'nam movie for people who LOVE war.

I think your lifetime of observation is terrifically limited in scope, clouded by bias and terribly inaccurate when compared to real data. The fact that you would rely on it (even without being aware of its weaknesses) shows you to be the type of mental weakling that makes up the majority of the left.

amazing.

you criticize me for not trusting some guy on the internet over my lifetime observations...sorry, without a citation, your facts are b|_|llsh][t.
i find it especially amazing that you'd call me biased and then in the same breath claim that the majority of the left (whatever that is) are mental weaklings.

i mean really, how do you expect to be taken seriously when you sound like rush limbaugh?

the really ironic thing about your vapid assertations is the people you call mental weaklings are the same people who hold most of the graduate degrees ( http://www.norc.org/GSS+Website/ ).

I am well aware of Adolf’s anti Bolshevik sentiments, odd that the two opposing regimes were so similar. In case you miss the sarcasm: Hitler and Stalin were functionally the SAME, (as were Pol Pot, Mao, Ho and Mugabe) – you see they were all tyrants that socialized their countries by force.

find me one single government in history that hasnt taken resources by force at one time or another....just one...i will eat my hat.

if this is your example of socialism, you can count george washington (establishing dc as public owned), abe lincoln (annexing land in the south for the railroads), andrew jackson (trail of tears), teddy roosevelt (annexing land for parks, annexing land in the carribean and central america)...the list goes on and on and on.

as far as hitler being a socialist, im sorry to say that he was the very definition of right wing. the weimar republic which governed germany post ww1...the same government that was overthrown by hitler was what can be considered socialist. it's hilarious how the righters always try to distance themselves from the the person who represented the purest form of their beliefs.

During and after the Vietnam War the Viets backed all communists in Cambodia, they only invaded Cambodia after A) the Sino-Soviet split made them want to (you see the Viets were Soviet backed and Pol Pot was Chinese backed)and B) Pol Pot’s mass murders gave them an excuse. (the Vietnamese did things almost as bad as Pol Pot) The Vietnamese stayed in Cambodia, fighting in a three way civil war for over a decade.

the us backed saddam hussein against iran and many other instances of backing the wrong guy so i fail to see your point.

i would like to see a citation of the viets doing things as bad as pol pot. so far, you've given 0.00 citations to any of your assertations so i must assume that it's all bull. please supply proof that the nva were less humanitarian than the arvins.

America went to war with Germany after one of its allies attacked us; we had aided people fighting them for years. After the war we established a representative democracy and rebuilt their country (basically handed out lollypops.) We still have forces in Germany, not occupying the country, not enforcing our will on them, but because the Germans joined NATO and asked us to stay.

lets see, america stole all of their scientists and anything else of value that wasnt bolted down, the russians stole the other half. both america and russia's entire space, long range ballistic weapons, and jet aircraft programs were all stolen from germany. do you realize how much revenue comes from these programs every year? boeing alone made 17.5 billion dollars from german technology last year. then theres lockheed, mcd/douglass et al. if you add that up, germany's in for some serious royalties.

with guns pointed at their heads both from america and russia, the western half chose america out of fear of russia and the eastern half chose russia out of fear of america. i dont see your point here. sure, the us performed many humanitarian missions but guess what? the soviet union also performed MANY humanitarian missions. there are many a region which owes its infrastructure to the soviets. alot of those folks were living thatch roof houses and crapping in holes in the ground before russia came in....even in east germany. im not saying that communism is superior or anything like that....im no commie, but you have to be objective and see that theres no damned difference between the two in the grand scheme of things, as every side has its heroes and its tyrants.

a recent poll showed that 72% of germans wanted the us to get their bases the hell out and a further 48% wanted to leave nato, so i debate your assertation that germany keeps american bases around because they love them so very much.
im presently living in berlin and after 3 years have yet to meet anyone who would support the existence of us bases on their soil.

i dont see america backing out of germany voluntarily, it's an occupation of sorts no matter what you'd like to dress it up as. we are as bad as them and as far as i can see, and none of your hawkish rhetoric has disproven this assertation in any way.

reply share

add reply

formatting help