Iran And Venezuela Launch Anti-us Fund

This is just way to juicy for me to pass up. here i go.

For starters, I love the American Constitution, and I have a lot of friends in America that are pretty much brothers and sisters to me. So my views don't intend to reflect all Americans, only some/majority.

If anybody said that they didn't see this coming, then they are indeed blind. America has a history of "liberating" countries, exploiting them, and generally making a lot of people angry. They are also extremely ignorant when it comes to world views, and always believe that they are right (by they, I mean the government/rednecks). Sadly, I don't think it's completely dawned upon them that world hates them. With a passion. Seriously, they think Africa is a nation, because bush said it was. WTF?

America also has a spending problem. Sure, they have the money, but I'm getting sick of the SUVs blocking the roads, and generally polluting like hell. The damn things are useless, and they generally break down every 500 miles. Also, the amount of waste that is produced by america is appalling. No wonder L.A looks like a hell-hole.

Now, how does this effect the current situation? It does in fact. The rest of the world who doesn't have it as easy as America is becoming increasingly pissed off with their gluttony and ignorance. I have a friend, prior to 9/11 was taking bets on how long it would take a 3rd world country to strike back. (the guy who was closest won about $200. But then immediately donated it to the NYFD). Sorry to say, america screwed up.

Now, enough of the past, on with the lesser past. More specifically, Iraq.
Iraq was a nation that had absolutely no reason to be attacked. Bush Jr. was simply trying to be like his daddy (he forgot one thing, Bush Sr. actually did something useful in office). So instead of Afganistan being attacked immediately (took a few months), they went for Iraq after a half hearted search for Osama. Now, after the war, Iraq is in ruins (partly due to strategic planning on Rumsfield part). But generally, there was no use for the war. The people of America didn't even support the war until they went into war. They changed positions to support the troops, not the war.

So, Iraq has no power, no electricity, no morale, and generally worse off than what they started. But, Suddam was captured. Please kindly explain to me how that is "liberation"?

Yes, it was right Saddam was right to be tried and convicted, yes it was right he was to be put to death for his war crimes. But it wasn't worth the cost of a nation.



((mental break here, This seems like rambling, and of no use to the actual topic, but I feel it has a point. Mainly because it depicts the overall picture of America butting into other countries affairs)).


Now, people are worried about this Iran Venezualen (sp?) deal. little piece of advice. GET OVER IT. If america has the right to put dictators into place of elected leaders, if they have the right to "liberate" nations that had no need to be liberated, then two nations that don't have the same strength as the U.S, who don't have the same army, economy, or otherwise lifestyle of America, should have the same right.

Overall lesson: Stay out of people's countries just because they aren't doing what you tell them to. Or else it leads to terrorist attacks, nation's with your oil making deals to stop that, and generally, no one in the UN liking you.


oh, and to those who have said the U.S have done nothing wrong/aren't imperialists/ any other such nonsense. I leave you with this. It gives a list of everything. And there is proof, just find it yourself.

http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/37899414/

 

I agree 100%

 

Wrong. I don't believe what is "spoon fed" to me. I look at facts (those sources) and draw my own conclusions on them, using the facts as a basis for those conclusions. If that's spoon-feeding, to hell with it. That's called a decision-making process if they haven't taught you that.

As for the newest 21,000 being sent over: there will be a phased withdrawl. That's in the plans. The 21,000 are needed to make the country stable, train the Iraqis to do their jobs, and pull out as they take over. The Iraqi military isn't capable of doing the job right now and neither is their police force. Until that's fixed, asking for a withdrawl is asking for the country to fall apart.

If people hate me because I happen to have been born in the US and believe what I believe, so be it. ---- 'em. At least I know for a fact that I've been free all of my life to think whatever I want, do whatever I want so long as it is within the law, and generally have a half-decent life. If people hate me for my government's policies, the ones that I respect because they are my government's (the one I was free to choose who it consisted of and largely influence its policy. Whether or not I agree with the policy, I respect it, something a lot of you people cannot say because you're just plain blind).

America has a history of influencing the policy of nations. Like it or not, the US has been a major player in the world's politics for at least the past hundred years. So has the UK. Hell, the UK took over most of the world's landmass to form their empire and yet people don't scream about the "bloody, imperialistic past" from them. Hypocrisy all around, or so it seems.

I've yet to see the French complain about their nation's past or the British complain about theirs. Why? Both nations are just as guilty as the US even today, so why is it that only the US has been singled out?

People do tend to be more materialistic. Look at you kids having your little orgasms over a ----ing iPhone right now. Last year, the phones took ----ing pictures and you were screaming about those too. Materialism has a big role, but it's not the US. It's the way that the kids are raised today. As for LA, combine the factories, the automobiles, and other pollution with the fact that it's in a "bowl" that will trap smog and yes, the air will be ----tier. Mexico city has the exact same problem, as do a few other cities that happen to be surrounded by mountains.

It wasn't a third world nation that "struck back" on 9/11. It was a group of people with a radical ideology, an ideology that happened to justify popping a few thousand people in the name of a religion. If you want to kill someone over what they have or are jealous of that or covet that or whatever it is, think of the fact that you're just an immoral, selfish twat. You envy a nation because it has prospered? Make yours better. The US was created from scratch, in the middle of the most powerful nations on earth at the time, most with thousands of years of history. The US took 200 and it's where it's at right now.

If you think Afghanistan was "half-hearted," you obviously haven't taken a look at a topographic map. Afghanistan is a nation of mostly mountains. The US and now NATO are hunting for a very, very small group of people. They're not a standing army, they're a few fighters with light weapons and pickup trucks that can move at a moment's notice. You can tap his communications, but it doesn't mean jack ---- if you can't be there for an hour because of the flight times, time it takes to hike up the mountain because there wasn't a suitable landing zone at the top, or time it takes to search a cave complex that takes up an entire valley.

Believe it or not, it takes time to identify the target, coordinate a response, deploy the forces, and have Congress send us to war. That's if Congress decides to send us there. There's more to it than just saying "go get 'em." A month (the invasion started in October of 2001) is a fairly speedy timeframe.

Once you got onto Bush's list, you were marked. Saddam was a threat to the region. He was a terrorist in a sense, he just happened to be a head of state as well. The US, I believe, had reasonable cause to enter the nation, take him down, and restore Iraq to democratic rule. If you don't think the Iraq war was just, you don't think that everything after the Revolutionary War was just, either. Each and every war America has fought has been over a threat to itself in one form or another. Sorry if you don't agree with it, but that's policy. If you think a country can be put back on its feet in less than a year, look at Germany after World War II and tell me that again.

The reason the US is worried about Iran and Venezuela is that it sees them as threats. Both nations have expressed desire to attack America, be it financially or militarily. There's an oath that you swear upon enlistment in the military, something that goes along the lines of "...to defend against all enemies, foriegn and domestic." Both nations have made themselves enemies and are asking for an ass kicking. It's quite simple. Make yourself an enemy, don't bitch when he comes back to get you.

As for your list, teach the guy to spell before making a post about how criminal, stupid, and ignorant the US is. I wasn't aware that "investing" in a country was imperialism. Yes, I got the gist of what he had to say. No, he's not completely correct. For example, he refers to the Pinochet coup. The most recent numbers put the death toll at 3,000, not the 30,000 described. The Nagasaki/Hiroshima reference convienently leaves out the fact that Japan made war on the United States and recieved a full response. The bombing of Lebanon leaves out that an act of war was committed against the US in the form of 281 US Marines being truck bombed for trying to keep the peace in Lebanon. Vietnam references leave out the fact that North Vietnam attacked American warships in international waters. Korea was a war, actually one made by the UN, that beloved, incompetent organization. That list describes every single act of war that has been committed against the United States or the ones that the US has intervened in, either on behalf of the United States or to protect its interests (the "all enemies" part). He also grossly overdoes the death tolls in many of his listings. "Makes everyone watch it on TV" is ----ing hilarious, actually. It's you that turns on the TV, it's the media that took the footage. Really, quite funny.

 

Alright first off, America definatley has previously liberated countries. Is that a bad thing? I don't know about exploiting them and I don't even know who you're talking about, but i'll get to that later. And obviously people are going to be angry at us, with such a politically correct world we live in, anything besides diplomacy will throw just about any other country into an uproar.

Gluttony and ignorance? Way to stereotype pal. I'm a hard working American, just like alot of the people that I know. Where are you from? I am sure that I can come up with a ton of stereotypical observations, simply by where you live, but does that make them true? Of course not. America screwed up? How? This was an unprovoked attack on us. Oh wait, it was because it was "the will of Allah".

Are you trying to say taking a ruthless dictator, murdering thousands of his own people, out of power isn't enough to be considered liberation? Than what is liberation in your book? do you even know that we managed to save the Kurds?

Worried? No. I already knew that Venezuela already hated the US, maybe they should concentrate more on how to fix up their ----ty country before criticizing others.

Well what do you expect? For us to be perfect? Would you like me to put a list of things Iraq has done that is insanely inhumane and psychotic?

 

Lol its funny how stupid those countries act knowing what America holds in fire power.

 

I swear to god, please look at the def of imperalism. IT IS NOT ONLY TAKING OVER A COUNTRY! PLEASE READ THE DEF I LISTED.

 

For ideas to spread, people must accept and embrace them.

For culture to spread, people must accept and embrace them.

For influence to spread, people must accept and embrace it.

For power to spread, people must accept and allow it.

For one nation to get benefit from another, by means of influence, culture, ideas, or resources, the target nation must allow it to happen. The target nation has every right to refuse. And if it refuses, the other nation won't like it but so what? The target nation is an independant nation just like the targeting nation.

The only thing in your imperialism definition that isn't backed up by "do this or I'll shoot you" is invading and taking over another country to add to a nation's own territory for that nation's gain.

and @razgriz95: America: love it or leave it. Don't like the way people use their freedoms? Move somewhere where those freedoms are restricted, live there for around a year and then tell me how much the use of freedoms is "evil." People work for their money. People do as they wish with that money. If that means going and buying a truck load of beef jerky and a few gallons of coffee, so be it.

It's that person's money, and that person has worked for it. That is called a "free market economy." If you view that as evil, try moving to a communist nation. They're the antithesis of capitalism. Should be right up your alley.

 

I already read your definition, SO THERE ISN'T A NEED TO TYPE LIKE THIS, BECAUSE I WAS GOING TO READ WHAT YOU HAD TO SAY ANYWAY.

Imperialism is a policy of exerting effective and continuing control or authority over foreign entities as a means of acquisition and/or maintenance of empires. This is either through direct territorial conquest or settlement, or through indirect methods of influencing or controling the politics and/or economy.

I already mentioned to you on the first damn page of this thread that I knew Imperialism also applies to attempting to control other countries via politics. And what in the hell is with people's obsession with accusing the USA of controlling/attempting to control other countries? Unless the government is a threat to us, then we won't have an quarrel with them.

 

Then why do you keep on refering that America is not taking over countries, so that mean they cant be imperalstic. If you understand imperalism, then you would understand that just because America doesnt go in and take over a country that is doesnt mean they arent a imperalstic empire.

 

Because, in just about every case i have heard, anyone who referrs to the United States being and imperialistic country tries to convince me that we are attempting to take over other countries militarily. I haven't heard one person who tried to tell me that the US is attempting to ecnomically/politically attempting to take over another country.

 

there were accusations of fixed elections, so many (here atleast) didn't consider Sadaam to be legitimately elected. Reasons for this are mostly derived from fairly disproportionate representation of demographs and harsh punishments for political dissenters, though again worldwide, no groups is every equally represented, but the argument is mute when put into perspective

though considering the USes last two presidential elections... not really fixed but certainly imperfect, definite room for error

though I'm sure that as it is now, The US does have a bit more leeway on iraqs implementation of policy than it should.

 

What he's referring to is this "modern" imperialism that you bring up, where a nation attempts to gain influence, power, or some other form of benefit from other nations. It's thrown around a lot by the leftists, people like Chavez (I have a missionary friend down there that says she had "Vote against imperialism! Vote for Chavez" spraypainted on their American compound down there). A nation is powerful enough to be an influence in other nations; that nation can be a large market for goods that another nation posesses, it could be a trading partner, it could be a military ally. The thing is, Machaivelli, that the host nation first needs to accept it and allow it before anything else. What's the good in me telling a person to shut up if he or she doesn't listen?

 

Good, let them "Anti-US" us. We don't need those ingrates in our country nor do we need to receive foreign ----. Boycott the -------s, let them eat each other when they run out of resources. I wish Israel would stop making connections with us too. That's one less place to worry about now. Don't worry, the U.S. will still make it's money, the ZOG have always found a way.

 

Im iranian so listen up.

I just want to say the leader of iran is crazy. he is stupid etc and much more. Most of the iranians arent like him now i mean like maybe 0,01 % of the iran poupluation thinks like him or even less the rest of us are normal people but you have to say this almost all countries hate america.

 

Good, let them all hate us, they can get the ---- out of the country too. We don't need excess baggage in the U.S. anymore. Americans are getting tired of it.