, and blair is fucked anyway, it's just a matter of time, whereas there are worrying signs as to what bush will do to gain power next time.

I feel that bush, or rather the bush/cheny administration are not what's right for america and the sooner this is realised the better.

the unavoidable fact is that america influences and affects more people in more places than you care to realise. american foriegn policy, trade policy and national security all have ramifications around the world. this is undeniable.

in terms of realising long term united nations goals with regards to hunger, poverty, desease and the environment we need the support and active participation of the strongest nation on earth.

gotta rush, more later...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by igloo

No jerkoff......."right leaning" Americans and plenty of liberal Americans are just tired of you blowhards who are simply.....anti-American......

And retard, no one claims that America is unblemished or unblamable,...not even close jerkoff...

That is just the tired response from assholes like you when faced with people who are sick of the anti-Americansim that continually spews from your asshole......

As soon as someone exercises their freedom of speech and choice to oppose your bullshit, your auto-response kicks in that you are a "blind" patriot unwilling to admit the country has faults .....YAWN...

And retard, stop asking why you are considered anti-Americanism..I have certainly posted comprehensive papers on what it is, how it is defied, and why you fit the bill...in addition, I have exposed your ass very easily....

So stop making a bigger dick out of yourself by continually asking, especially when it is slapping you in your anti-American face....I would have more respect for you if you just admit that this is your platform than continuing with this charade of not knowing what anti-Americanism is....

two simple questions igloo ... and like the troll you are you probably won't answer them because im leading you somewhere and you will feel stupid if you do answer them ...

when did your ancestors immigrate to this country?

what exactly about dissent is so "anti-american"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by marksimons

heheh, well I am still a little confused as to what it is, and how i fit into it.

but a lot of what I've been posting - that I've not written isn't bullshit.

you're the one who seems so far up bush's ass that I'm lost as to why you support the man.

I'm trying to show you some of the sides of things which you may not have seen before.

admittedly, some of my comments may be made in the heat of the moment - you do seem to be getting very pissed off, which is confusing.

I don't get why you're so quick to defend policies and politicians who actually don't give two shits about you or the world - that's what confuses me.

I want to you to see that it is vitally important for so much of the world to get knowledge and real debate started so that the US does not elect bush and starts to have a real look at the state of the political system.

I also want the same thing to happen in the UK, but our election is probably gonna be the year ofter yours, and blair is fucked anyway, it's just a matter of time, whereas there are worrying signs as to what bush will do to gain power next time.

I feel that bush, or rather the bush/cheny administration are not what's right for america and the sooner this is realised the better.

the unavoidable fact is that america influences and affects more people in more places than you care to realise. american foriegn policy, trade policy and national security all have ramifications around the world. this is undeniable.

in terms of realising long term united nations goals with regards to hunger, poverty, desease and the environment we need the support and active participation of the strongest nation on earth.

gotta rush, more later...

:clap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by marksimons

.

I'm trying to show you some of the sides of things which you may not have seen before.

I don't get why you're so quick to defend policies and politicians who actually don't give two shits about you or the world - that's what confuses me.

I feel that bush, or rather the bush/cheny administration are not what's right for america and the sooner this is realised the better.

gotta rush, more later...

Shove your "side of things" up your anti-American, condescending ass...

Did you ever think that people who oppose your views have looked at "both" sides of things and choose to have a differing view than you?...

Can you attitude handle such a thought fool?

It is your right to have an opinion that Bush/Cheney is not right for America and the world...that is your call.....but plenty of people do, and plenty of people who look at "both " sides of the equation think they are EXACTLY what todays' current world needs......so fuck you....

And again, it is amazing to me how blinded you are from your bullshit......."I don't get why you're so quick to defend policies and politicians who actually don't give two shits about you or the world - that's what confuses me"......

Just listen to yourself and your vomit....the only thing that is confusing is why you think you are full of wisdom when it is you who is transfixed on "one side' of things....

And dickhead, nice try with your "I don't think Bush is right for America and the world"........Bush/Cheney is not your main target, America is....evident in every fucking one of your posts that slams America irrespective of time period...

But I also realize that Bush/Cheney enhance your anti-American feelings, and I am going to enjoy another 4 year term...

Because history will show that Bush was the right leader at the right time to affect change for the better, and douche bags like you who were crying along the way will simply replace the aging ANSWER losers in the hope of staying artificially relevant....

Fuck you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by igloo

You don;t even know what you are clapping about fool....

And as usual for you, nothing to contribute

you can't even make a coherant arguement without resorting to the lowest common denomenator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

whoa now igloo i thought the likes of your kind was on their way out then 9/11 happened now not saying it was right after 9/11 the american society turned itself into the victims ignoring the rest of the world like a bully who had gotten beat for the first time and wanted revenge not only that having the audacity to ask why us? get fuckin serious all that anti american talk is bullshit you use to cover up the fact that their may be another point of view out there which may be right but it doesnt go with your shoot them up bang bang ethics now america's way of life has its up but it has its many down the world is not jealous of some "american way of life" no most of them are just tired of being pushed around by american imperialism which has no other intent than to convert the world the cult of mc donalds and capitalism. now im not anti american dont get me wrong but for a country which talks so much about accepting others dismissing others religious beliefs because they are not the same as ours is pretty selfish but then again these are just my thoughts now shut your flag wavin ass up unless your gonna say something with an ounce of intelligence;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by willyk

whoa now igloo i thought the likes of your kind was on their way out then 9/11 happened now not saying it was right after 9/11 the american society turned itself into the victims ignoring the rest of the world like a bully who had gotten beat for the first time and wanted revenge not only that having the audacity to ask why us? get fuckin serious all that anti american talk is bullshit you use to cover up the fact that their may be another point of view out there which may be right but it doesnt go with your shoot them up bang bang ethics now america's way of life has its up but it has its many down the world is not jealous of some "american way of life" no most of them are just tired of being pushed around by american imperialism which has no other intent than to convert the world the cult of mc donalds and capitalism. now im not anti american dont get me wrong but for a country which talks so much about accepting others dismissing others religious beliefs because they are not the same as ours is pretty selfish but then again these are just my thoughts now shut your flag wavin ass up unless your gonna say something with an ounce of intelligence;)

And the Imbecile Brigade continues to swell.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by willyk

hey you know hat im not even going to say anything else your probably too comprehend what im trying to say its okay thought im an imbecile if u say so :laugh:

uh...OK, I guess... I would respond if someone could get some decryption software specializing in moronic language and let me know what willyk is trying to say

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×