Disgusting that war's an option in the 21st century

First of all, I was thinking of the Iotola, I don't know why I confused them with the Shah.

Second, WE overthrew Mossadeq. Look up Operation Ajax, you can read all about it.

The countries we should really worry about having nukes are Russia (who hates much of the world, I think) and Pakistan, who harbors terrorists.

Both of those countries already have nukes, so we're too late. It's a MAD, MAD world.

Mutually
Assured
Destruction...

It's all that keeps us safe from nuclear attacks right now.

i was being sarcastic but can reality be sarcastic? it's been an extremely weird administration



"There is no doubt in my mind when history was written, the final page will say: Victory was achieved by the United States of America for the good of the world."
--George W. Bush, addressing U.S. troops in Kuwait using future past perfect tense, Jan. 12, 2008

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by overgrowthegovt

PRIME MINISTER Mosaddeq was not that bad at all, and he was highly popular for the economic progress made nationalizing the oil. It's a fact that Britain and the United States did intrigue to bring him down, and that they then installed a pro-Western dictator who was very unpopular...this led to the 1979 radical fundamentalist revolution: we can think economic imperialism and the greed and Machiavellianism inherent in it for that one.

And personally, the idea of Iran having nukes doesn't scare me any more than the idea of the United States having nukes....of the two nations, I believe the United States has a much longer record for aggression, and of course, Christianity and the demands of Christian right lobbyists play a far-too-significant role in government. The only difference, of course, is that Iran is much more in the camp of the have-nots, and doesn't have nearly so large a monopoly on shaping the world status quo. And don't forget, they're very close to the dangerous tyranny called Israel, where a large population of Muslims live in apartheid. Considering they're located in very close proximity to a HEAVILY-armed nation with a long and ugly track record concerning brutalization of the Islamic peoples, maybe being armed isn't such an unreasonable request. You can draw many parallels between Iran and South Korea.

---

The truth hurts don't it. But it is the truth. America has created more problems in the last 50 years than it has solved and it has no problem persecuting anyone who believes otherwise. Isreal has done nothing in the last 50 years to promote peace. Its easier to control the people when you're at war. Just as us Americans have found out in the last 7 years.

pakistan's top nuclear scientist illegally shared it's nuclear weapons technology with north korea, iran, libya, and more unfriendly countries...after he got busted, el presidente musharaff personally gave him a full pardon, and allowed him to retire as a national hero...that didn't stop george bush from supporting musharaff and inviting pakistan military dictator over to the white house for dinner and romantic walks in the rose garden

the same week musharraf was forced to retire by the newly minted *democratic* government, george bush started the unmanned drone missile attacks inside pakistan (about 20 airstrikes this fall)

pakistan's national hero:
A. Q. Khan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For all its delusions of moral superiority, the United States government has never had any problem whatsoever with tyranny...that's just a justification they use for the slaughter of an economically uppity or problematic nation. Why, for example, is the U.S. with all their integrity and condemnation of non-democracy, best buds with Saudi Arabia? Or why in 1975 did they not just ignore, but actually BACKED, the Indonesian slaughter of East Timor's people?

No, American administrations target other countries for purely economic reasons. Their international monopoly on perspective teaches us that they are the good guys in whatever war they happen to be fighting, but really they are the bloodthirsty villains.

Oh, and let's not forget when the Congo elected socialistic Lumumba, only for the CIA to whack him and replace him with the tyrannical, pro-Western despot, Mubutu. Nice.

the usa is not always the bloodthirsty villans...they changed the course of WWII...they protected south korea...they protected south vietnam (sort of)....they implicitly protect the sovereignty of many countries...the concept of free nations harnessing an economic system to protect sovereignity and economic cooperation is still a great idea

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maladroit

the usa is not always the bloodthirsty villans...they changed the course of WWII...they protected south korea...they protected south vietnam (sort of)....they implicitly protect the sovereignty of many countries...the concept of free nations harnessing an economic system to protect sovereignity and economic cooperation is still a great idea

---

All thanks and gratitude for World War II, but no war is ever fought to be nice--wars are fought to defend a national interest. The Korean and Vietnamese Wars were all to do with an anti-communist agenda, which had to do with economics and status-quo threats, not at all to do with freedom. Communist states were usually oppressive, so were others who were the USA's close friends; as long as they were capitalistic and pro-Western, they were free to brutalize their people all they wanted. East Timor was a particular disgrace.

And yes, if a sovereign state was pro-Western and had an ideology and an economic policy that sat with their agenda, measures would be taken to protect them, however unjustified (i.e. Israel). If, however, a state is some sort of economic nuisance, they have to go, by force if necessary, i.e. in Vietnam, in Iraq (Hussein was about to start selling oil in Euros), in the 1953 Operation Ajax in Iran, in the failed Bay of Pigs invasion to restore the brutal puppet Batista...you get the idea. This shit really started in 1812 with the invasion of Canada, continued with the Philippines war, etc....then a half-century period of non-interventionism followed by a post-war explosion in the hellish global despotism that continues today.

Give peace a chance!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by overgrowthegovt

....war barely belongs in the level of advancement achieved in the 17th century, and certainly has no place in the 21st. It's so sad that we've progressed so much and yet individuals still slaughter each other to serve the economic or political agendas of their leaders.

---

i think you're confusing technological advancement with ethical advancement. take away all our technology and you'll find nothing more than a bunch of hairless apes running around fucking everything that moves and beating each other over the head with sticks. we value only the material, in the form of power and things, and ignore philosophical and intellectual pursuits unless they might lead us to material wealth. hell, we even find it necessary to enforce charity with legislation! we are a primitive species, still catering to our baser instincts and mostly devoid of the empathy it takes to really give a flying fuck about each other or the rest of the world.

i don't suppose you can really blame the common man for this evolutionary dead end we find ourselves in. we are nothing more than herd animals, banding together for safety and looking to our leaders for direction, and the power of the individual has never been of prime importance. we seem to be only a step or two above the mindless hive, buzzing about on our pointless tasks and building a structure that is only designed to house more drones. warfare may be the only thing that has saved us from extinction through the sheer tedium of our meaningless existence.

the korean war wasn't totally about communism...north korea illegally invaded south korea, and the united nations went in there and legally kicked their commie asses back over the border...it was the same situation in the first gulf war

the usa does a lot of good in the world...that doesn't erase all the bad things it does but uncle sam still deserves credit for the good stuff

us government foreign policy is a combination of manifest destiny and exceptionalism...the government believes it is their moral duty to control the world, and therefore it isn't immoral if they have to break laws and spill innocent blood on the path to achieving that lofty objective...even when it ends badly, exceptionalism kicks in again and they ignore defeat/failure (like in the war of 1812, the vietnam war, iraq, and afghanistan)