For some

[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.

[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)). -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. 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. 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. -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. 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*

[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). -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. 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. -stray-