US Military's Knee on the Throat of the World

[Toddsterpatriot]

Two people in the State Department discussing the situation in Ukraine and what would be best for the United States in that situation. GOOD. That's their job! Its not an intervention. Nuland don't charge into Yanukovych's house forcing him to leave. Yanukovych was forced out by the Ukrainian people. The United States was critical of the human rights abuses of Yanukovych and they he treated people who were protesting his regime.

It's ironic how the US is only critical of "human rights abuses" in countries it perceives as threatening to its national interests and not to loyal allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia.

The US meddling in Ukraine in 2014 didn't rise to the same level as US interference in Russian's 1996 presidential election, but it was still instrumental in the violence that followed.

America's Ukraine Hypocrisy

"Washington’s conduct not only constituted meddling, it bordered on micromanagement.

"At one point, Pyatt mentioned the complex dynamic among the three principal opposition leaders, Yatsenyuk, Oleh Tyahnybok, and Vitali Klitschko.

"Both Pyatt and Nuland wanted to keep Tyahnybok and Klitschko out of an interim government.

"In the former case, they worried about his extremist ties; in the latter, they seemed to want him to wait and make a bid for office on a longer‐term basis.

"Nuland stated that 'I don’t think Klitsch should go into the government. I don’t think it’s necessary.' She added that what Yatseniuk needed 'is Klitsch and Tyanhybok on the outside.'"

Still whining because Putin's puppet fled just ahead of the mob?

 

[U2Edge]

That's a constructed fantasy. Yes, Noam Chomsky is a believer. Don't read or listen to Chomsky, at least for a while. Look at the raw data for yourself and then draw your conclusions.

Do you believe Chomsky is misquoting George Kennan in this example:

Containing Internal Aggression

"In the words of George Kennan, the leading dove among early postwar planners, we must put aside 'vague and … unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization,' and be prepared to use violence if necessary to achieve our objectives, not 'hampered by idealistic slogans.'"

When you consider how the US has used violence to advance its interests over the past 75 years from Korea to Indochina to the Middle East, what "raw data" would you suggest consulting to deconstruct Chomsky?

The United States has used military force to preserve global peace and prevent global war on the scale of the previous World Wars. Think of raw data like, the actual number ground combat divisions or ground combat brigades the United States actually has relative to other countries on the planet. Where such divisions and brigades are actually stationed. How the United States and its allies function as societies vs. their enemies. Where would you prefer to live? Under an anti-democratic dictatorship or a western democracy?

 

[georgephillip]

Freedom cost money and you don't seem to want to pay.

Your freedom is being paid for with the lives and livelihoods of millions of refugees world wide.

Middle East Snowstorms Heap Misery on Syrian Refugees

What makes you think you are worth it?

 

[U2Edge]

Freedom cost money and you don't seem to want to pay.

Your freedom is being paid for with the lives and livelihoods of millions of refugees world wide.

Middle East Snowstorms Heap Misery on Syrian Refugees

What makes you think you are worth it?

This boy is living like this because of Assad and Putin, not the United States.

 

[georgephillip]

For 70 years NATO has improved the security of Europe and has only been a threat to those that seek to invade and annex other countries. NATO does not annex other countries territory, that's a move of Hitler's Germany or Putin's Russia.

NATO expansion at the end of the Cold War reminded many Russians of Hitler's treachery.

When Washington Assured Russia NATO Would Not Expand | The American Conservative

"By extension, there was no need for Gorbachev to trouble himself about NATO. The alliance provided 'the mechanism for securing the U.S. presence in Europe,' which, Baker implied, was good for everyone.

"Keeping G.I.s in Europe would prevent Germany from once more becoming a troublemaker, benefiting all parties to include the USSR.

"'We understand,' Baker continued, 'that not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction [emphasis added].'

"Indeed, the proposed U.S. approach to negotiating terms for ending Germany’s division would 'guarantee that Germany’s unification will not lead to NATO’s military organization spreading to the east.'"

 

[georgephillip]

This boy is living like this because of Assad and Putin, not the United States.

The boy's misery stems from the US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

[georgephillip]

You give no responsibility to the Afghani Government for choosing to host and support and protect a terrorist organization that launched a massive attack on the most powerful nation in the world.

15 Saudis launched 911 and their planning and preparation depended on Germany, Florida, and San Diego as much as Afghanistan.

Which country launched the most recent terror network in Afghanistan?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planning_of_the_September_11_attacks#Background

"Background[edit]

"Al-Qaeda's origins date back to 1979 when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan.[1]

"Soon after the invasion, Osama bin Laden traveled to Afghanistan and helped organize Arab mujahideen.

"Together with Abdullah Azzam, a Palestinian-Jordanian who influenced bin Laden, they formed Maktab al-Khidamat (MAK) in 1984, to provide support for Arab mujahideen who came to join the jihad in Afghanistan."

 

[georgephillip]

Both those wars had valid national security reasons. Your premise that because some people make money while wars are ongoing, that that means those people are in charge and/or that those wars are because of those people is unsupported lazy marxist garbage.

Wars of aggression are illegal under international law, not that venal capitalist gangsters are inclined to care:

https://www.cpa.org.au/peace/us-wars-of-aggression.pdf

"United States’ foreign policy has never been driven by a devotion to any kind of morality, but by the necessity to: ! make the world safe for investment by American corporations; ! enrich US armaments corporations who contribute generously to Congress members; ! prevent the development of any society which becomes an example of an independent alternative to the capitalist model; ! extend its political and economic control over as much of the globe as possible."

 

[georgephillip]

Collateral damage is not normally considered genocide. That was you lying to hide your support of communism despite it's massive history of genocide.

Collateral damage implies unintended damage to civilians and non-military infrastructure; how does any empire kill millions of civilians unintendedly?

Industrial scale war guarantees civilians casualties, and those who are indifferent to mass murder parrot their patriotic party line.

 

[georgephillip]

It was primarily the Daughters of the Confederacy that put up the statues.

Jim Crow was a set of laws passed by, mostly democrats mandating discrimination against blacks.

Both the Daughters of the Confederacy and Jim Crow Democrats were staunch believers in white supremacy.

Are you?

 

[georgephillip]

Some isolated tribes might have had long periods of peace and good for them. But it was not because they did not have private wealth, but because they were very lucky in their neighbors, or lack of them.

In fact, it was because they had no private wealth due to an absence of economic surplus in pre-civilized cultures.

The 8 Main Reasons for War

"Eight Main Causes of War

1. Economic Gain
2. Territorial Gain
3. Religion
4. Nationalism
5. Revenge
6. Civil War
7. Revolutionary War
8. Defensive War"

 

[georgephillip]

you hate America today and wish nothing but bad things for this country till prople of color are the ruling majority

Fair enough

I think that is quite wrong but you are entitled to your opinion

That's not my opinion.
Slavery was one manifestation of white supremacy that's no longer tolerated in this country; there are many others still in existence

Globalisation is dead, and white supremacy has triumphed | Paul Mason

 

[U2Edge]

For 70 years NATO has improved the security of Europe and has only been a threat to those that seek to invade and annex other countries. NATO does not annex other countries territory, that's a move of Hitler's Germany or Putin's Russia.

NATO expansion at the end of the Cold War reminded many Russians of Hitler's treachery.

When Washington Assured Russia NATO Would Not Expand | The American Conservative

"By extension, there was no need for Gorbachev to trouble himself about NATO. The alliance provided 'the mechanism for securing the U.S. presence in Europe,' which, Baker implied, was good for everyone.

"Keeping G.I.s in Europe would prevent Germany from once more becoming a troublemaker, benefiting all parties to include the USSR.

"'We understand,' Baker continued, 'that not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction [emphasis added].'

"Indeed, the proposed U.S. approach to negotiating terms for ending Germany’s division would 'guarantee that Germany’s unification will not lead to NATO’s military organization spreading to the east.'"

An interesting idea discussed, but never formalized in any treaty. Ultimately, NATO's expansion eastward has been to everyone's benefit. NATO has always been a defensive Alliance, and has strict requirements for a country to meet in order to join the Alliance.

Ask the following countries if they think NATO expansion eastward was a good thing:

Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Poland
Czech Republic
Slovakia
Hungary
Romania
Bulgaria
Slovenia
Croatia
Bosnia
Kosovo
Montenegro
North Macedonia
Albania
Moldova
Ukraine
Georgia

I think its clear that the majority of countries in Eastern Europe love NATO and are happy about its expansion Eastward. Most of them are members of Alliance or want to be members of the Alliance. Out of the 197 countries on planet earth, there is really only One Country that has expressed opposition to NATO expansion Eastward and surprisingly it has been rather inconsistent in doing so. Its only been with Russian under Putin, that serious opposition has been expressed, and not until 2007/2008 time frame. Before that Russia did not really care in terms of their actions and what they said.

NATO has nearly 1 out of 6 of the planets countries as members of the Alliance. Most countries around the world either support the NATO Alliance or are friendly to it.

 

[U2Edge]

This boy is living like this because of Assad and Putin, not the United States.

The boy's misery stems from the US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Boy is in Syria. The problems in Syria arose from the Arab Spring in late 2010 after a man in Tunisia set himself on fire in protest to the abuse he was receiving. The videos and pictures blew up on social media and then within weeks you have protest all across the Arab world. While Iraq borders Syria, by 2011 it was relatively stable in terms of the level of violence. U.S. troops left Iraq at the end of 2011. It was problems in Syria, stemming from the Arab Spring and Assads crackdown on protesters that created a civil War in Syria. This later spilled over into Iraq in 2014 and the United States was forced to return to Iran in August 2014 to aid the Iraqi government.

Syria was stable and peaceful from September 2001 until March 2011. The U.S. invasions in Afghanistan and Iraq had no impact on Syria as demonstrated by that fact.

 

[Mac-7]

you hate America today and wish nothing but bad things for this country till prople of color are the ruling majority

Fair enough

I think that is quite wrong but you are entitled to your opinion

That's not my opinion.
Slavery was one manifestation of white supremacy that's no longer tolerated in this country; there are many others still in existence

Globalisation is dead, and white supremacy has triumphed | Paul Mason

no, there is only hate and resentment for white people by lefty losers

 

[Correll]

You give no responsibility to the Afghani Government for choosing to host and support and protect a terrorist organization that launched a massive attack on the most powerful nation in the world.

15 Saudis launched 911 and their planning and preparation depended on Germany, Florida, and San Diego as much as Afghanistan.

Which country launched the most recent terror network in Afghanistan?
....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planning_of_the_September_11_attacks#Background

....

Correct, the actual terrorists were saudi. That does not address my point about the government of Afghanistan making the choice to host them in their country.

OR, actually my point was about how you give other people a pass for their actions, while giving all responsibility for all results to America.


Which, you just did again.



Because you are dishonest. About your motives and your goals. And really, everything.


You are a traitorous anti-American commie, who would support genocide against his own people, in the name of your ideology.

 

[Correll]

Both those wars had valid national security reasons. Your premise that because some people make money while wars are ongoing, that that means those people are in charge and/or that those wars are because of those people is unsupported lazy marxist garbage.

Wars of aggression are illegal under international law, not that venal capitalist gangsters are inclined to care:

....

We were discussing two specific wars, actually many, and you cut the wars we were discussing to throw a gish gallop of shit against a wall to distract from your inability to support your position.


YOu are dishonest and everything you say is a lie. YOu hate America for some reason you do not wish to share.

 

[Correll]

Collateral damage is not normally considered genocide. That was you lying to hide your support of communism despite it's massive history of genocide.

Collateral damage implies unintended damage to civilians and non-military infrastructure; how does any empire kill millions of civilians unintendedly?

Industrial scale war guarantees civilians casualties, and those who are indifferent to mass murder parrot their patriotic party line.

1. Calling the system of alliance the US has, an "empire" is spin. Spin is what you do, when you know your case is weak as shit, and you are trying to win the debate dishonestly.


2. Collateral damage happens when large armies fight each other. YOu know how it happens. Your question is frankly so stupid as to be an insult to the intelligence of the readers.


3. Industrial scale war does guarantee civilian casualties. Which is why we should be hesitant to do it. It that was your point, I would agree with it. THat does not justify your attempt to conflate it with "genocide" so that you can smear America, you anti-American commie.

4. YOur final phrase, is just nonsense, where all you did was put the words "patriotic" and "mass murder" in the same sentence as though that made some sort of point. Again, two dots, no actual attempt to connect them.

 

[Correll]

It was primarily the Daughters of the Confederacy that put up the statues.

Jim Crow was a set of laws passed by, mostly democrats mandating discrimination against blacks.

Both the Daughters of the Confederacy and Jim Crow Democrats were staunch believers in white supremacy.

...

They might have been. That does not mean that they did not put up statues to their fathers, as part of the normal process of familiar and civic pride that generally leads to statues and memorials.


YOur attempt to define them by what is so important to you, now, is just you being an arrogant prick.


That you try to turn it personal, is just the normal lefty dishonest wace baiting propaganda tactics employed by vile evil lefty assholes all the time.

 

[Correll]

Some isolated tribes might have had long periods of peace and good for them. But it was not because they did not have private wealth, but because they were very lucky in their neighbors, or lack of them.

In fact, it was because they had no private wealth due to an absence of economic surplus in pre-civilized cultures.
...

1. An interesting and radical claim. If you really believed it, the next step would have been supporting it. Instead you leapt from that unsupported assertion to make even more unsupported assertions. This is the way people "Debate" when they know their case is complete shit.

2. Why do you hold to an ideology, that you know is complete shit? All I can gather from your words and actions here, is that you have a deep, emotion based hate of America and a love of the ideology of communism to the point that you don't mind the way it always seems to lead to terrible oppression and genocide.


3. But, you won't share any honest reasons for why you have sided with evil.