You’ve already had it pointed out to you that there was a minor conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union during this time-period; why do you consider this to be insignificant? I’ll also remind you about a certain country that was instrumental in turning Germany into a divided battlefield. I’ll also point out that many current enemies are Aryans, and many Latinos consider themselves white (based on their European heritage). I’ll also point out that the United States has propped up many dictatorships in non-white countries.
Your theory about non-white nations simply doesn’t hold any water.
Given your reliability so far in this thread, I think I’ll take you up on this offer. Anyone here who’s white and has served in the Army, wanna verify what starguard has said?
You’re making us progressives look real bad with these cockamamie theories.
Beyond the answers I’ve given you so far? Well, try this one on for size, then: the majority of our nation’s enemies are non-caucasians because the majority of the world’s population is non-caucasian.
Our primary foreign policy consideration from 1945 to 1990 was preparing for what was seen as an inevitable future war with the Soviet Union. So, we allied with regimes, white, black, brown, or whatever color, that were anti-Soviet. The answer to your question is that the non-Caucasian part of the world was mainly where the Cold War was fought.
Oh, please. Chomsky has said much more spiteful things about the United States than various Administrations have in calling Iran a rogue state, a outlaw country, or whathaveyou.
Plus, I don’t think Chomsky is exactly an authority in politely debating topics of international concern, especially given his lengthy record of impunging the character of those who disagree with him; not to mention that he has cried “American genocide” more times than a historical revisionist Chicken Little.
More could be done there, no doubt. But Pakistan is a horse of a different color. Just because we do not have harsh words for Pakistan does not mean that Iran should get a free pass on truthful criticism.
Get used to it, John. This is going to be the bitterest, most hotly contested presidential election since 1972. And I confidently predict the vote total will be as close as it was in 2000. It is, indeed, going to be a rough 8 months. I just hope it ends there . . .
Over the past couple of years there have been many demonstrations and marches by Iranians against their government. The government has responded with violence and repression. What Cheney is doing is signalling to the protestors and reformers that the US government is aware of their cause and supports it. It is the administrations hope that there will be a revolution in Iran that will replace the theocracy with a democracy. Such speeches as Cheney are an easy way to encourage this revolution. I remember how much Sakharov was heartened by Reagan’s evil empire speech, hopefully Cheney’s will have similar impact and if it does not we will see if they can think up a worse insult than Great Satan.
This has been such an interesting thread. On one hand there is a theocracy who has been of the biggest supporters of terror, and has one of the worst human rights records in the world, and on the other hand the Bush administration. It has been very illumating to see people taking sides in this conflict.
This is what you pin your hopes on? It doesn’t even rise to the level of last winter’s demonstrations in Tehran. The refomers appear to be getting weaker and weaker as Iran’s Hard Right responds to Bush’s Hard Right: Conservatives set sights on Iran’s presidency
It’s not at all surprising to find the Iranian reformers being labeled “appeasers”, “traitors to the revolution” and such. That sort of rhetoric makes regular appearances in both the Tehran Times and the American press. It’s how the hard right, regardless of country or underlying ideology operates.
Repeated losses by the Iran moderates, as encouraged by Bush, will NOT bring about democracy.
Moderators I hope you will grant me a little leeway, in light of the fact that Space Cadet asked for this.
You XXXX XXX, I spent many years in the US Military, I was a Paratrooper and served in a Special Operations unit (Not Special Forces) in Desert Storm. I was awarded the Combat Infantrymans Badge and was decorated for actions in combat. I also lead a National Guard Infantry Unit during the riots in L.A… Never, not once were either I or any of the troops under my command instructed to hate anybody. We were trained to be professionals, to be instruments of enforcing US foriegn policy as directed by the Commander in Chief. It was not our job to debate that foreign policy. I was trained to kill if need be, and I did. I did not hate those that died, and I cetrtainly did not do it for ideological reasons. I take offense at you insinuating that American soldiers are acting out of some political beliefs.
I am about as Anti GWB as anybody, I despise the current waste of my fellow soldiers lives in a pointless tragedy. But I hate even more that pin heads who know absolutely nothing insinuate that our troops are anything but professional soldiers who may or may not agree with their orders, but nevertheless follow those orders.
you want an example of your XXXXXX
The invasion of PANAMA was only on every TV station for months, yet you think NORIEGA was the president of COLUMBIA.
Isn’t there some star you can go guard, you ain’t helping the fight against ignorance. :rolleyes:
You’ve got my vote there.
In regards to the OP, I don’t think it serves any purpose other than those you’ve suggested. It is more of the same bellicose posturing which has been coming from both sides. I guess this is the show Tehran and Washington have agreed to put on for public consumption.
There have clearly been high level contacts between the two nations since September 11, 2001 and I’m sure the question of “are we next?” has been addressed.
I’m relatively certain Iran’s not going to be attacked militarily since there has been a huge amount of international investment made in developing it’s oil and natural gas fields. There’s no way those other nations and consortiums would have made multi-billion dollar deals if they hadn’t made sure the U.S. wasn’t planning on doing some shocking and aweing in Iran soon.
Christ every time I read this thread I notice some more BS posted by you. I said before I spent many years in the Army, in the Airborne Infantry, and I say you are full of crap. The rest of my answer will be posted in the pit, when I can calm down enough to type a coherent sentence in response to your absolute LIES. I also doubt you ever spent a single day in the US military.
Now its personal-the rest of you should just ignore this, it is between me and stargard. I have no doubt that many of you will try to jump in but I do not care nor will I respond. THIS IS PERSONAL BETWEEN ME AND STARGARD!
You’re missing one thing friend…** I served many years in the Military too**. So I think you are hgoing to find it a little bit harder to hoodwink me as you would most other people here Moderator: before I respond to this gentleman, I want to make it clear that I am not flaming him or trying to crush his opinions. Everyone has a right to them and I invited his. I am simply going to bring to light a couple of things that he is refusing to acknowledge due to his possible inability to escape the brainwashing effects that the military has possibly imposed upon him
All the statements I have posted relating to this topic are nothing that was passed on to me from the media or anywhere else friend. They are all from actual experiences that I myself and many others indured. For myself and any of my collegues, to dare mention the very name of Dr. Martin Luther King alone to any of the europeans would be enough to get oneself killed in there almost right there on the spot. I witnessed myself many good people, many that gave even more of themselves than you claim to have, scramble out of there like a bat outta hell as soon as their enlistment was up vowing never to return because of the way they were treated or looked upon by our beloved DOD.
As I started earlier. I served during the Reagan Administration
You stated, and I quote: We were trained to be professionals, to be instruments of enforcing US foreigh policy as directed by our Commander & Chief. It was not our job to debate foreign policy
As I stated earlier, I served during the Reagan Administration. Why did our “Commander & Chief” take it upon himself to attend an Nazi reunion of the origional members of the German SS down in Bittsburg, took a tour of one of their graveyards laying reefs on the tombs and graves of these “men”, then later attended a banquet as their “Guest of Honor” while offering his condolenses to them? What could he “or anyone else for that matter” have possible hoped to acheve from that? This one act alone sparked off some of the most intense Anti-American riots that europe had seen in years (all for good reason mind you). This is the man that was dictating our “Foreign Policy” and demanded that they be carried out. What type of signal was he trying to send to the world by doing this?
All while we were there, all we heard from our caucasian couterparts were statements made to each other like
“This is OUR Army”
“WE are in command”
“We’re in charge”
We were like "wait a minute friend, isn’t this OUR Army too?
I won’t even bother posting the response we recieved, but believe me it wasn’t very favorable and many of us didn’t really appreciate it at all.
Oh the stories I could tell…
During that era, I have already listed just about all the nations that were attacked for whatever reason during Reagans time in office and I’m not going to list them again. Answer this question. Why did Reagan do this?
Now you can do all the name calling and throw all the temper tamtrums you want. If the truth hurts you my friend and you can’t handle it,I have no control over that…
(Nor do I want to). All of my statements were based on direct and actual events that took place during the time I served and beyond.
The invasion of Panama was on every TV Station for months, yet you stated that Noriega was the President of Columbia *
I believe my origional statement was :
*Invaded (I believe it was Columbia) and jailed Manuel Noriega
I did state the phrase (I believe) because I was not remember at that time exactly which country he came from…I did state this…you didn’t read it correctly
Quit Calling Me “friend” I Am Most Definately Not Your Friend! I Promise You Will See My Response In The Pit, When I Can Calm Down Enough To Flame You In A Manner You Diserve!
TO everyone else who has been following these posts (including the person that started it), I want to apologise to all those who have been mislead by or misinterpreted the questions that were asked **(including the caucasion servicemen that are commited solely to defending America alone and not trying to build some global white supremist regime)
I intent was not to point fingers or try and make anyone look bad. My questions was make out of sheer curiosity. Looking at our recent past and the list of enemies that our DOD has fought, I simply noticed a global pattern that the US seems to be following and want to know why we ( the US ) are following it.
The best answer I have recieved from here so far was that there are more non-caucasions in the world that caucasions. That’s a simple answer that can be both understood and accepted… thats all I wanted to know.
See? that’s what is so great about the internet, liars like you can be cought. you said
I noticed your attempt to revise your original statement about “Norewaga” anyone can make spelling errors but to revise them and then quote them is A BANNING OFFENSE I think.
Maybe you are just illeterate but in my opinion a native English speaker would not type the phrase
which leads me to believe you are not what you claim.