For some

[Arcades057]

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10790

[EvilNed]

Yes, torture, racism and censorship are things unheard of in the west.

[coma]

God Bless Ronald Reagan who single handedly saved the world from the Red Menace!
:)

It is an interesting article, goofing aside. Its nice that democracy grows around the world, though its seems to be doing the opposite here.

[Khardis]

Yes, torture, racism and censorship are things unheard of in the west.

I wouldnt say unheard of, but theyre definatly not the bread and butter of what our government is and does. Unlike the Red scum.

[Arcades057]

The thing you should take from that article is that many new democracies grew during the last years of the 20th century. They began to grow during Reagan's administration. Take from that what you will.

Don't be mad because communism doesn't work; learn something FFS. :rolleyes:

[EvilNed]

I wouldnt say unheard of, but theyre definatly not the bread and butter of what our government is and does. Unlike the Red scum.

I'm a socialist. I live in a socialist country. I can guarantee you our goverment has conducted less torture (none, as a matter of fact) and less surveillance of our own people than the current goverment of the USA.

[Arcades057]

Where do you live? If it's England, you are flat out wrong.

If it is anywhere else in the "free" world (living in a socialist country, the word free loses much of its meaning) then your country does not have to resort to these things, because you have the UK and the US to do them for you. WE are the ones who do the dirty work so those "free" countries can be safe and sit around and pass judgment on us. We are happy to do the work for you.

But please, don't get all high and mighty about it. :)

[EvilNed]

I live in Sweden, and god yes, we've always relied on the US. If it weren't for them, then the Iraqi and Afghani would surely have launched a full scale invasion of our lands years ago.

I'm so ****ing tired of Americans (and yes, I AM an american) trying to justify their pathetic wars in South America, South East Asia and Iraq by saying they're defending freedom. You're not! South America did not pose a threat to us during the 80's. How the heck was the US defending MY freedom back then? Iraq posed jack squat of a threat to Europe or the free world, yet the US intervened and said "Hey, we're doing this for YOU". That's bull****, and thousands of civilians are suffering for it.

And it's obvious you don't know very much about socialism. Now go vote for your movie star governors or phone-tapping, prisoner torturing presidents. I'm not saying you don't have the right to torture, because quite frankly the US is ****ed up and beyond redemption. But americans need to cool their **** down and stop acting as if their country is the most "free" and most "just". It isn't.

[Arcades057]

*sigh* the sad thing is that you probably consider yourself educated, and that response well thought out.

If you honestly don't think America stopped communism in south America for freedom, and that we went to war against terrorists for freedom, then what's the use of continuing the debate? :rolleyes:

Now go give up %46 of you paycheck and wait 6 months in line for a doctor's visit. You left America for your reasons; but then again, some idiot just lit himself on fire for his own, so I guess there are freaks everywhere.

[EvilNed]

Considering you pretty much gave up on defending the US' actions, I'd consider my points spot on.

In South America, the US didn't really "stop" communism as much as bomb villages, torch civilians and support anti-communist guerilla bands that would rape, torture and kill those that opposed them. Then the US would install a puppet dictator (Yeah, that's true freedom) that would run the country their way. Alot of countries in South America had a functioning educational and trade system worked out. Then came the US bombings and dropped them right back to the stone age.

Imagine if some communist country did that to your home Arcades. Would you LIKE that? But I guess it's alright if it's all done in the name of capitalism eh? (Because it certainly wasn't done in the name of freedom)

Oh, and last time I checked, we had a better health system than yours. A better educational system and, guess what, a higher living standard. Now go learn some history about what actually happened in South America in the 80's and realize that in alot of cases it was definetly up there with Hitler and Stalin.

Ps. I wanted to go see a doctor in the beginning of december. My appointment was within 24 hours.

[strayrider]

In South America, the US didn't really "stop" communism as much as bomb villages, torch civilians and support anti-communist guerilla bands that would rape, torture and kill those that opposed them.

Ned, I believe you're thinkng of Central America -- Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Panama being the specific countries -- not South America.

I think "you" might be refering to Operation Condor which happened in South America but, as far as I know, US warplanes were not involved there. If you have information to the contrary, please post it.

-stray-

[EvilNed]

Ned, I believe you're thinkng of Central America -- Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Panama being the specific countries -- not South America.

No, Central America it is. You're right.

[coma]

Considering you pretty much gave up on defending the US' actions, I'd consider my points spot on.

In South America, the US didn't really "stop" communism as much as bomb villages, torch civilians and support anti-communist guerilla bands that would rape, torture and kill those that opposed them. Then the US would install a puppet dictator (Yeah, that's true freedom) that would run the country their way. Alot of countries in South America had a functioning educational and trade system worked out. Then came the US bombings and dropped them right back to the stone age.

Imagine if some communist country did that to your home Arcades. Would you LIKE that? But I guess it's alright if it's all done in the name of capitalism eh? (Because it certainly wasn't done in the name of freedom)

Oh, and last time I checked, we had a better health system than yours. A better educational system and, guess what, a higher living standard. Now go learn some history about what actually happened in South America in the 80's and realize that in alot of cases it was definetly up there with Hitler and Stalin.

Ps. I wanted to go see a doctor in the beginning of december. My appointment was within 24 hours.

If you have no isurance alot of doctors and clinics wont see you. If you need a specialist (without insurance) you have to wait weeks for an appointment to a doctor you dont really need to see to get a referal to a clinic that takes up to 6 months. I had to go to the emergency room to get an expidited referal (the fact that they though I had a brain tumor wasnt eough). My expidited appt. was 6 weeks. Total time about 2 months. Total Bill THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS for ONE visit. In anybodys judgment that sucks balls. We already pay 33 percent in taxes approx. Whats another 10+ percent to never, ever have to worry (or actually) go completley and permently destitute from medical bills?
Most of that tax money goes to fund a bunch of weapond we will never use under any circumsatances (stealth fighter anyone?) to fight wars we will never have or have no reason to have. I would like to see a return on my investment for a change.

As far as El Salvador, a right wing death squad fascist regime was totally in place because of American Support and weaponry. They would never have lasted at all if not for that. They had zero popular support. If they want to be leftist, let them. If it benefits them they will not illegally immigrate here. Its so obvious I dont know why people cant see that.
Alot of the 80s interference was primarily in central and carribean America, but there was plenty of it in South America in the 70s.

[EvilNed]

If you have no isurance alot of doctors and clinics wont see you.

Where is that, the UK? Because in Sweden they don't even ask if you have one. As long as you cough up the bill afterwards, they'll see you.

If anyone should criticize Sweden, it's basicly pretty hard to do. There isn't alot that's wrong here. But the unemployment rate is relatively high compared to some other countries. There's some numbers out there (probably exagerated) that states that around 80% of the youth is unemployed. To me, I wouldn't be surprised. For a teenager and get a job in Sweden you have to have connections. I know lots of teens who have jobs. But only about 5% of those guys got their jobs by APPLYING to them.

Off topic, but I just wanted to let off some steam against Sweden too.


As far as El Salvador, a right wing death squad fascist regime was totally in place because of American Support and weaponry. They would never have lasted at all if not for that. They had zero popular support. If they want to be leftist, let them. If it benefits them they will not illegally immigrate here. Its so obvious I dont know why people cant see that.
Alot of the 80s interference was primarily in central and carribean America, but there was plenty of it in South America in the 70s.

Alot of death squads and dictators were placed as puppets by the US. Alot of atrocities and war crimes happened because of that.

[coma]

Where is that, the UK? Because in Sweden they don't even ask if you have one. As long as you cough up the bill afterwards, they'll see you.

If anyone should criticize Sweden, it's basicly pretty hard to do. There isn't alot that's wrong here. But the unemployment rate is relatively high compared to some other countries. There's some numbers out there (probably exagerated) that states that around 80% of the youth is unemployed. To me, I wouldn't be surprised. For a teenager and get a job in Sweden you have to have connections. I know lots of teens who have jobs. But only about 5% of those guys got their jobs by APPLYING to them.

I live in America. You can tell by the phrase "if you have NO insurance". At least as far as "industrialized nations" go, it's the only one where that happens.
In the US it's hard for kids to get jobs too. The low level jobs like Dishwasher (one of my early jobs) are now held by immigrants.
Getting a job isnt too hard, but a GOOD job you often have to know someone.

[strayrider]

We already pay 33 percent in taxes approx. Whats another 10+ percent to never, ever have to worry (or actually) go completley and permently destitute from medical bills?

Another 10% + would be around 43% in taxes, not including what we already pay in sales tax. I say eliminate income taxes completely and go to a Fair Tax system.


Most of that tax money goes to fund a bunch of weapond we will never use under any circumsatances (stealth fighter anyone?) to fight wars we will never have or have no reason to have.

In my opinion the only thing taxes should be used for are education (reading, writing, and 'rithmetic only) maintaining highways and roads, police and fire services, and national defense. Certainly pay a token wage to politicians, but limit them to two terms in office. Dump everything else.

And, BTW, the Stealth Fighter has been used in combat.

:D

-stray-

[Arcades057]

Oh God, I just spent a good 30 minutes replying and my damn computer lost it. :mad: :mad:

Here's the gist of it:

Destabilization of the USSR during the Cold War, EvilNed. Learn about it.

Communism WAS the tool of the uneducated, poor peasants; now it's become chic for rich, educated people for some reason. Someday the kids and the liberals will likely become Nazis, which will be a step up, seeing as Nazis were responsible for 60 million deaths (total death count in WWII) and the Soviet Union itself was responsible for over 100 million due to pogroms and starvation and the like.

Ned, don't disregard the things America has done for the world. Name another country that has gone to war the number of times America has on other countries' shores not for conquest. Sorry, WWI and WWII were to liberate countries; so was Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan, and Iraq. It'll be the same when we go to Iran and Sweden. That's right, you've just been added to the Axis of evil. We need more Swedish chicks here in the US.

Now you learn this: Total combat deaths inflicted by US soldiers against Vietnamese civilians in the war. And then the total deaths inflicted by the Communists AFTER the US left. That's just a little bit. You could then look at the historical data of deaths caused by interim Communist regimes around the world to better understand why we went to war against springing Leftist regimes around the world, and why we no longer need to after the fall of the Soviet Union.

In life, Ned, there really is black and white, good and evil, but the US is most usually on the side of good. During the Cold War we were the only country in the world that would stand up to the Soviet Union. Where was Sweden? When terrorists decided to goafter freedom to scare the rest of the world, why did they not attack Sweden? When a country is in trouble somewhere in the world, why does not the international community plead with Sweden for aid?

Now you'll say "but our schools are so much better." Remember who controls the education in America. The Left.

"Our doctors are better." Yeah, that's why everyone in America is rushing to fly to Sweden for major surgery.

"Our living standard is higher." Doubtful. Your adopted country has less people, that means fewer poor. It also has less wealthy. Your adopted country also has fewer poor immigrants sneaking in or coming legally. You're adopted country also has an entitlement society (if I'm not mistaken) which means cradle-to-grave care and money. We have a lower unemployment rate. We also have most of the wealthiest people in the world living here. Most of them (Gates, the Waltons, Ted Turner just for a few) made their money here by their own work.

The rest of the post was basically making fun of people who would brag about being taken care of by the government, but I'm too tired to retype it all, and on second thought, it really doesn't add anything to the argument.

And no, Ned, if someone came here and bombed my town for Communism, I doubt I'd be happy. But if Russia came here and bombed police stations and court houses in an attempt to fix the prejudiced and rigged judicial system, I'd be cheering them on and joining the infantry when they got here. If my neighbor's house got bombed, I'd be cool with it, as it's for the greater good. If mine got bombed and I died... well then there's not really more to worry about, is there? If my family died, I'd be pissed, but again, greater good. Ask the Vietnamese how they liked the arrival of the Communists... The ones that survived, I mean.

[coma]

Communism WAS the tool of the uneducated, poor peasants; now it's become chic for rich, educated people for some reason. Someday the kids and the liberals will likely become Nazis, which will be a step up, seeing as Nazis were responsible for 60 million deaths (total death count in WWII) and the Soviet Union itself was responsible for over 100 million due to pogroms and starvation and the like.

Ned, don't disregard the things America has done for the world. Name another country that has gone to war the number of times America has on other countries' shores not for conquest. Sorry, WWI and WWII were to liberate countries; so was Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan, and Iraq. It'll be the same when we go to Iran and Sweden. That's right, you've just been added to the Axis of evil. We need more Swedish chicks here in the US.

Now you learn this: Total combat deaths inflicted by US soldiers against Vietnamese civilians in the war. And then the total deaths inflicted by the Communists AFTER the US left. That's just a little bit. You could then look at the historical data of deaths caused by interim Communist regimes around the world to better understand why we went to war against springing Leftist regimes around the world, and why we no longer need to after the fall of the Soviet Union.

In life, Ned, there really is black and white, good and evil, but the US is most usually on the side of good. During the Cold War we were the only country in the world that would stand up to the Soviet Union. Where was Sweden? When terrorists decided to goafter freedom to scare the rest of the world, why did they not attack Sweden? When a country is in trouble somewhere in the world, why does not the international community plead with Sweden for aid?

Now you'll say "but our schools are so much better." Remember who controls the education in America. The Left.

"Our doctors are better." Yeah, that's why everyone in America is rushing to fly to Sweden for major surgery.

"Our living standard is higher." Doubtful. Your adopted country has less people, that means fewer poor. It also has less wealthy. Your adopted country also has fewer poor immigrants sneaking in or coming legally. You're adopted country also has an entitlement society (if I'm not mistaken) which means cradle-to-grave care and money. We have a lower unemployment rate. We also have most of the wealthiest people in the world living here. Most of them (Gates, the Waltons, Ted Turner just for a few) made their money here by their own work.

The rest of the post was basically making fun of people who would brag about being taken care of by the government, but I'm too tired to retype it all, and on second thought, it really doesn't add anything to the argument.

And no, Ned, if someone came here and bombed my town for Communism, I doubt I'd be happy. But if Russia came here and bombed police stations and court houses in an attempt to fix the prejudiced and rigged judicial system, I'd be cheering them on and joining the infantry when they got here. If my neighbor's house got bombed, I'd be cool with it, as it's for the greater good. If mine got bombed and I died... well then there's not really more to worry about, is there? If my family died, I'd be pissed, but again, greater good. Ask the Vietnamese how they liked the arrival of the Communists... The ones that survived, I mean.

The blood bath after the US left Nam had much more to do with the Civil War than with Communism. Ho had his own brand of communism and didnt go fo the forced collective farming and relocation.
The Communist party was formed to purge Nam of foreign occupiers that they had battled and repeatedly won for 1000 years. The south was viewed as traitors who sided with a foriegn govt over the interests of it's own people so they purged all the U.S. sympathizers and a whole lot of others becasue of the nature of a protracted civil war.
If Ho would've took over there would've been no purges and Viet Nam would've remained much the same as it would've been without foreign interference. Purges wasn't Ho's style. His opinion was that Vietnam was already a proletarian agrarina society. It would've been a reasonably balanced state without the bougouis (spelling?) influence of the imperialtistic U.S..
The U.S. was not fighting for freedom in Viet Nam. The soldiers may have been, but not Nixon. He could give a crap about freedom.
You're argument would've been more effective if you focused on the USSR and left out the Nam connection becasue it doesn't fit.

Democratic Socialism is not communism and it doesn't lead to communism. It certainly isn't Nazism. That is totally left field. Though Communism and Nazis meet in the bottom of the ideology circle.

And very few people believe Iraq has anything to do with "freedom". It's something else. I can't say specifically what because it's too close but it smells bad.
The U.S. has helped alot of good things for alot of people, but misguided and blind ideology has led the U.S. to do a lot of bad meddlng also. to ignore that is to be blind to the facts.

The US killed over a million civilians (from a poplulation that was maybe 6 million tops) by many accounts in Vietnam for a war that was none of their buisness. They consider that a holocaust for them and I can't blame them.

Not only that Vietnam invaded another country for the 1st time when they invaded Cambodia to stop Pol Pots genocide which was made possible by Nixons interference . So the US isn't the only country to fight for justice. If Communism was monlithic they would've left it alone or set up a puppet regime. They did neither. The stabilized then left.

Yes, Scandanavian countries(sorry if I am naming the area wrong) do often have a general higher standing of living. Many super rich people have no impact positicely on the great 99 percent of average people. It means nothing for the general welfare. If the average person has a decent job at a fair wagr and doesnt live check to check they are doing better. The US has great points an all but that doent mean other countries cant do some things better or at least as good. If Swedem doesntt spend all it;s money meddling in other countries they would naturally have a buttload of cash for social programs that benefit everyone

Does the left really control eucation? Seems like beaureaucrtas to me with no agenda other than keeping their jobs.


Another 10% + would be around 43% in taxes, not including what we already pay in sales tax. I say eliminate income taxes completely and go to a Fair Tax system.
....
And, BTW, the Stealth Fighter has been used in combat.

Thats why I put the plus. I was too lazy to do the 4th grade math:)

When was the stealth fighter used? Bosnia? to spend multi billions on something used a handful of times is still a monumental waste

[EvilNed]

Arcades, no offense, but you've got pretty much 50% of America's History wrong. Patriotism style.

None of the wars in Central America was about "freeing countries" as they were about protecting interests. If Iraq didn't have oil, you think the US would be there now? They'd probably be pissed at the Iraqis, but they sure as heck wouldn't be invading.

Saudi Arabia. Invade that country then. Oh, forgot, they're on friendly terms with the US and will trade their oil. No need to invade them, even though they are just as bad as Iraq on the human rights issue!

As for Vietnam, the US didn't have any interest in their freedom whatsoever. Infact, the war started as a colonial war, and the US thought they would help out the former oppressors of the country: The French. It eventually evolved into a big slice of the cold war, but fact is there were no good and bad guys in Vietnam. There were bad and bad guys, and the US were bad.

And have you ever been to Sweden? Tell me, what do you know of Sweden. I bet you I know a heck of alot more about the US than you do about Sweden considering I've spent alot of time in BOTH countries. The US is ripe with misery and poor. Remember New Orleans? Something like that would right out be impossible in Sweden.

We have fewer poor people yes. But remember, relatively we ALSO have a ****LOAD of less poor people. Living standard in Sweden is great. In the US? Not so great.

As for your "Most rich people live in America" jig, that's a pretty dumb argument considering you just right out said that more people LIVE in america. America is unfortunetly becoming more and more like Brazil or Argentina where you have 10% of the people owning 80% of the wealth, and 90% of the people can split the rest.

Illegal immigrants? Sweden does NOT have problem with illegal immigrants? Haha. Man, do some reading man. The difference is, I guess, that we take care of ours instead of acting as if we own the land we stole in the first place.

[strayrider]

The US killed over a million civilians (from a poplulation that was maybe 6 million tops) by many accounts in Vietnam for a war that was none of their buisness. They consider that a holocaust for them and I can't blame them.

The actual number of civilians killed in Viet Nam is debatable. Most agree on a number between 300,000 and 550,000, and these people were not all killed by American troops during combat operations. Most that were killed by US forces were "collateral damage" unavoidable in war.

The NVA and Viet Cong, on the other hand, killed civilians as a matter of intimidation and coercion.


When was the stealth fighter used?

Operation Desert Storm, Operation Allied Force (Yugoslavia), and during the invasion of Iraq in 2003.


to spend multi billions on something used a handful of times is still a monumental waste

I don't agree. Weapons systems can exist, be used lightly or not at all, and still act as a deterrent against aggression.

-stray-

[EvilNed]

I don't agree. Weapons systems can exist, be used lightly or not at all, and still act as a deterrent against aggression.

-stray-

Wouldn't be alot cheaper and probably just as effective to just bluff everyone else and say that "Yeah, we have those things."?

I mean, that seems like a really poor argument to actually spend billions on dollars on a weapons system that is gonna sit and rust anyway.

[_liam_]

lol...and so the age old hpotd US vs the world argument kicks off again, and as usual everyone is kinda both wrong & right, mindlessly waving their own region's flags whilst accusing the other of doing the exact same thing.

i'm going to try and boil this down to as blunt as set of points as possible.

yes, america did some unethical titting about in places like chile, el salvador, vietnam whatever. but they have also brought peace to the world in many ways. THEY became the major power in the world, quite frankly, who would you rather? my country?! america COULD establish an empire and rule the world with an iron fist if they wanted, they have much better weapons & PR than the british empire, so why not?

they wont because, as crappy as their foreign policy & incompetent as their leaders may be, they are essentially good guys.

socialism is not innately bad, although stalin, lenin and mao undoubtedly mistreated their people. it's simply too idealistic a system to work on a grand scale, and has to be enforced rather brutally to keep functioning.
if you disagree, which are the two most famous/longest running communist governments? china & cuba - and dont tell me theyre all fair game & kittens n sunshine. they are dictatorships, with appalling human rights records.

also enough bashing european healthcare. if you dont live here then you can't really comment anymore than you can about whether there's life on mars.
cant speak for all of the EU, but in the UK at least if you have money you can go private and will be seen straight away, if you dont, well, i phoned up the hospital the other day (about 4pm) and asked for an ECG, and i had one at 10am the next morning.

anyway dont you have to pay for any hospital treatment in america? sorry if that isnt true and i'm talking bollocks, but if it is that's disgusting, it's a basic human right.

[coma]

anyway dont you have to pay for any hospital treatment in america? sorry if that isnt true and i'm talking bollocks, but if it is that's disgusting, it's a basic human right.
Yea, it's true. Not only that but they charge you waaay nmore if you dont have insurance. For example; an emergency room visit costs 1500 to an insurance company and 3500 to one with no insurance (just approx to give the idea). Its true. I got a 75 dollar charge for alcohol (!?!?). thats like the Govt 400 dollar toilet seat.
The US system totally sucks. It is not a right, it is a commodity and that just blows.

[strayrider]

Wouldn't be alot cheaper and probably just as effective to just bluff everyone else and say that "Yeah, we have those things."?

Actually, Ronald Reagan did that very thing with SDI. While we certainly did spend a great deal of cash for R&D on a system that was never actually deployed, the Soviets realized that they could never match us in the "tech war" arena and basically folded. Plus, a great deal of information was gathered from this project and used in other areas, so the monies spent were not a waste.


I mean, that seems like a really poor argument to actually spend billions on dollars on a weapons system that is gonna sit and rust anyway.

The F117 Stealth Fighter is not sitting and rusting. It is in active service.

As for the billions of dollars -- they are a drop in the bucket for a Nation that has a GNP in the trillions. Shoot, Ned, we have so much money here in America that we send out billions in aid to other countries (and most of those ingrates still hate us).

"Give us some money or we will hate you. Now forgive our debt or we will hate you even more. Now give us some more money or we will hate you further still."

It's tough being the big dog. Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

:D

-stray-

[EvilNed]

I'm not anti-US Liam, but right now I'm only pointing out the suck ass thing the US has done. There's alot of great stuff going on the US, but I feel no need to be democraticly popular and say "This sucks, sucks, sucks, sucks, but hey this thing over here is kinda cool" just to be a good PR guy. :p

Anyway, I'm mostly discussing foreign politics of the US. And I can't find much good there.




Shoot, Ned, we have so much money here in America that we send out billions in aid to other countries (and most of those ingrates still hate us).

Maybe that has a little thing to do with US' tendancy to **** up countries wholesale...? Does that sound like "good guys"?

The US aren't good guys. They're not essentially "good guys". Nobody is. The US might treat it's own people ALOT better than China does, but it treats other people like ****. They've got the right ideologies, but do all the wrong stuff. Ronald Reagan is a prime example. Central America is a prime example. Remember Chile? Probably not, I think most americans want to forget about that.

[_liam_]

yeh the chile thing was out of order, its disgusting to sod up a country basically for some cheap copper. i agree with you that nobody is a good guy per se, but i think the good aspects of america outweigh the bad, and if you tot their deeds up in a kinda hedonic calculus fashion, i think they come out on top of other nations.

prepared to be proved wrong though, it wasnt an easy conclusion to come to, and for years i thought the 68th empire was pretty much evil

[EvilNed]

yeh the chile thing was out of order, its disgusting to sod up a country basically for some cheap copper. i agree with you that nobody is a good guy per se, but i think the good aspects of america outweigh the bad, and if you tot their deeds up in a kinda hedonic calculus fashion, i think they come out on top of other nations.

I think that the good deeds abroad are spread relatively thin, but the WW2 war effort was of course great. Then again the US didn't enter until they attacked themselves, so there is an instance where their ideology (in retrospect) was flawed yet their actions were good. Which is much better than the other way around, as it is today.

I would probably hesitate to place the US in the Good Guy pocket, simply because I would have to think about it first. After all, currently the US is a big bully and has been ever since Vietnam. But I'm hoping the winds will change and the stuff will clear.

And I hope nobody gives me a "Yeah, but look at the commies!", because I didn't mention the ****ing commies! They suck in their own right, now get off my back. :p

[Tied2thetracks]

I'm a socialist. I live in a socialist country. I can guarantee you our goverment has conducted less torture (none, as a matter of fact) and less surveillance of our own people than the current goverment of the USA.

A couple of planes into buildings could change that real fast. Every gov is watching its people, it invades privacy but at the same time protects us. Double edge sword.

[EvilNed]

A couple of planes into buildings could change that real fast. Every gov is watching its people, it invades privacy but at the same time protects us. Double edge sword.

Yeah, right. Like the US didn't commit atrocities before all this mess got rolling...

[Arcades057]

Dude, again with the atrocities... EVERY country has at one time or another, in one way or another, committed something that to some would be seen as an atrocity. America has made some bad decisions, but the decisions were made a) in a naive attempt to spread our brand of freedom, b) to resist the spread of another brand of freedom (ie, fascism or communism), or c) to improve the living conditions of the affected or the US.

In all MODERN cases, it can be said the US tried its hardest to limit the amount of civilian casualties, while the US's adversaries went the opposite route, killing any and all they could (9/11, the Madrid bombings, the bombings in England, the Bali bombing, daily bombings in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world). Did we do some pretty bad things in Vietnam? You bet we did; just as we did some pretty rotten things in Germany and Korea, and Japan, and France, and Italy... And, again, what happened when we left Vietnam? 3 million dead, right? (think Cambodia as well as Vietnam).

No, I've never been to Sweden, nor to Europe. I only impart the things I've heard from people who live in Europe or in places with socialized medicine. My father's best friend lives in Denmark and I know when he was hit by an airplane propeller he went right into the hospital and surgery... then waited weeks for second appointment (can't remember the exact time, but it was quite a while longer than it would typically take in the US to remove stitches and staples). While the IDEA of free health care does appeal to me, I do not like the idea of higher taxes to pay for it. Even for a "small" increase of %10.

And no offense taken, Ned. It's been a while since I got all political and I'm a bit rusty. A little too busy with work to devote as much time to the debate as I'd like. Enjoy Sweden you lucky goon. How many pigtailed beauties do you see every day?! :rockbrow:

[EvilNed]

Dude, again with the atrocities... EVERY country has at one time or another, in one way or another, committed something that to some would be seen as an atrocity. America has made some bad decisions, but the decisions were made a) in a naive attempt to spread our brand of freedom, b) to resist the spread of another brand of freedom (ie, fascism or communism), or c) to improve the living conditions of the affected or the US.

Or D) To further the economic interests of the USA. Unfortunetly, this is the most active reason for most wars post-Vietnam. And I'm not saying any other country is good, no country is good. Sweden is **** in some areas, just like the US. But that doesn't change the fact that the US is a big creepy greedy steamroller that can and will usually do whatever it takes to further it's economic interests. At least during the last 25 years.

And yeah, the US tries to limit it's atrocities as do most western countries. But there are instances when the US (the UK I don't know) where they just flat out don't care about the civilians. Central America? Chile? They could care less there, they just wanted their money.

The Denmark story you told sounds pretty ****ed up, but it's probably just an isolated incident. I know that it's really no problem to get a doctor's appointment if you need one. As I said earlier, last time I needed one I got one the very next day. The time before that (last year sometime) I can't remember but I pretty much just called and said "Hey, I need you to check me up" and the doctor said Ok and gave me an appointment within the week. I didn't have to wait long at all. And these were at two different places, by the way.

No offense meant on my part either. I'm just critisizing the foreign politics of the US and of the current Rightwing Nut establishment (not saying the Left would have been awhole lot better).

And yes... There's a ****load of hotties in Sweden. Stockholm in particular. :evil:

[strayrider]

After all, currently the US is a big bully and has been ever since Vietnam.

Well, after all, the world does look to the US in times of crisis -- unless we're protecting our own intrests, of course.


Or D) To further the economic interests of the USA.

So?


Unfortunetly, this is the most active reason for most wars post-Vietnam. And I'm not saying any other country is good, no country is good.

Then you should be delighted. Your name is EVILNed after all. Not GOODNed.


But that doesn't change the fact that the US is a big creepy greedy steamroller that can and will usually do whatever it takes to further it's economic interests. At least during the last 25 years.

Capitalism is the way to go. Under the American system, anyone can become filthy rich.


And yeah, the US tries to limit it's atrocities as do most western countries. But there are instances when the US (the UK I don't know) where they just flat out don't care about the civilians. Central America? Chile? They could care less there, they just wanted their money.

Yeah, blood for oil (or copper, or iron), right?

Admittedly, the thing in Chile was primarly econonic in nature, however, American industries had a good deal of cash invested in that country. I don't know how things are in other countries, but in the US, if you lay out the bread you have a right to defend it against someone waltzing in and putting their fingerprints on it.

I'm sure the Socialists would have loved to reap the benenfits of all that American money invested in Chile, but that ain't the way it works.

Now, answer this, Ned, what atrocities, specifically, were commited by US troops in Central America?

None that I can recall. In fact, we allowed refugees from Central America to seek asylum here (lest they be butchered by the Socialists), and under the devil Reagan, these folks become citizens so that they could lead healthy, productive lives.

Dude, you may not like it, I may not like it, but there are few people in the world that wouldn't jump for joy if more money than they could imagine was dumped in their laps. (then, as human nature dictates, they'd try their best to control other people (once they got bored with the party, that is)).

:D

-stray-

[EvilNed]

Well, after all, the world does look to the US in times of crisis -- unless we're protecting our own intrests, of course.

Most of the time, the world looks to the US to clean up the mess they've started.




So?

So US policy sucks and someone should bomb Washington (for economic reasons) and see how they like it.




Then you should be delighted. Your name is EVILNed after all. Not GOODNed.

No, that's my nick name. :p


Admittedly, the thing in Chile was primarly econonic in nature, however, American industries had a good deal of cash invested in that country. I don't know how things are in other countries, but in the US, if you lay out the bread you have a right to defend it against someone waltzing in and putting their fingerprints on it.

No offense, I like you and all. But listen to what you just said. Do you put money over people's lives?


Now, answer this, Ned, what atrocities, specifically, were commited by US troops in Central America?



They installed dozens of puppet dictators, they supported (with cash) gangs of terrorists who would raid and rape villages. When asked why the heck they did this, the US just replied with "It's war, get over it." and turned their back on everyone. Is this "good guy" behavior to you?

[_liam_]

They installed dozens of puppet dictators, they supported (with cash) gangs of terrorists who would raid and rape villages. When asked why the heck they did this, the US just replied with "It's war, get over it." and turned their back on everyone. Is this "good guy" behavior to you?

yeah i dont deny those things happened, but compared to the exploits of say, the british empire, the chinese, the soviets, the germans or the turks, you are good guys, relatively speaking...

[strayrider]

Most of the time, the world looks to the US to clean up the mess they've started.

I should have been more specific in my use of the word "crisis". We've been discussing the various "brush wars" in our previous posts. Hurricanes, floods, famine, volcanos, tidal waves, etc. was my meaning concerning "crisis'".


So US policy sucks and someone should bomb Washington (for economic reasons) and see how they like it.

I'd rather just kick the bums out -- all of them. As I stated in a previous post, I believe all politicians should be limited to two terms in office, then OUT.



No, that's my nick name. :p

Of course you realize that was a tongue-in-cheek joke. ;)




No offense, I like you and all. But listen to what you just said. Do you put money over people's lives?

And I also like you, son, Socialist or not.

I don't place money over peoples lives per se, but I do strongly hold the belief that indivduals, corporate entities and nations have an right to defend their assets against "hostile takeovers".

In the case of Chile, the Socialists decided that all foreign (including US) intrests were theirs for the taking. How arrogant. Did they really believe that the US was just going to sit back and let that happen? Ultimately, it is the Socialists who are to blame for what transpired.


They installed dozens of puppet dictators, they supported (with cash) gangs of terrorists who would raid and rape villages. When asked why the heck they did this, the US just replied with "It's war, get over it." and turned their back on everyone. Is this "good guy" behavior to you?

In the case of Central America, the Soviet Union was spreading its form of Communism into the Western Hemisphere. These were the jolly folks who promised the US that "We will bury you". They installed puppet dictators, they supported (with cash) gangs of terrorists who would raid and rape villages. Their intent was to make Central America an East Bloc clone. Our own Liberal Socialist Democrats here in America thought this was a grand idea.

Unfortunately, for them, the evil Ronald Reagan came upon the scene (and they still gnash their fangs over that one.) And yeah, it was ugly, wars always are, but as time passed, the Commies realized the futility of their efforts and folded, and folded, and folded --the "domino effect" in reverse, and, believe it or not, there was no Central American "Pol Pot" that rose to power in the "void" left behind by the Soviets. As dirty, filthy and rotten as we Americans are, do you think we would have allowed that in our own "backyard"?

Like our boy, Clint Eastwood, once said: "A man ain't nothing if he don't guard his fences. Otherwise he's just a bum."

And we did not turn our back on Central America. We paid for the damage we did (and still pay in the form of aid), and for the damage the Soviets did, like we always do, all for some oil and minerals (which we really DO need, and which we pay for in one form or another).

Now, who would you have rather had win that little bout of "fisticuffs"? Us or them? Sweden doesn't have to worry about the US massing tanks on your border. Would the same be true if the Soviets had "buried us"? (Well, maybe if you did as they said and didn't tick them off, they'd leave you be.)

Now enough of this crazy old bickering. You hate US policy (and I'm not exactly tickled with it myself), so be it.

Please don't come down so hard on us Yanks, our leaders might be a bit funky (and ain't all leaders), but we really are "good guys". You Swedes are too (esp the Johnny Holmes Swedish Erotica series), and the Brits, and the Aussies, and even ... God love 'em ... the French.

-stray-

[Danny]

the french just aint gonna get cut any slack are they?,

[EvilNed]

yeah i dont deny those things happened, but compared to the exploits of say, the british empire, the chinese, the soviets, the germans or the turks, you are good guys, relatively speaking...

Yeah. I never said those guys were any better. But some of them are not worse.



I don't place money over peoples lives per se, but I do strongly hold the belief that indivduals, corporate entities and nations have an right to defend their assets against "hostile takeovers".

In the case of Chile, the Socialists decided that all foreign (including US) intrests were theirs for the taking. How arrogant. Did they really believe that the US was just going to sit back and let that happen? Ultimately, it is the Socialists who are to blame for what transpired.

Well, at the time it probably seemed like a good idea. But the aftermath, especially with the installation of Pinochet, is something that should never be forgiven the US. The US were definetly "bad guys" in that conflict. Fighting other bad guys probably, but still bad guys.


About Central America as a whole, there were very good things happening there (thanks to communism, hard as it may be to believe) such as roads and public education systems. Then the US came along and botched it all up just because they wanted to protect their interests and exploit the country economically. Of course, there are more layers than this (such as the ongoing cold war) and super powers are pretty much always evil. Except when India becomes a super power, which I believe will be the first super power that actually won't give a rats ass about what happens around it.

But anyway, the US did alot of terrible things in Central America. All because of money. They actually bombed some countries back to the stone age, just for the love of the green (no not the jungle), which sucks.



Please don't come down so hard on us Yanks, our leaders might be a bit funky (and ain't all leaders), but we really are "good guys". You Swedes are too (esp the Johnny Holmes Swedish Erotica series), and the Brits, and the Aussies, and even ... God love 'em ... the French.

-stray-

I'm a yank myself. And a swede.

But I still can't get over that french countryside chicks don't mow their armpits..

[strayrider]

About Central America as a whole, there were very good things happening there (thanks to communism, hard as it may be to believe) such as roads and public education systems.

Of course, schools to teach the masses a hatred of Capitalism and America, and roads to aid in the movement of military equiptment when the Ruskies came ashore.


Then the US came along and botched it all up just because they wanted to protect their interests and exploit the country economically.

Yes, to protect our interests, to keep the Reds from gaining a foothold in the Western hemisphere.

There was never much there to exploit economically -- some lumber, maybe.


Of course, there are more layers than this (such as the ongoing cold war) and super powers are pretty much always evil. Except when India becomes a super power, which I believe will be the first super power that actually won't give a rats ass about what happens around it.

India has the caste system. That's evil.


But anyway, the US did alot of terrible things in Central America.

We basically ignored Central America, and allowed them to have their bumbly-fuak, petty military dictatorships and civil wars until "Daddy Castro" stuck his nose up the Soviet anus and invited them to base nuclear missles on his crappy little island (aimed at the US, of course).


They actually bombed some countries back to the stone age, just for the love of the green (no not the jungle), which sucks.

As for as I know, the US Air Force has not participated in actively bombing any Central American country. We have, however, trained and equipted the air forces of various CA governments who sided with us durning the cold war. It was basically Central Americans bombing Central Americans "back to the stone age". (Not they they were that far out of the stone age to begin with, left to their own means)

And it wasn't for the "love of the green", it was to halt the aggressive expansion of Soviet Communism. And it worked.

:D

-stray-

[EvilNed]

Of course, schools to teach the masses a hatred of Capitalism and America, and roads to aid in the movement of military equiptment when the Ruskies came ashore.

Of course, everything the bad dudes did was eeeevil. :rolleyes: In any case, what did the US schools teach? To hate communism, right? So, there you go.



Yes, to protect our interests, to keep the Reds from gaining a foothold in the Western hemisphere.

I love the term "protecting our interests". It's a way of justifying killing, bombing and puppet-dictating whatever you want, really.



There was never much there to exploit economically -- some lumber, maybe.

There's alot of cash in trade. Manpower too. Exploiting poor people has always, ALWAYS been profitable. And it's especially good if you can keep the poor people under control (with the use of installed governors and tyrants) and uneducated (by bombing the schools!)



India has the caste system. That's evil.

Yeah, you got a point there.




We basically ignored Central America, and allowed them to have their bumbly-fuak, petty military dictatorships and civil wars until "Daddy Castro" stuck his nose up the Soviet anus and invited them to base nuclear missles on his crappy little island (aimed at the US, of course).

The US was the cause of several of those petty military dictatorships, so I'm not so sure ignoring them was such a good idea.




As for as I know, the US Air Force has not participated in actively bombing any Central American country. We have, however, trained and equipted the air forces of various CA governments who sided with us durning the cold war. It was basically Central Americans bombing Central Americans "back to the stone age". (Not they they were that far out of the stone age to begin with, left to their own means)

And it wasn't for the "love of the green", it was to halt the aggressive expansion of Soviet Communism. And it worked.

The US did cover it's back during the central american pillaging by funding other groups to do their job. They basicly hired mercenaries to bomb, kill, pillage and rape to their hearts content. As long as THEIR interests were protected.

And pretty much every conflict since after Vietnam has been for the love of the green, man. Which is sad, but reality.

[coma]

We basically ignored Central America, and allowed them to have their bumbly-fuak, petty military dictatorships and civil wars until "Daddy Castro" stuck his nose up the Soviet anus and invited them to base nuclear missles on his crappy little island (aimed at the US, of course).

You're forgetting about Panama. While not Central America, the US has been invading Haiti pretty regularly since they wre the first successful Slave rebellion. Something like 27 times so far.

While The USSR was a seriou threat, the Domino theory of Mololithic communism was never true, in Asia or South/Central America. Supporting Dictators who Modeled them selves on Hitler to fight polpular movements is wrong. Americ does not support democracy, they support Allies no matter how despicable.

True democracy may lead to ideas very different from your own. It is not Communism itself (in regrds to South America) that was the problem. It was endless colonial interfernce that leads to resentment that causes animosity.

Some of the left Movements in SA were Socialist and Left not stalinistic Communism. You use the terms interchangable and that is not correct. Soviet Union called them selves socialsit but they were Authoritarian Communism, like NAtional Socialists were socialist in name only.

The problem was not looking at each movement on its merits, but applying the same "they are all controlld by USSR" brush that was often (not always) innacurate.
Example from now. Hugo Chavez. He talk alot of Smack about Bush but it is exremely doubtful he is any kind of enemy of the US people. In fact he is trying to make nice with the population while critisizing US imperial policy. He may be an enemy of some, but he is not MY enemy.\

Fidel Castro would never had gained power were it not for American Corporations by proxy of US govt took advantage and swindled the Cuban people with the help of their leader.

People do not like Foreigners up in their buisness. Do you?


The US does many great things. There are also many evil things done. Some think that because we give money to tsunami victims we can interfere in other places. One does not make liscence for another. And NAt'l security is always the excuse for any kind of crap misbehavior like "Save the Children" is the excuse for censirship.

[EvilNed]

While The USSR was a seriou threat, the Domino theory of Mololithic communism was never true, in Asia or South/Central America. Supporting Dictators who Modeled them selves on Hitler to fight polpular movements is wrong. Americ does not support democracy, they support Allies no matter how despicable.

Very good point. Which is why the US invaded Iraq and not, say, Saudi Arabia.



People do not like Foreigners up in their buisness. Do you?

*cough*Illegal immigrants*cough* :p

[strayrider]

Ned:

In any case, what did the US schools teach? To hate communism, right?

Yeah, in the 40s, 50s and early 60s. I went to school in the 70s when that there new fangled Liberalism (Socialism) was taking hold in American education. We were "edumacated" that Communism was "just another form of government" by a bunch of "hip" soft-skulls.

Ned

I love the term "protecting our interests". It's a way of justifying killing, bombing and puppet-dictating whatever you want, really.

It is obvious now that the people of Central America do not want our form democracy. That's fine and dandy. They can continue to "bumbly fuak" their way to nowhere until the sun explodes for all I care.

In the 80s, however, the now nonexisistant Soviet Union was attempting to forment a Communist revolution in our "backyard". So, protecting our interests in the region was justified. They were already used to their own killing, bombing and puppet-dictating.

Ned

There's alot of cash in trade. Manpower too. Exploiting poor people has always, ALWAYS been profitable. And it's especially good if you can keep the poor people under control (with the use of installed governors and tyrants) and uneducated (by bombing the schools!)

Sounds like a Commie revolution.

Ned

The US was the cause of several of those petty military dictatorships, so I'm not so sure ignoring them was such a good idea.

The US sent the Marines to chase some Leftist banditos in Nicaragua in the 1920s. They were pulled out after the "revolution" was quelled and elections held.

The petty dictatorships were a result of the Spanish Colonizations of the region.

There was really no reason not to ignore. We traded for lumber and coffee and basically let them do their own thing. Until the Soviets came upon the scene.

Ned

The US did cover it's back during the central american pillaging by funding other groups to do their job. They basicly hired mercenaries to bomb, kill, pillage and rape to their hearts content. As long as THEIR interests were protected.

The US supported the lesser of two evils to defeat the greater evil. This in and of itself does not make the US evil.

Ned the bombing, killing and raping was already going on in Central America before Reagan took office and there was really nothing left to pillage. The Spanish had already done that. Central America has none of the things the traditional Amarica haters accuse us of "plundering" (oil and minerals). The area became a "battleground" of two conflicting ideologies, and it was the Soviets who initiated it. There was nothing of value there that they wanted eother, except for the actual land itself, to act as a Western base of operations in their effort to "bury us".

Ned

And pretty much every conflict since after Vietnam has been for the love of the green, man. Which is sad, but reality.

Hasn't every war in human history been "for the love of the green"?

Coma

While not Central America, the US has been invading Haiti pretty regularly since they wre the first successful Slave rebellion.

After the butchering of the French, nothing the Haitians have done has been successful. The US sends in troops every few years to quell the criminal gangs, get the power and water running again, repair roads and bridges and boost the place back up out of the jungle. Then a few years later we do it again ... then again ... and again ...

Coma

Some of the left Movements in SA were Socialist and Left not stalinistic Communism. You use the terms interchangable and that is not correct. Soviet Union called them selves socialsit but they were Authoritarian Communism, like NAtional Socialists were socialist in name only.

You are correct. I did try and keep them separate by using Communism when refering to the Soviets, and Socialism with everyone else. I did a poor job. sorry.

Coma

The problem was not looking at each movement on its merits, but applying the same "they are all controlld by USSR" brush that was often (not always) innacurate.
Example from now. Hugo Chavez. He talk alot of Smack about Bush but it is exremely doubtful he is any kind of enemy of the US people. In fact he is trying to make nice with the population while critisizing US imperial policy. He may be an enemy of some, but he is not MY enemy.

Dude, a word of advice. Never, EVER trust anyone named Hugo.

Coma

The US does many great things. There are also many evil things done. Some think that because we give money to tsunami victims we can interfere in other places. One does not make liscence for another. And NAt'l security is always the excuse for any kind of crap misbehavior like "Save the Children" is the excuse for censirship.

I agree.

Ned

Very good point. Which is why the US invaded Iraq and not, say, Saudi Arabia.

I personally was enraged when Bush invaded Iraq. We set the "dangler" up for what happened to him a few days ago (not that he didn't deserve it).

In my opinion, it is not a war for oil, or freedom, or democracy. Quite simply, the US invaded Iraq to destroy Israel's greatest threat in the region, everything else is just "smoke and mirrors".

I consider Bush to be a true evil. A closet Liberal posing as a Conservative. I didn't vote for him, nor for the horse-faced Kerry (also evil).

:D

-stray-

[EvilNed]

Yeah, in the 40s, 50s and early 60s. I went to school in the 70s when that there new fangled Liberalism (Socialism) was taking hold in American education. We were "edumacated" that Communism was "just another form of government" by a bunch of "hip" soft-skulls.

So, as you can see, there's really not that much difference between them and us.



In the 80s, however, the now nonexisistant Soviet Union was attempting to forment a Communist revolution in our "backyard". So, protecting our interests in the region was justified. They were already used to their own killing, bombing and puppet-dictating.

Well, all that is debateable. The US just didn't want any leaders in central america that didn't like their policy of trade and such. But Soviet was always someone they could blame it on.




Sounds like a Commie revolution.

Again, I guess there's not that much difference between them and us.




The US sent the Marines to chase some Leftist banditos in Nicaragua in the 1920s. They were pulled out after the "revolution" was quelled and elections held.

The petty dictatorships were a result of the Spanish Colonizations of the region.

There was really no reason not to ignore. We traded for lumber and coffee and basically let them do their own thing. Until the Soviets came upon the scene.

Again, the US (along with the Soviets and liberal nutjobs) were directly and indirectly responsible for killing, raping and bombing lots of villages. AFTER WHICH, the US installed their own puppet dictators that would ensure that their interests were protected. Kind of like what Ghengis Khan did.



The US supported the lesser of two evils to defeat the greater evil. This in and of itself does not make the US evil.

Ideology does not make someone evil. But course of action does. Thus, yes. The US is evil. So were the soviets.


Ned the bombing, killing and raping was already going on in Central America before Reagan took office and there was really nothing left to pillage. The Spanish had already done that. Central America has none of the things the traditional Amarica haters accuse us of "plundering" (oil and minerals). The area became a "battleground" of two conflicting ideologies, and it was the Soviets who initiated it. There was nothing of value there that they wanted eother, except for the actual land itself, to act as a Western base of operations in their effort to "bury us".

You can't really put the blame on the old big ruskie all the time, man. It takes two to tango, and the US committed their fair share of Sauron stuff



Hasn't every war in human history been "for the love of the green"?

No, there's been a fair deal of wars where the spreading of ideology, thirst for power and land (money, I guess) has been prominent. Also, there's instigator and defender. The instigator is nothing unheard of in history of course, and these guys are usually "evil". The US is a prime example. Believe in Freedom, that's a good thing, but it's not a good thing to spread misery and pain.

I'm not anti-US, as I've said before. But the US are NOT good guys. Nor are the soviets or the chinese. Infact, I doubt there are any good guys. You've even taken the hope of India away from me...

[coma]

Coma
Dude, a word of advice. Never, EVER trust anyone named Hugo.

HAHAHA:) I knew a guy named Hugo and he was/is an Humoungous Asshole


Yeah, in the 40s, 50s and early 60s. I went to school in the 70s when that there new fangled Liberalism (Socialism) was taking hold in American education. We were "edumacated" that Communism was "just another form of government" by a bunch of "hip" soft-skulls.

Where I grew up they went on and on about communism and had loyalty type oaths (I was really little for that. That stopped in 2nd grade). Most of the time they never got far enough in history to get to Marx. We always went the speed of the dumbest kids. And , boy, were there a lot of them!
I had some teachers go on total tangents with all that McCarthy paranoid "Rooskies are robots" stuff. What crap. Its totalitarianism, WTF are they supposed to do?!?!

I never, ever heard that Communism was just another form of govt.
In school I heard
China is backwards and useless
cigars are good for you
marijuana leads to pregancy and heroin
Everything The US has ever done has been altruistic and perfect.
The US won the war of 1812
Whats Vietnam?

[strayrider]

I'm not anti-US, as I've said before. But the US are NOT good guys.

Hold up a second there, Player. You say you are not anti-US, but the US are not good guys? Therefore you are pro-bad guys? You truly are evil, Ned. :p


You've even taken the hope of India away from me...

Oh, INDIA? Sorry, I thought you meant Indiana.

Yes, India are the good guys.

Now could you get Johnny Holmes' autograph for me? I heard he faked his death and is living in Stockholm.

:D

-stray-

[EvilNed]

Hold up a second there, Player. You say you are not anti-US, but the US are not good guys? Therefore you are pro-bad guys? You truly are evil, Ned. :p

Yeeeees... Now my secret is out. In reality, I am a SUPER VILLAIN WHOSE ULTIMATE GOAL IS TO CONQUER THE WORLD!

Mwahahahahahahahahahahaahahahaha!!!



Oh, INDIA? Sorry, I thought you meant Indiana.

Yes, India are the good guys.

Now could you get Johnny Holmes' autograph for me? I heard he faked his death and is living in Stockholm.

:D

-stray-

Rich people don't like to live in Sweden. They always move abroad, so that they can keep their riches to themselves and not let the taxes takes bites out of it. But the new goverment has abolished those taxes... But as soon as the old guys are back in office, It'll surely be back.