Since nobody else is going to say it, not even those most adamantly alarmist and angry about Trump's pathetic parade, in much of the world American tanks in the street and planes in the sky are terrifying, because they mean indiscriminbate destruction and death.
So, Donald Bone Spurs used his moment in the rain to say that the US armed forced are always ready to defend our freedom. Even when it is unnecessary. Here is a list (off the top of my head; I may have missed a few) of countries the US invaded that presented no imaginable danger to this country:
ReplyDeleteCanada
Mexico (twice)
Lebanon (twice)
Spain
Dominican Republic
Colombia
Hawaii
Haiti
Grenada
Nicaragua
Laos
China
Vietnam
Cambodia
Those are merely actual invasions; I am not counting the numerous democracies the US has destroyed, like Iran, Chile, Congo etc.
You and your uncaused effects.
ReplyDeleteI'm wondering which of the countries on that list with the power to do didn't intervene in other countries.
I'm going with none.
Your out of control hatred is making you say many stupid things.
I am not concerned with the guilt of other countries but I am concerned with the guilt of my own.
ReplyDeleteTake Iran. The US destroyed democracy there, not because of any threat to the US (or anyone else) but to protect the grouse-murdering lifestyle of a few English plutocrats.
Since democracy was not an option for the Iranians, they chose something else. no surprise, the alternatives were worse -- worse for the Iranians, worse for us.
The USAF dropped a fantastic number of bombs on Laos. What good did that do anybody?
Your self-congratulatory virtue signaling is nauseating.
ReplyDeleteOf course the US has done regrettable things. There isn't a country with the power to do so that hasn't. Most, the USSR is a perfect example, have for more awful records. But since it was communist, it is beyond criticism.
And it is worth wondering whether a fear of a communist takeover -- the cause you will never acknowledge despite its cancerous effects the world over -- would have been even worse.
Why did the US bomb Laos?
Probably not an effect without a cause.
How can I tell you are a communist? Your refusal to criticize communism tells us all we need to know about you.
I have criticized communism; but you have never criticized fascism.
ReplyDeleteI have criticized communism ...
ReplyDeleteNo, you haven't.
... but you have never criticized fascism.
Yes I have, stating many times that it's murderous history is almost as bad as communism's.
And I have frequently criticized your sliming everyone who isn't a communist as fascist, without any regard to either the meaning of the word, nor trivializing it through overuse.
And I'm quite certain I have many times cited the striking similarities between communism and fascism, that they are both murderous collectivisms.
ReplyDeleteSo, you are wrong, once again. But that would be restating the obvious.
Murderous, eh? So, since you are saying right in this thread that the US destruction of democracies is of no consequence since all other countries that are capable do it. I agree with you there.
ReplyDeleteThe genocides done by the US military need to be cited again and again because by not knowing what we have done, we go a long way toward ensuring we do it again.
[Harry:] Murderous, eh? So, since you are saying right in this thread that the US destruction of democracies is of no consequence since all other countries that are capable do it. I agree with you there.
ReplyDeleteNo I didn't, not even close, as demonstrated by your inability to quote what I said to that effect. Something you never do, but have repeatedly shown you always should.
Once again showing you are either a liar, or an idiot. That need not be a mutually exclusive "or".
The genocides done by the US military need to be cited again and again ...
What genocides? Be specific. You have demonstrated previously you don't know how to use the word correctly.
Let's start with the burning of the Creek towns' food stores by the Charleston militia -- you know, the well-regulated group to whom we sacrifice thousands of our children.
ReplyDeleteOkay. Let's start with that. When did that happen?
ReplyDelete... you know, the well-regulated group to whom we sacrifice thousands of our children.
ReplyDeleteYou clearly aren't comfortable with either English grammar or history or the Enlightenment.
You must be a journalist.
This is not a history course. I know you know nothing about America history. That's for you to correct.
ReplyDeleteThis is not a history course. I know you know nothing about America history. That's for you to correct.
ReplyDeleteYou are, as usual, missing the obvious point.
Above, you said this (note how I am quoting you exactly):
The genocides done by the US military need to be cited again and again because by not knowing what we have done, we go a long way toward ensuring we do it again.
So, according to you, we need to cite the burning of the Creek's food stores, which happened in the distant past under circumstances that will never again conceivably exist because if we don't know what we have done, we will do it again.
That there is some right stupid reasoning.
And it is made worse because your thesis -- ignorance of US military genocides makes it more likely they will occur again -- is crippled by your having to go so far back in time to find them.
That is the obvious point you are missing. There is no denying the US government treated the indigenous Americans horribly. And what?
Here is a less obvious point. In very recent history, well within our grand parents, if not our parents lifetimes, communism killed more than a 100 million people. You would think that lesson should keep getting rammed down the throats of the Bernie Sanders of the world, the self-preening progressives, and the faculties of humanities departments across the land.
Because somehow it is possible to mount that vile soapbox, and not get hounded right out of civil society.
Yet there you are, not taking that lesson on board, and getting all spittle-flecked over something that could never happen again.
You must be a communist.
Because merely trying to emulate the Social Democratic advances that other countries have made, most notably with healthcare (better outcomes, but cheaper) somehow means that millions of American lives are similarly in danger. Thanks goodness I'm out of spittle range.
DeleteBecause merely trying to emulate the Social Democratic advances that other countries have made, most notably with healthcare ...
DeleteM, that isn't what I was talking about, which is this: Where did Bernie Sanders spend his honeymoon? What has he had to say about the USSR, Cuba, and Venezuela?
Progressives continue to insist that things like, oh, health care, are positive rights, without noticing the inevitable results? (Do investigate Britain's NHS.)
Avowing socialism must mean something, right?
Ever read the story of that trip? It wasn't as momentous as you might have thought.
Deletehttps://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/05/what-we-learned-from-watching-long-lost-footage-of-bernie-sanders-in-the-ussr/
And I'm a long way from being a Sanders fan, but even he would be orders of magnitude better on just about every issue than President Slimey Smallhands.
As for 100 million victims of communism, sure, I can genuflect in front of that awful figure for you if you want. But deflecting to the crimes of other countries - over which the U.S. and Americans in general had and have middling influence at best - does nothing to address war crimes committed by the U.S. itself, over which we can actually exert influence, unless we are the sort of people who endorse that sort of thing.
[M:] Ever read the story of that trip? It wasn't as momentous as you might have thought.
DeleteWhat did Bernie have to say about the USSR? The Sandinistas? Cuba? Venezuela?
How often does one get to extol socialism without suffering permanent ridicule? I want to know why socialists get a permanent pass denied to fascists, despite their crimes against humanity being indistinguishable.
But deflecting to the crimes of other countries - over which the U.S. and Americans in general had and have middling influence at best - does nothing to address war crimes committed by the U.S. itself, over which we can actually exert influence, unless we are the sort of people who endorse that sort of thing.
There is no deflection here, only resisting the notion of uncaused effects.
Did the US commit warcrimes bombing Laos? Sure, I'll grant that. But not without there being an answer as to why the US was bombing Laos in the first place.
For just one example.
Except, of course, that it is happening right this minute. Backed up my American military force.
ReplyDeleteA few -- very few, countable on the fingers of one hand -- members of the miltary have objected. The other 1.7 million -- they do what they are told.
[Harry:] Except, of course, that it is happening right this minute. Backed up my American military force.
ReplyDeleteI showed you how to embed hyperlinks above. Why don't you give it a try?
You ddon't need 'em. Just read any newspaper.
ReplyDeleteYou don't need 'em. Just read any newspaper.
ReplyDeleteActually, Harry, I do. I need to know specifically what you are talking about. Especially because you can't tell the difference between, among other things, Russia and Ukraine.
Ukraine is where people who speak Ukrainian live, which is where the famine was. There was no political Ukraine in those days. I understand you know nothing whatever about Russia. Your problem, not mine.
ReplyDeleteHarry, you called it a Ukrainian famine. The rest of the world calls it a Russian famine. They are different; otherwise, they wouldn't have different names.
ReplyDeleteWhich, ever so predictably, doesn't fix this:
You don't need 'em. Just read any newspaper.
Give us some links, Harry, so we know what you are talking about.
Don't pretend to be obtuse.
ReplyDeleteHarry, don’t show yourself to be a liar.
ReplyDeleteAgain.
Give us some links to all these articles so we know what you are talking about.
As if.
ReplyDelete