About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Forward one pageLast Page


Post 40

Saturday, June 4, 2005 - 3:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Quoth Tom Knapp:

"replace him with the tyrant..." Not a fact.
"false, intentionally manufactured claims..." Not a fact X2.
"at the expense of the legitimate functions of government" Not a fact.
"building a foreign empire" Not a fact.
"corporatist clique" What ever this is, not a fact.
"decreases rather than increases the security" Not a fact.
"I explained why it was wrong" Not a fact.




 


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 41

Monday, June 6, 2005 - 9:44amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
[Mr. Gregory:] "See, he [Dr. Rummel] is advocating World War II-style censorship. No friend of liberty would do that."

Are you saying that the American government who fought and defeated the evil Hitler was not friend of liberty? What were the "friends of liberty" doing then? Were the authentic good guys asking the murderous Hitler please to stop killing?


[Mr. Gregory:] The U.S. murdered hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese and Cambodians, creating the perfect conditions for Pol Pot to come to power.

Of course the U.S. Gov policies could be very wrong. But we must not lose the historical perspective: the central fact here is that neither Pol Pot, nor the Khmer Rouge, nor the Vietnamese Communists, were born from the American ideals, but from Communist ideals.


[Mr. Gregory:] And then, after Pol Pot proved himself to be quite possibly the worst human being ever to slither on the face of this earth, at least in terms of per capita murder rates, Reagan and Thatcher assisted him and the Khmer Rouge against the considerably less murderous Vietnamese Communists,

Are you attacking America through defending the Vietnamese Communists?


[Mr. Gregory:] The U.S. directly slaughtered hundreds of thousands of them [Cambodians] in Nixon's illegal bombing campaign,

That's really wrong. But not for "legal" reasons, of course.


[Mr. Gregory:] and then became friends with Pol Pot!!

If so, that's damned wrong.


[Mr. Gregory:] Regarding World War II, the Nazi regime was a product and a result of war.

No: war is a political tool sometimes required (unless you are a Pacifist). 

The Nazi regime was a product of the Nazi ideals put into practice. Every individual has a conscience. The Nazi individuals were responsible of what they were doing, not the American government, nor the Americans.


[Mr. Gregory:] Beating up the bad guys in World War I and finding the Germans collectively guilty for the war,

Every contender knew from the beginning that the consequences of losing or winning the war were collective. Those were the rules of that war.


[Mr. Gregory:] as if all 20 million dead were killed by their hands, in the form of the Versailles Treaty and the murderous starvation blockade right after the war, were direct causes of Hitler's rise to power.

Nazism was an evil ideology. The deeds of Nazism can't be justified by the wrong deeds of anybody else.


[Mr. Gregory:] And in that supposedly Good War, the U.S. sided with Stalin

America fought against Nazism, not for Stalinism.


[Mr. Gregory:] and actively helped him expand his empire of oppression, often in ways that even the most bloodthirsty realist with the least bit of intellectual honesty would admit were unnecessary to defeat Hitler,

Then nobody really knew if the War was to be won. You judgements here are anachronistic.


[Mr. Gregory:] but only for the benefit of getting on Stalin's good side so as to make him help FDR and Truman create the United Nations—an organization which was from the beginning, and still is, no more than a method for certain Western Powers, most particularly the U.S. government, to maintain hegemony over the world under a fig leaf of multilateral diplomacy.

I agree with you that that was a wrong decision. But perhaps the decision you or I would then have taken was not better. We will never know.


[Mr. Gregory:] So when I think of Reagan, Truman and FDR chumming up with the likes of Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, and Joe Stalin, I tend not to think of our past presidents and their foreign interventions as all too heroic.

Unfortunately, they were often very wrong. Now think about the then possible alternatives. Perfection is not an option. The judgement of past facts is a very easy exercise. They had to make the decisions then. They often erred.


[Mr. Gregory:] I am not a violent person, but if I were sitting in the same room as Stalin it would be hard for me to keep myself from lunging at him in an attempt to kill him.

The fact is: you did nothing effective to kill him. Moreover, very possibly you did less than President Reagan to defeat Communism.


[Mr. Gregory:] He was the face of evil, and FDR just toasted him with vodka and champaigne at Yalta, splitting up Europe and Asia among the new two empires that would rule the world and wage a Cold War against each other using proxies througout the globe as if they were pieces on a chessboard. Millions of chesspieces with minds and bodies were killed, totally unnecessarily, by the U.S. government in the 20th century. Millions.

Yes, that's really sad.


[Mr. Gregory:] U.S. foreign policy is not simply far from perfect. It is concentrated evil.

All wars are terrible. But you can't assume that the mistakes of the American governments put the American ideals at the same level than the Communist ideals of yesterday, or the Islamic ideals of today. 

Today, as yesterday, freedom requires to be defended. The real question is not if, but how. America-bashing, of course is one of the best suicidal policies.

Best regards,

Joel Català




 





Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 42

Monday, June 6, 2005 - 9:55amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
[Mr. Gregory:] Some historians think that Chamberlain saved Britain by stalling for time so Britain could build up its defenses, and that if he had confronted Hitler aggressively too early it would have been death for many more Britons.

Mr Gregory, President Chamberlain not only did not simply sit on his hands: he actively appeased Hitler and misguided the English people with delusional rethorics.

[Mr. Gregory:] Of course, the heroic Churchill did jump into the war just in time to save Poland from the totalitarian occupiers. And we all know how free the Polish were as soon as the war ended, protected by the governance of good ol' Unlce Joe.

Nottice you are whitewashing the cowardice of Chamberlain, while attacking the imperfection of a valient Churchill.

You are equating war to evil, and peace to good. And that's wrong: war is sometimes required.

Best wishes,

Joel Català




Post 43

Monday, June 6, 2005 - 10:19amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Glenn,

I live on Earth, where the facts I listed are, in fact, facts. If you live in some alternate universe where the facts are different, please say so -- it would obviously make a difference.

Tom Knapp

Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 44

Monday, June 6, 2005 - 10:46amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Quoth Joel Catala:

"Are you saying that the American government who fought and defeated the evil Hitler was not friend of liberty?"

Let's see:

- The US government conscripted more than 10 million Americans into the military for the war, beginning in November of 1940 and ending in October of 1946.

- The US government took near total control of the American economy -- using force to turn factories to war production, to pull goods it needed off the free market at prices it set, and to ration food and other commodities, and instituted withholding of wages for income tax with the top rate exceeding 90%.

"Friend of liberty?" Not.

"Of course the U.S. Gov policies could be very wrong. But we must not lose the historical perspective: the central fact here is that neither Pol Pot, nor the Khmer Rouge, nor the Vietnamese Communists, were born from the American ideals, but from Communist ideals."

Actually, Ho Chi Minh's idol was George Washington. After World War II, the first ally he sought in Vietnam's war for independence from France was the United States. The US reaction was to free and re-arm 17,000 Japanese POWs being held in Vietnam to try and put the independence movement down and save France's "interest" in Indochina. Ho once again made overtures to the US after defeating France, and was once again rebuffed. Ho was, in fact, a communist, having become one as a student in France when he came to believe that the communists were the only ones who agreed with him that colonialism had to end. It is not necessarily true, however, that Vietnam as a nation would have gone communist had the US not decided to leave the field open for the Soviet Union and China to be its mentors.

"[Mr. Gregory:] and actively helped him expand his empire of oppression, often in ways that even the most bloodthirsty realist with the least bit of intellectual honesty would admit were unnecessary to defeat Hitler,

"Then nobody really knew if the War was to be won. You judgements here are anachronistic."

Incorrect. After the war was over the US engaged in the forced "repatriation" of slaves to communism, loading boxcars full of fleeing refugees and shipping them by rail right back into the maw of Stalin's death machine. This was not necessary to win the war. It was done after Germany had collapsed and surrendered.

"Unfortunately, they were often very wrong. Now think about the then possible alternatives. Perfection is not an option. The judgement of past facts is a very easy exercise. They had to make the decisions then. They often erred."

Okay, fine. How does that constitute an excuse for erring in the same way now, when we know better?

Tom Knapp

Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 45

Monday, June 6, 2005 - 10:50amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Quoth Joel Català:

"Now I won’t assume you are implicitly saying that the toppling of the tyrant Hussein was a wrong thing to do."


[Mr. Knapp:] It was wrong to topple the tyrant Saddam Hussein in order to replace him with the tyrant Jay Garner, then the tyrant Paul Bremer, then the tyrant (and former Saddam protege) Iyad Allawi,

Tyrant Jay Garner? Tyrant Paul Bremer? How many innocent Iraqis have they intentionally killed? How many innocent Iraqis killed Iyad Allawi during his rule of Iraq under American command? Is there a possible comparison with who you are now attacking, and the mass murderer Saddam Hussein?


[Mr. Knapp:] and then whatever tyrant the new Islamist Iranian proxy government ends up putting in charge.

Be careful not to mix wish and reality, Sir.


[Mr. Knapp:] It was wrong to topple the tyrant Saddam Hussein on the basis of false, intentionally manufactured claims pertaining to the notion that his regime represented a threat to the United States.

That tyrany funded, celebrated and encouraged American deaths. That thugocracy gave safe heaven to Islamicist terrorists. That tyrany was a terrorist regime itself.


[Mr. Knapp:]- It was wrong to topple the tyrant Saddam Hussein at the expense of (last I noticed) 1,667 American lives, and (so far) about half a trillion dollars in stolen loot.

Again, you are only listing part of the costs, and not mentioning the dire consequences of inaction and appeasement. Inaction would have encouraged more terrorism and thus American deaths, not less.


[Mr. Knapp:]- It was wrong to topple the tyrant Saddam Hussein at the expense of the legitimate functions of government.

To topple a dictatorship is legitimate. Always.


[Mr. Knapp:] Troops which are engaged in building a foreign empire for a corporatist clique don't have the means or the time to do their real job -- the job they are sworn to do -- which is defending the United States, and in fact their empire-building decreases rather than increases the security of the United States.

That's arguable, but not sure at all. Another possiblity is that freedom and capitalism takes gradually hold in Iraq.


[Mr. Knapp:] Asking me if I'd like to "renounce my citizenship" is like asking me if I'd like to repeal the law of gravity. Nobody ever asked me if I wanted to be a citizen, and I know of no Constitutional provision by which any such decision, once made, could be revoked.

You still have the option of emigrating. But of couse you don't want to do that. You prefer "evil America" than any of the other good countries in the world. That's so curious.


[Mr. Knapp:] To the extent that I consider myself an American -- which is wholly -- no, I don't have any wish to renounce that.

Come on, how come you can't find a good country were to flee?. Just think about that: there is a huge list of anti-freedom countries were your words would be applauded. That's because your words actually favor their goals. 


[Mr. Knapp:] However, being an American has precisely nothing to do with any loyalty or obedience to the cabal of connivers in Washington, DC.

I know that. But perfection is not an option.


Tom Knapp



Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 46

Monday, June 6, 2005 - 11:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Actually, Ho Chi Minh's idol was George Washington."

 Then, this means that savage did not understand a damn about the life and ideals of George Washington.

We should always remember that George Washington resorted to war not as a tool of imperial dreams, but as a requirement for the defense of the American liberty.
 
The world understood that wery well. And, since then, America is envied, hated and vilified by the wicked people in the world.

Best wishes,

Joel Català




Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 47

Monday, June 6, 2005 - 11:45amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
[Mr. Knapp:] "How does that constitute an excuse for erring in the same way now, when we know better?"

Yes. But past and present errors of the American Government do not constitute an excuse to be only harsh with America. That's not fair, nor balanced, nor good in time of war.

Because, yes: America is at war:

Hizbullah Leader Hassan Nasrallah: Death to America

Iranian Leader Ali Khamenei: Iranian Leaders are Ready to Sacrifice Their Lives, Unlike American Leaders Who Disappeared Following 9/11; Only the US Uses Atom Bombs to Annihilate Nations

Palestinian Friday Sermon by Sheik Ibrahim Mudeiris: "Muslims Will Rule America and Britain, Jews Are a Virus Resembling AIDS"

Et caetera, all available as video here.

Please: wake up.

Joel Català

 




Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 48

Monday, June 6, 2005 - 12:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Quoth Joel Català:

"You still have the option of emigrating. But of couse you don't want to do that. You prefer "evil America" than any of the other good countries in the world. That's so curious."

The word you were looking for isn't "curious." It's "false." As a matter of fact, I do intend to emigrate in the near future, and am currently researching possible destinations (my significant other wants to move to Ireland; I favor Manila; we're considering compromising on Belize, Costa Rica or Honduras).

Of course, I couldn't expect you to know that. Nor, unfortunately -- as your record of debating the war demonstrates -- can I expect you to not just make things up when you find the facts inconvenient.

In another post:

"past and present errors of the American Government do not constitute an excuse to be only harsh with America."

Like I said, just making stuff up. I'm not "only harsh with America." I'm harsh with states, period.

Tom Knapp

Post 49

Monday, June 6, 2005 - 11:26amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
In the vein of facts-are-facts, Ho Chi Minh was a Comintern agent who betrayed his fellow nationalists to the Communists. It is wishful thinking that he would have led Vietnam into less of a hellhole with the appropriate degree of appeasenik ass-kissing.

Historically, there are 3 techniques for eliminating terrorism:
1) Destroy terrorists' bases.
2) Make terrorists think you're going to destroy their bases unless they stand down or sue for peace.
3) Buy terrorists off.

Pompey used a combination of these to swiftly (albeit temporarily) clear the Mediterranean of pirates.

Whatever you think of the screwups and follies of the War on Terrorism, domestically and abroad, if you're honest you must admit (1) and (2) are slowly working, and that crawling away with its tail between its legs would be the worst possible thing the US could do at this point.


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 50

Monday, June 6, 2005 - 1:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joel,

"'Actually, Ho Chi Minh's idol was George Washington.'

"Then, this means that savage did not understand a damn about the life and ideals of George Washington.

"We should always remember that George Washington resorted to war not as a tool of imperial dreams, but as a requirement for the defense of the American liberty."

Hmmmm ... I wonder why Ho resorted to war?

Let's see: Vietnam was a subject colony of France. Ho began fighting for Vietnamese independence in the 1920s. He fought the French until the Japanese invaded. Then he fought the Japanese until WWII ended. Then he fought the French again, until they left. Then he petitioned the US for recognition, alliance and aid; the US declined, set up a puppet regime in the south, refused Ho's multiple requests for free and fair elections on whether the South wished to become independent or to remain part of Vietnam, and launched a 10-year war. In order to win that war, Ho had to accept the aid of the Soviet Union and China instead of his CHOSEN ally, the US.

Since kicking out the last of the colonialists -- the US -- Vietnam has invaded one other country, Cambodia. It invaded to stop the US-approved Khmer Rouge slaughter of one-sixth of that country's population, and promptly withdrew once it had accomplished that task.

Ho may have been a savage, but he couldn't hold a fucking candle to LBJ.

Tom Knapp

Post 51

Monday, June 6, 2005 - 11:41amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Quote Tom Knapp:
"I live on Earth..."

Are you concerned, by the statements in your posts, people will think you live on another planet?

p.s. No evidence yet.


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 52

Monday, June 6, 2005 - 1:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joel Català:

All wars are terrible. But you can't assume that the mistakes of the American governments put the American ideals at the same level than the Communist ideals of yesterday, or the Islamic ideals of today.


I'm not talking about ideals, but actions. If we want to talk ideals, I love American ideals, but the American empire is, along these lines, one of the most un-American institutions in the world.

The American ideal most worthy of respect is love of peace and liberty, and hatred of empire and government. It was that ideal that unified the best of the Founding Fathers. Not a one of them would recognize the mass-murdering U.S. empire as being in line with "American ideals." Madison and Jefferson were not all that ambigious on this point: they hated war, empire, and entangling alliances. The Iraq war and occupation are evil, and constitute a frontal assault on America's founding values.


Post 53

Monday, June 6, 2005 - 2:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Tom,
As a matter of fact, I do intend to emigrate in the near future, and am currently researching possible destinations (my significant other wants to move to Ireland; I favor Manila; we're considering compromising on Belize, Costa Rica or Honduras).
May I suggest Brazil? If you are disillusioned with the practical implementation of ideals, Brazil is a wonderful land of opportunity.

If you go by the book (which no one does), with more laws than you can ever read in a year, you will never get anything done.

But if you learn the quebrar galho trick (which means, break a branch, meaning getting around something but not by the stated rules), Brazil is then one of the freest countries on earth. Depending on how you do it, you can do anything you want to there in perfect liberty, both good and bad. You just can't do it in theory, though - you have to pay lip service to something else and be a hypocrite publicly - but is that a bad price to pay for real liberty?

Michael


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 54

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 - 2:32amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
[Mr. Knapp:] "I'm not "only harsh with America." I'm harsh with states, period."

Mmmm... let's see: how many harsh critiques to the Irani, the Arabian, the Syrian, the North Korean or the Sudanese states have you written in your hole life? Do you really think you are being balanced in your critique to "states"?

Well, perhaps you prefer thinking about your emigration tothe anarcho-capitalist paradise in Manila.

By the way, be careful with Jemaa Islamiya and the other moro "liberation" groups: their main occupation is to think how to murder "infidels", or enslave them. And America-bashing is a propaganda tool at their service: they plan to kill non-Muslims simply because their savage cult obligates them to do so.

Best wishes,

Joel Català




Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 55

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 - 2:41amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"The Iraq war and occupation are evil, and constitute a frontal assault on America's founding values."

Not a fact.

What is really a fact (and I hope we agree) is that appeasement and surrender after the intentional killing of about 3,000 American and foreign civilians in American soil would have constituted a frontal assault on America's founding values.

Best wishes,

Joel Català


Post 56

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 - 5:17amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Is this just a setup for the classic 9/11 - Iraq bait-and-switch?


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 57

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 - 6:20amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Quoth Joel Catala:

-----
[Mr. Knapp:] "I'm not "only harsh with America." I'm harsh with states, period."

Mmmm... let's see: how many harsh critiques to the Irani, the Arabian, the Syrian, the North Korean or the Sudanese states have you written in your hole life? Do you really think you are being balanced in your critique to "states"?
-----

A few of Iran. Quite a few of Saudi Arabia, Syria and the Arab states in general. A smattering on North Korea. None at all on Sudan, although I've been considering a piece on it.

But ... since when do I owe you, or anyone else, some weird kind of "balance" that ignores reality in favor of faux equality?

I live in the United States, and the United States is foremost among states as actors on the world stage. As a critic of the state, it would be silly of me to artificially diffuse my criticisms into some kind of "eenie, meenie, mynie, moh" scheme where each state gets n slaps, and it would be bringing coals to Newcastle to spend a great amount of time critiquing states that most people already agree are bad. My point is that all states are bad, and my effort is thus best invested in combating the perception that particular states are good, or getting better (as, for example, China).

"Well, perhaps you prefer thinking about your emigration tothe anarcho-capitalist paradise in Manila. By the way, be careful with Jemaa Islamiya and the other moro 'liberation' groups: their main occupation is to think how to murder 'infidels', or enslave them."

I'm well aware of the security risks in the Philippines, thank you very much. I'm also aware that the Philippines is hardly an "anarcho-capitalist paradise." Its chief attractions for me are the cost of living and the fact that its state is less disposed toward targeted harassment of those who mind their own business, since it has to spend a good deal of its efforts just holding on to power at all.

"And America-bashing is a propaganda tool at their service."

I have never "bashed America," nor do I ever intend to begin doing so. America's a great country with great people and a great history. The American state is not, and never has been, America -- it's a cancer on America.

Tom Knapp

Post 58

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 - 8:04amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
[Mr. Knapp:] A few of Iran. Quite a few of Saudi Arabia, Syria and the Arab states in general. A smattering on North Korea. None at all on Sudan, although I've been considering a piece on it.

Indeed, those are carcinogenic states with the highest metastatic activity. Those states are nests of Oppression and Hate. They corrupt the minds of people, inside and abroad.

Jihadism and Communism, two of the worst totalitarian ideologies, are alive and well. That's the main problem we must face today, from an objectivist, from a libertarian, or even strictly from a human rights point of view. Not to face it is delusion and denial. Yes: your talent deserves to be devoted in writing a piece on it. And then more and more pieces on it.


[Mr. Knapp:] But ... since when do I owe you, or anyone else, some weird kind of "balance" that ignores reality in favor of faux equality?

When I said "balance" I did not mean any Marxist construct. With balance I meant justice.


[Mr. Knapp:] [...] As a critic of the state, it would be silly of me to artificially diffuse my criticisms into some kind of "eenie, meenie, mynie, moh" scheme where each state gets n slaps,

I don't ask you "n slaps" per state. That's pure Marxism, and I will assume you don't think this way. That's why I ask you: perhaps do you think the United States is the worst of all "states"? If not, why you don't give more slaps to the most tyranical "states" that today are concocting and acting against the freest "states" of the world?

[Joel Català:] "Well, perhaps you prefer thinking about your emigration to the anarcho-capitalist paradise in Manila. By the way, be careful with Jemaa Islamiya and the other moro 'liberation' groups: their main occupation is to think how to murder 'infidels', or enslave them."

[Mr. Knapp:] [...] Its [Philippines] chief attractions for me are the cost of living and the fact that its state is less disposed toward targeted harassment of those who mind their own business, since it has to spend a good deal of its efforts just holding on to power at all.

Indeed, a rapidly fading power.

Perhaps before you purchase the ticket to Manila, the Philippine state will have been divided into an Islamic and a secular state:

"Philippino Muslims poised for independence"


[Joel Català:] "And America-bashing is a propaganda tool at their service."

[Mr. Knapp:] I have never "bashed America,"

Please leave the judgment to your readers, Sir.


[Mr. Knapp:] America's a great country with great people and a great history.

Yes, those are facts.


[Mr. Knapp:] The American state is not, and never has been, America -- it's a cancer on America.

Perhaps.

But without the American state, with all the flaws it has, you would not have any immunitary system actively defending your rights to life and liberty against the much more metastatic states Communist and Jihadist states are.

Best wishes,

Joel Català





Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 59

Tuesday, June 7, 2005 - 8:27amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joel Català:

[Mr. Knapp:] The American state is not, and never has been, America -- it's a cancer on America.

Perhaps.

But without the American state, with all the flaws it has, you would not have any immunitary system actively defending your rights to life and liberty against the much more metastatic states Communist and Jihadist states are.


I don't really think that the U.S. government has ever protected the American people from Communist and Jihadist states. In fact, I do believe that U.S. foreign policy has been a boon for both kinds of states. If the U.S. never entered World War I, I don't think there would have been a Marxist revolution in Russia. If the U.S. never gave weaponry and half its uranium to the Soviet Union, helped Stalin expand its jurisdiction, and work with him to set up the imperialistic United Nations and post-World War II global order, I don't think the Communists would have become as powerful as they did. If it weren't for U.S. intervention in the Middle East over the last fifty years, I don't think the Jihadist states would be as powerful or pervasive. For the latest example of the connection, the U.S. overthrew one of the most secular and liberal Arab regimes in the neighborhood, to the great benefit of the Iranian Jihadists who now stand to have a proxy state next door.

The state is a cancer. Counterproductive, violent, oppressive and unnecessary. The U.S. is hardly an exception.

And in the long run, the U.S. does pose a grave threat to world peace, hardly matched by other States, if we look at the nuclear arsenals alone.


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.