Zionist Bill Maher owned on his own show....

Except we're not arguing who won, now are we, Storm Front?

Sure we are. Because it's put the light on your lie.

If the U.S. was so fiercely resisted around the world compared to the benevolent commies, then why did the U.S. win the Cold War?

The answer puts the lie to your assumption about the benevolent commies.

The argument at hand was, "Was there resistance to American intervention?" You ludicrously argued there wasn't and are now trying to change the subject.

There's been no change of subject. The context was the Cold War, in which you were trying to convince me that the Soviets were much beloved by the countries they occupied, while the Americans were fiercely resisted.

The only problem with your thesis is that the Cold War alliances the U.S. built still hold up strong today, and indeed have grown, while the alliances the Soviets built have largely crumbled.

Bloody civil wars in Nicaragua (where the World Court condemned the US), El Salvador and Guatemala say otherwise, Storm Front.

Take it up with the people in those countries. Since they were the ones who did almost all the killing and fighting.

Wrong again, Storm Front.

The US's involvement was very often heavy-handed. When the most powerful nation in history is funding and training one side of a conflict in an extremely impoverished nation, the effects it has are actually VERY heavy-handed.

And yeah, the commies were funding the side that was popular with the people, hence the complete landslide victory of Ortega in the 1984 elections.

So in other words I'm wrong except you that you agree with me that the Soviets were funding their side, too, and that almost all the belligerents were locals.

So it appears I'm right about all the big questions, but your marsupial brain can't process it.

Plus, the USSR never got condemned by the World Court. The US did.

So what? Courts do not try to establish context or assign some grand historical truth. They simply try to determine specific questions.

In the Cold War, the U.S. did a lot of bad things, just as it did in WW2, but it did those things to win a victory that needed to be won.

And, yes, your side lost, Possum.


No fucking shit, that's why I said IF, Storm Front. Do try and pay attention.

If England had, for decades, funded and aided the Confederate efforts to take over (or secede) the government, and then this instigation lead to a Civil War, England would be responsible.

That's essentially what the US did.

So if the U.S. Civil War was just like the way you think the situation in Central America was like - but actually wasn't - then they would be the same.

That's like saying that if 2+2 = 5, then 2+2 = 4 would be wrong.

So, yes, technically you're correct, but only at the cost of torturing the truth.
 
in private they all agree with me that UFOs are of extraterrestrial origin. if you ask them and they say no, its because they don't trust you enough.

I've given some proof for my claim. Have you given any proof for yours?

Didn't think so.
 
Sure we are. Because it's put the light on your lie.

If the U.S. was so fiercely resisted around the world compared to the benevolent commies, then why did the U.S. win the Cold War?

The answer puts the lie to your assumption about the benevolent commies.



There's been no change of subject. The context was the Cold War, in which you were trying to convince me that the Soviets were much beloved by the countries they occupied, while the Americans were fiercely resisted.

The only problem with your thesis is that the Cold War alliances the U.S. built still hold up strong today, and indeed have grown, while the alliances the Soviets built have largely crumbled.



Take it up with the people in those countries. Since they were the ones who did almost all the killing and fighting.



So in other words I'm wrong except you that you agree with me that the Soviets were funding their side, too, and that almost all the belligerents were locals.

So it appears I'm right about all the big questions, but your marsupial brain can't process it.



So what? Courts do not try to establish context or assign some grand historical truth. They simply try to determine specific questions.

In the Cold War, the U.S. did a lot of bad things, just as it did in WW2, but it did those things to win a victory that needed to be won.

And, yes, your side lost, Possum.




So if the U.S. Civil War was just like the way you think the situation in Central America was like - but actually wasn't - then they would be the same.

That's like saying that if 2+2 = 5, then 2+2 = 4 would be wrong.

So, yes, technically you're correct, but only at the cost of torturing the truth.

We won the cold war by bankrupting the USSR due to the arms race. Also, Afghanistan helped.
 
1.- Irrelevant we are not discussing the moral merits of US interventions in central america, just its results.

No, we're not. Discussions about morals are boring. It's far more interesting to try and determine the truth of a matter, empirically. More difficult to do, too. Any idiot can take a moral stance on some issue he knows only partially.

But even if we were just discussing the moral merits, it's more than noteworthy to point out that if both sides know an intervention is coming in certain circumstances than it's brainless for one side to choose an action which leads to its downfall.

Read the Melian Dialogue. I'm Athens and you're Melos.

I don't agree with your moral premises about what took place in Central America, but even if I did, I would have far less sympathy for a side which knows its actions will lead to a certain conclusion which is to its detriment than I would for a side which doesn't know what conclusion is coming.

It's like parking your car unlocked in an area in which you know car thieves operate. Sure, you still got ripped off. And yes it's a crime. But you kind of deserved it, didn't you? How could you be so stupid?

2.- Legitimate as in internationally recognized and/or defacto ruler of the land.

That's an anachronism. Many of these interventions took place before there was even an international body to recognize them. The League of Nations didn't get started until 1920 - and even then it was a weak and indecisive body.

The only legitimacy a country previously had was when it won the recognition of other countries. That was it.

3.- A country that invades another installs a ruler and has their companies do whatever they want is not a colonial power? I guess India was not a colony either.

There was design and purpose in British aims in India which were completely lacking in the U.S. actions in Central America. Many U.S. interventions, for example, took place despite the fact the U.S. President did not initially want to intervene, but was forced into it by business pressure on Congress.

4.- Yes, that speaks a lot about Korean CULTURE and their work ethic, not a racial superiority.

No, it speaks to how little these interventions really matter.

Where do you think culture comes from, Rod?

Or are you one of those idiots who believes that if we just send America's failing black students over to Korea for schooling that they will come back as smart as Koreans?
 
Or are you one of those idiots who believes that if we just send America's failing black students over to Korea for schooling that they will come back as smart as Koreans?

Are you saying blacks are incapable of being educated?
 
Are you saying blacks are incapable of being educated?

No. I'm saying they're incapable, as a group, of performing to the same high academic standards as Koreans are as a group, and that this has nothing to do with schooling or the environment.
 
No. I'm saying they're incapable, as a group, of performing to the same high academic standards as Koreans are as a group, and that this has nothing to do with schooling or the environment.

Is it genetic?
 
No, we're not. Discussions about morals are boring. It's far more interesting to try and determine the truth of a matter, empirically. More difficult to do, too. Any idiot can take a moral stance on some issue he knows only partially.

But even if we were just discussing the moral merits, it's more than noteworthy to point out that if both sides know an intervention is coming in certain circumstances than it's brainless for one side to choose an action which leads to its downfall.

Read the Melian Dialogue. I'm Athens and you're Melos.

I don't agree with your moral premises about what took place in Central America, but even if I did, I would have far less sympathy for a side which knows its actions will lead to a certain conclusion which is to its detriment than I would for a side which doesn't know what conclusion is coming.

It's like parking your car unlocked in an area in which you know car thieves operate. Sure, you still got ripped off. And yes it's a crime. But you kind of deserved it, didn't you? How could you be so stupid?



That's an anachronism. Many of these interventions took place before there was even an international body to recognize them. The League of Nations didn't get started until 1920 - and even then it was a weak and indecisive body.

The only legitimacy a country previously had was when it won the recognition of other countries. That was it.



There was design and purpose in British aims in India which were completely lacking in the U.S. actions in Central America. Many U.S. interventions, for example, took place despite the fact the U.S. President did not initially want to intervene, but was forced into it by business pressure on Congress.



No, it speaks to how little these interventions really matter.

Where do you think culture comes from, Rod?

Or are you one of those idiots who believes that if we just send America's failing black students over to Korea for schooling that they will come back as smart as Koreans?

1.- We are certainly not discussing morality since its subjective in nature.

2.- The interventions were not a certainty, the US sported itself as the protector of republicanism and in several instances protected latin american nations from european interventionism.

3.- So interventions dont matter, then how do you reconcile and explain eastern europe (non-EU), North Korea and other asian nations with your theory about race being the main determinant of success of a population.

4.- I dont think that as a thought experiment is even worth discussing whether black people would create a similar culture if extremely indoctrinated in Korea. But then again im not the one making the claim that race is the main determinant of the success of a group of people.
 
No, it wasn't mentioned earlier, you stop.

NO YOU STOP! lmao (please respond with NO YOUUUUUU STOP rofl)

and it was mentioned earlier.


The divide between Sunni and Shia and the ever present conflict between the two of them was the exact reason he was so brutal. He was brutal towards the Jihadists within his own country. Fallujah at one point rose up against Saddam. Just stop with the whole "The US turned the Iraqis against each other" nonsense. The invasion wasn't even over yet and they were already killing each other. You're embarrassing yourself again.[/QUOTE]

lol please provided sources for the anti-saddam uprising in fallujah. it was looted after the government fell but it was mostly full of Saddam supporters.

Again, totally not making any sense. We were talking about ISIS taking over and selling oil to China, and you once again went off on a senseless rant about "But it's all America's fault!!"

its not america's fault that the iraqi army the built and helped equip and form and support performed poorly? this is after they supported the government and fired the iraqi army who then became insurgents? all of Iraq is your fuck up. nobody asked or told you to go to Iraq. you invaded over multiple lies lol.

LOL, the insurgency in Iraq ceased to exist after about 2006. There was not a single major combat operation after 06-07. The insurgency had been completely beaten at every level and had slunk off to Syria. really sounded like they were "ready to fight for a lot longer than 10 years". They were ready for us to leave so they could go back to doing what they do best, abusing old people and children, then talking about what warriors they are.

no the various insurgent groups turned on AQ because of how brutal it was. then the shia government cracked down on the sunnis who threw their weight behind isis.

Nope, that was a fringe benefit. The end game was to establish a Western style democracy in the Middle East, thus over time converting the entire region to Democracy. Do you read? We've been done for a while, bro. You've betting getting owned for days, and haven't had the decency to notice. And seriously, if you're going to try to twist my words, you're honestly going to have to do better than that. You aren't even smart enough to keep your own argument straight, or even read a graph correctly, don't try to step up to the big boy table and try to confuse me. You've already got enough to handle with just NOT confusing yourself.

no according to your secretary of defence you were 'there for oil not for figs'. if you were there for democracy, a WMD lie and saddam being buddies with AQ lie and Saddam being an imminent threat to the US lie would not be necessary. whats next idiot? that the nazis invaded russia to free the russians from communism and help them prosper? lmao

Yes, we filled the power vaccum. For years. The Government and the military did exactly what we told them, when we told them to do it. Why you don't get that I don't know. Maybe I can put it in more simple terms you can understand. We ran shit. Is that easier?

you ran shit into the ground. you built a house of cards that needed help continous help against guys with small arms in pick up trucks. you knocked out the biggest hurdle for iran. saddam. good job.

I don't know, why don't you ask the idiot Liberals who thought it was a good idea, and not me, the guy who clearly thought it was idiocy? Or could you not pick up on my complete contempt for them? Was I not laying it on enough for your tiny mind to pick up? Or are you just projecting opinions on to me so you can attack them again? That's cute. You don't really learn, do you?

dont weasel out and turn this into a liberal vs repub issue. the US has a clear and traceable history of arming rebels and tyrants and religious extremists as proxy forces. from afghanistan's freedom fighters to syria's moderates.

Wait.... Hold on, are we back to this again? i thought we just made that up because it was all about oil? Or did you have an aneurysm and we're back on the whole "LOL, yuz guyz thought they wud gif yuz flowears and stuff, hurr hurr" argument that you earlier said wasn't your position anymore? Come on dude, PICK A POSITION AND STICK WITH IT!! LOL, I do have to admit watching you fumble all over the place, back track and contradict yourself is wildly entertaining.

damn son. i really struck a nerve with the welcomed with flowers. were you one of the idiots that thought iraq was going to be all roses and peaches? lmao

it was about oil. but youd need to pacify the region to get that going.

And we were talking about the Iran Iraq War, dickhead. A war you claimed could not have possibly gone on as long as it did without us. Can't even remember our own arguments, that's sad.

my memory is far better than your's. you didnt know weapons inspectors had been to the weapons plant in the 90s after the gulf war until this thread.

Uh, do you realize how stupid this sounds? I'm seeing what I saw with my own eyes from the benefit of being the only one of "multiple posters" to have ever actually set foot in Iraq, much less physically inside the Muthanna Chemical Complex, but hey, F all that right? just read this report from a Government that you yourself say you don't believe. Unbelievable mental gymnastics going on here.

youre like one of those idiots who say they saw aliens. when people present proof you are full of shit you just keep saying 'i was there! i know what i saw!'

Dude, you make my face hurt. Are you able to follow along with your own side of this conversation?

you should see a doctor. face hurting has nothing to do frustrating conversation lol. you have so much on the line lol. you cant afford to be wrong about this because you share responsibility for it lol.

Your point since the begining of this conversation was that we invaded Iraq to support the Military Industrial Complex, which needs war to thrive, then brought up Lockheed Martin, an aeronautics company who didn't start making any money until 5 years after the war had started as your big proof. Then, when that didn't work you doubled down with all the money they started making AFTER both the invasion and 8 year occupation were over by pointing out all the money that was made by our regularly scheduled 25 year overhaul of our air capabilities. Why do I have to continue to re-explain your side of this argument to you? If you can't start even keeping up with yourself this isn't going to be fun anymore.

so they need to make a profit 5 minutes after the war starts? hahhahahhahaha if america's military and policy makers are morons like you, the world is up for a lot more instability.



Uh, yeah they were. They had a bunch of T-72s, but the Iraqis themselves were garbage. That's why I said we won the war. You're the one who replied with "You won both wars?!"

you didnt win the war its still going on. this is a prime example of american military not understanding irregular wars. the people fighting you are not calling this iraq war 3. its the same war as 2003 in a different phase. the americans tuck tail and drew down their ground forces but the besieged shia government is still there.

Again, keep your own arguments straight or go away.

its okay you were stupid enough to fall for WMDs and Saddam being an imminent threat and democracy and iraq's well being as the primary objective. someone like you will naturally have problems with critical thinking.

Bro, come on now. You're doing it again. "The Military" and "military industrial complex" are in no way the same thing. The Military Industrial Complex provides specifically military equipment to the Military. Hardly any of that money was spent on military equipment. It was spent on setting up bases in Iraq, and in trying to rebuild infrastructue in Iraq.

they are in the same bed idiot. sounds like you didnt take president eisenhower seriously when he warned the US about it.


When have I ever said that weapons inspectors never visited Iraq? I'm pretty familiar with the timeline of events leading up to the invasion of Iraq. I was 18 on 9/11 and a month from going to boot camp. I was an almost 21 year old Marine Infantryman on the day we invaded Iraq. Saddam Hussein and Iraq dominated the news when I was a young boy and teenager. I said that I have personally been in the Muthana Chemical Complex and I did not see any demolished buildings like the first report that was posted suggested.

you asked how they took those pictures during the gulf war when anybody who is even vaguely familiar with this knows that the photos were taken after the war. the saddest part of it all was the whole 'maybe the missed' nonsense. when the pictures were posted you looked like an idiot. serious? maybe they missed? unintentional comedy gold.

at this point on an internet forum nobody cares what you claim you saw when multiple reports are saying otherwise. if you even had a the barest of spines you'd be contacting these people for getting their official reports wrong. go ahead let em know it was not bombed and destroyed because you know what you saw.
 
Last edited:
1.- We are certainly not discussing morality since its subjective in nature.

Okay, but you just told me we were discussing the "moral merits" of US interventions.

To which I say, watch this YouTube video:

[yt]

2.- The interventions were not a certainty, the US sported itself as the protector of republicanism and in several instances protected latin american nations from european interventionism.

The interventions were predictable, even if not a certainty. The U.S. and (earlier) many European powers intervened with great frequency in the region. So any Central American leader with any wits at all should have been able to see what was likely coming if he broke his agreements with US businesses.

Yes, the U.S. preferred to be the deciding power in its hemisphere - and it gave those Central American countries greater latitude than would have the European colonizers if they had had their druthers - but the U.S. did so on the basis of its own self-interest and not out of nobility or ideology.

So the U.S. used a softer approach than the hardline European colonizers, and it fed the world more ideological pap about why it was doing what it was doing, but it still largely defended U.S. business interests in the region when it could.

Sometimes, as in Mexico and the southern cone, it could not. It lacked the power to enforce an effective and light intervention and the business interests at stake were too small to justify a wider war.

3.- So interventions dont matter, then how do you reconcile and explain eastern europe (non-EU), North Korea and other asian nations with your theory about race being the main determinant of success of a population.

In the case of Eastern Europe, many of those countries were much poorer than Western Europe even before communism.

You ever hear of the Hajnal Line? Not all whites are created equal - even whites with approximately the same IQ have different hardwired characteristics. Evolution never stops working.

4.- I dont think that as a thought experiment is even worth discussing whether black people would create a similar culture if extremely indoctrinated in Korea. But then again im not the one making the claim that race is the main determinant of the success of a group of people.

Well, you don't need a thought experiment. You have a thousand real experiments going in the U.S. right now, and just about all of them point in the same direction.

Now if you think you have the answer to solving this problem which has vexed liberal educators for the last fifty years, then by all means share it. You will become the richest and most celebrated man of the century if you can prove it.
 
Last edited:
Okay, but you just told me we were discussing the "moral merits" of US interventions.

To which I say, watch this YouTube video:

[yt]



The interventions were predictable, even if not a certainty. The U.S. and (earlier) many European powers intervened with great frequency in the region. So any Central American leader with any wits at all should have been able to see what was likely coming if he broke his agreements with US businesses.

Yes, the U.S. preferred to be the deciding power in its hemisphere - and it gave those Central American countries greater latitude than would have the European colonizers if they had had their druthers - but the U.S. did so on the basis of its own self-interest and not out of nobility or ideology.

So the U.S. used a softer approach than the hardline European colonizers, and it fed the world more ideological pap about why it was doing what it was doing, but it still largely defended U.S. business interests in the region when it could.

Sometimes, as in Mexico and the southern cone, it could not. It lacked the power to enforce an effective and light intervention and the business interests at stake were too small to justify a wider war.



In the case of Eastern Europe, many of those countries were much poorer than Western Europe even before communism.

You ever hear of the Hajnal Line? Not all whites are created equal - even whites with approximately the same IQ have different hardwired characteristics. Evolution never stops working.



Well, you don't need a thought experiment. You have a thousand real experiments going in the U.S. right now, and just about all of them point in the same direction.

Now if you think you have the answer to solving this problem which has vexed liberal educators for the last fifty years, then by all means share it. You will become the richest and most celebrated man of the century if you can prove it.


1.- No, we arent. Since morality is subjective there is nothing to discuss.

2.- The interventions were not really that predictable, if you want to believe so, then do. The moral reasoning is meaningless.

3.- You may have a point that the US allowed a lot of latin american nations to resist european intervention, but saying that Europeans were looking to exploit the land like they did in other places is not necesarily true. Maximilian who was imposed as emperor by the French was a pretty good governor, far more than the liberal Benito Juarez if you ask me.

4.- During this day and age? yes, would the germanic barbarians be smarter than the Italians or Greeks during the ancient times? i dont think so.

5.- Yes, you can claim that race is a good predictor of IQ, you simply cant claim that the cause is entirely genetic because you can control a shitload of variables, those are the jumps in logic and conclusion that make people not take social sciences seriously.




 
Sure we are. Because it's put the light on your lie.

If the U.S. was so fiercely resisted around the world compared to the benevolent commies, then why did the U.S. win the Cold War?

The answer puts the lie to your assumption about the benevolent commies.

Changing the subject yet again will do you no favors, Storm Front.

"Who won the Cold War and why?" isn't what we're arguing. Once again, "Was there resistance to US imperialism" is the question. And, obviously, answering this question by mentioning who won is completely irrelevant. People resist and lose all the time.

A minimum amount of honesty can really be helpful, Storm Front.



Take it up with the people in those countries. Since they were the ones who did almost all the killing and fighting.

EVERYONE involved and everyone responsible should be held accountable, Storm Front.

Much of the people from those countries that did the killing have gotten tried and are in prison. Kissinger, Reagan and all the rest should have met the same fate.


So in other words I'm wrong except you that you agree with me that the Soviets were funding their side, too, and that almost all the belligerents were locals.

So it appears I'm right about all the big questions, but your marsupial brain can't process it.

It appears that you were egregiously wrong about the question at hand (Did the US meet resistance?) so you shifted the question to basic, uncontroversial issues in order to save face.

It's a bit cowardly, Storm Front, do you think?



So what? Courts do not try to establish context or assign some grand historical truth. They simply try to determine specific questions.

In the Cold War, the U.S. did a lot of bad things, just as it did in WW2, but it did those things to win a victory that needed to be won.

And, yes, your side lost, Possum.


Here's some context: a Western-friendly organ like the World Court actually found the US guilty. When an institution that was set up by "your side" actually condemns you and never condemns the "other side," it really tells

And the ends justifies the means arguments are completely invalid when it comes to war crimes, Storm Front. Welcome to the 20th century.

I'm glad you're slowly accepting that the US did horrible things, Storm Front. Doesn't it feel good to be honest?

That's usually the case with those that excuse violence, abuse or even bigotry. First, deny, deny, deny any wrongdoing... then when you're shown to be objectively wrong, shift the argument and say that yes, there was wrongdoing, but it was justified.

Colonialism, imperialism, white supremacy, you name it. First you deny it happened, then you accept it happened but that it wasn't that bad.
 
He opened a history book, you should try it.

Make sure you get one that goes back more than 50 years. lol

I love when people blame the west for Islam's violent streak when they were murdering westerners by the millions 1400 years ago and never stopped until the present.

Tamerlane and his army of Islamists killed 5% of the world's population at the time (17 million). lol

Sure, go get your "history book" kid. I'll wait.
 
2.- The interventions were not really that predictable, if you want to believe so, then do.

Sure they were predictable. Read The Empire Trap: The Rise and Fall of U.S. Intervention to Protect American Property Overseas, 1893-2013 by the historian Noel Maurer:

The-Empire-Trap.jpg


It's a well written piece of scholarship. You'd be well-advised to read it to see just how complicated individual interventions were, while at the same time understanding there was still a general pattern to them which made them predictable.

3.- You may have a point that the US allowed a lot of latin american nations to resist european intervention, but saying that Europeans were looking to exploit the land like they did in other places is not necesarily true. Maximilian who was imposed as emperor by the French was a pretty good governor, far more than the liberal Benito Juarez if you ask me.

I don't know much about that specific case, but I do agree that many European colonial powers made the lands they ruled better than would have the native rulers. Not always, but sometimes.

But my point was that the leaders of Central America in particular and Latin America in general had to deal with the threat of intervention quite a lot - and not just from the U.S. So they understood it was a real threat. They understood that if they backed out of deals they agreed to, then there might be real trouble.

4.- During this day and age? yes, would the germanic barbarians be smarter than the Italians or Greeks during the ancient times? i dont think so.

I don't think so, either. But then the Greeks of ancient times are clearly not the same as the Greeks of today. Neither are the Germanic tribes of classical times the same as the Germans of today.

Evolution never stops working.

5.- Yes, you can claim that race is a good predictor of IQ, you simply cant claim that the cause is entirely genetic because you can control a shitload of variables, those are the jumps in logic and conclusion that make people not take social sciences seriously.

I didn't say the racial IQ gap was entirely genetic, but enough of it is genetic to be confident that a large gap will persist despite the countless interventions which have already taken place and will continue to take place because fools can't believe their lying eyes.

The remaining non-genetic explanation is NOT environmental, at least in the way that most people think of environmental effects. You're not going to close it with more Africna-American book clubs or by chaining black kids to a desk all day and force-feeding them knowledge.
 
Back
Top