Suicide Bomb in Fuzhou, China (1 Viewer)

[Sepulchres]

That is bullshit. America is strong because America works hard. It has nothing to do with "Raping" third world countries. And countries that have sweat shops, like China for eg. are run by communists and they don't stop it. Communists are more evil than capitalists through and through.

Tell me you;re kidding. The World Bank "rapes" many many third world nations with interests and other costs every year. This would explain the ever breaching gap between the first and third world countries. They willingly give money to them and then fuck them afterwards.

It is not Americas job to sit there an hand feed those who they liberate. They liberate and put things right and then those countries have to work hard themselves and they can do what they want. If they become shit, its not the US's fault.

That would be right if the countries they invade were given the choice. But you see, they are not. US invades when and where they please so yea it is their responsibility if the country turns out shit.

 

[supercharged]

No they don't. They wouldn't invade any European country that they please, they wouldn't invade Australia or New Zealand or any stable country. The invade the crap countries who are disorderly and are cruel to their people.

LOL so being invaded by America is for your own good is it? You think America invades other countries out of goodness and a warm heart for the local people? Yeah right, so gaining oil and influence has nothing to do with it?

So America invaded Iraq because Saddam was bad to his people? Then why the hell was Saddam an American ally in the 1980s? I've even seen old news footage of Donald Rumsfield shaking hands with Saddam himself. Oh so America didn't mind Saddam back then fighting Iran (even selling him weapons) but when he crossed the line with America (by invading Kuwait) he suddenly became America's public enemy number one.

And what's wrong with Iran? Iran's new president won the the election by a landslide. He has the popular support of his people which Saddam never had.

Why does America want war? Because Iran is possibly developing nuclear weapons? Who cares? When India and Pakistan tested their newly developed nuclear bombs in the late 90's, America got all huffy and puffy and rained down sanctions on them. Now they are both being accepted into the nuclear club by America with no further calls to disarm. What a change in policy! Who's to say the same thing won't happen to Iran in a decade's time?

Why didn't they invade India and Pakistan to stop their nuclear weapons programs? Given the number of wars between India and Pakistan in the past 40 years, nuclear weapons proliferation is just as dangerous on the Indian sub-continent as it is in the Middle East. Could it be because they didn't cough cough *have any oil reserves to make it worthwhile?

And tell me the fuck did they invade Vietnam? Did the Vietnamese want America to become their sugar daddy? No! And America got sent back home with 58,000 body bags to prove it. Countries have the right to govern themselves without America bombing them and installing puppet governments. It is not without reason that huge numbers of people all around the world hate America and burn the American flag in protest.

 

[Iron]

No they don't. They wouldn't invade any European country that they please, they wouldn't invade Australia or New Zealand or any stable country. The invade the crap countries who are disorderly and are cruel to their people.

Yet they eagerly negotiate with North Korea. Funny how nuclear weapons seem to make such a difference. Countries need a US friendly stance, or they'll be punished... unless they can defend themselves.

 

[Sepulchres]

The countries who borrow the money know full well that the money they are borrowing will have to be paid back and under certain terms. Nothing is free, and we certainly aren't going to give hand outs to the corrupt third world countries.

No they don't. They wouldn't invade any European country that they please, they wouldn't invade Australia or New Zealand or any stable country. The invade the crap countries who are disorderly and are cruel to their people.

When they invaded Iraq, they did not know that they would be borrowing money off the US neither were they given "terms". But I'm sure a decade from now, the US would want a refund with interest for all their investments. Iraq wont be able to repay them hence where the oil comes in...

Similar situation in Bangladesh where recently they discovered reserves of natural gas but since they owe money to the US, they were forced to give some of the supplies to the US. Such is US's nature. This natural gas could have supplied the country with their own resources which would've boosted the economy of what is a third world country. But you wouldnt know. You;re eyes are selective in what you see in the US and its conduct with other countries.

 

[supercharged]

American doesn't control Iraq's oil? It doesn't sit on an oil rig taking it all?

It's very easy for you to eat all of this crap about america being a fat capitalistic bastard, but obviously thats not the only thing influencing America.

Bullshit, Dick Cheney's oil company got 'no bid' contracts to Iraq's oil infrastucture.

What else is influencing America other than the pursuit of oil and political influence over other countries?

 

[Iron]

You're all obviously intoxicated by anti-americanism, but i hope you come around and realise that what you are saying is not true.

There are countries which are poorer and have greater assets that the US could invade, but they choose not too.

American doesn't control Iraq's oil? It doesn't sit on an oil rig taking it all?

It's very easy for you to eat all of this crap about america being a fat capitalistic bastard, but obviously thats not the only thing influencing America.

I understand you. It gets boring when everyone says the same left thing. Surely they're not always right. If I read you correctly, a lot of what you say is devil's advocacy - that's what I used to do. It's good fun contradicting people and seeing them loose it, but dont put off working out what you sincerely believe in.

 

[supercharged]

I have yet to get a reply from anti-mathmite on why he thinks America invaded Vietnam when the Vietnamese so obviously didn't want them there?

 

[supercharged]

To stop the domino effect of communism?

Which didn't work because of the communist hippies back in the US and Australia who were influenced by the left media, to have riots, protests and other violence, so that they would bring the troops home.

HAHA see how selective your reasoning is! The Vietnam war didn't work because local American communist 'hippies' forced the troops to return home.

You made NO mention that the war was a complete failure on the ground. That 58,000 American troops were sent back cold and draped in American flags after 8 years of escalting conflict from a hostile anti-American local population. The more Vietnamese the Americans killed, the more they joined the Vietcong to fight back. The Americans were stuck on the road to nowhere. Any Vietnam war verteran will tell you the war was unwinnable.

That the MAIN reason why it failed was because the Vietnamese population were AGAINST the Americans deciding and forcing what kind of government Vietnam would have. Vietnam wanted to become an independent communist republic and they didn't care how many losses they took against the Americans, they were prepared to fight to the last man for it. America did not win over the 'hearts and minds' of the locals, they were the foreign invaders, and they got roasted for it.

So much for the American 'liberating' people, America fought to further its own agenda in containing Soviet communism with a pro US puppet government in then South Vietnam, NOT in the freewill of the Vietnamese people to decide how to govern themselves without the dictation of America.

 

[Raginsheep]

The US obviously failed in Vietnam. So according to the domino effect, we should all be wearing red right now.

The reason the Vietnam war was lost was simply because it was conducted as a massive political exercise compared to the North Vietnam idea of wanting to unite their country under communism at all costs against a foreign "imperalistic invader".

Whether thats a good thing or bad thing; I've leave that alone.

 

[Sepulchres]

You're all obviously intoxicated by anti-americanism, but i hope you come around and realise that what you are saying is not true.

There are countries which are poorer and have greater assets that the US could invade, but they choose not too.

American doesn't control Iraq's oil? It doesn't sit on an oil rig taking it all?

It's very easy for you to eat all of this crap about america being a fat capitalistic bastard, but obviously thats not the only thing influencing America.

I agree that anti-americanism is somewhat trendy in todays world and many dont like the country for no reason or do not know why they hate them. But, if you can reason your opinion/s then its perfectly fine and viable.

 

[Raginsheep]

supercharge, as far as I know, the war was winnable if the military had been allowed to conduct it as they wanted. However, political intereference basically handicapped the military to a point where it wasn't winnable.

 

[supercharged]

The reason the Vietnam war was lost was simply because it was conducted as a massive political exercise compared to the North Vietnam idea of wanting to unite their country under communism at all costs against a foreign "imperalistic invader".

Not only that, when the Americans first got involved, they didn't send many troops only weapons and 'advisors' to prop up South Vietnam's army. When they realised that the SVA were an 'army that wouldn't fight' they sent in massive numbers of their own troops.

They realised they couldn't win because they weren't just fighting conventionally against the NVA but also the Vietcong rebels which continuously grew stronger as new recruits joined to fight the Americans in South Vietnam. Even in South Vietnam, the local villagers were against the Americans and aided the Vietcong rebels against the American imperialists. The Americans were fighting a hidden enemy.

Basically the Vietnam war was American Soviet communism containment strategy Vs Vietnamese nationalism. Too bad the Americans learnt the hard way that Vietnam wasn't about to bow down to their wishes.

edit: Considering the local population was completely against the Americans, the only way it could be 'winnable' by the Americans would be to nuke the whole place. But of course that would be unacceptable to the world.

 

[Iron]

Ho Chi Minh and Uncle Sam were great friends during and just after WW2.
The French made things sticky by rocking up after the war and reclaiming their colony.
The US needed the French in Europe, so turned a blind eye. This forced Ho to look for communist aid.
But for Korea, the US would've jumped in sooner. They were bound to support a cold war ally and show that they had the guts to follow through with policy. Sad and silly.

 

[Comrade nathan]

So they install a neo-liberal government and they become rich? How so?

You don't have a basic understanding of Globalisation?

I suspect and hope you are playing dumb. Any right wing person on this forum would understand how the US becomes rich through globalisation.

And countries that have sweat shops,

Which are owned by mostly US companies.

I think many phillipino's would disagree

Not really, most didn't find it any different then under Spanish rule.

Waiters are paid more than brain surgeons

This has now ceased. What was happening after the collapse if the USSR, and the trade benifits ceased, hard currency from the tourist industry was allowed to grow in a market of its own by tipping. This has recently ceased as the $ is being phased out.

which in itself is against communism, as everyone is supposed to be paid the same.

No "Communism" is a stage after socialism, no country has claimed communism. In Socialism people can not be payed the same, as it cost more or less for different training.

under a leader none of them elected and which none of them want.

Castro is very popular in Cuba, with thousands attending rallies and speaches. Now i know your going to say they are forced to attend or they will be shot by the police or army. To counter this before you say that, even Bourgeois claim that Cuba from 1959 onwards is the only Latin American or Caribbean country that has not used the police or army on there own citizens.

The dumbest of people in the US are still eligible for presidency,

Don't be stupid we know the reality of just anybody coming president is impossible.

are the smartest of the Cubans eligible for presidency?

The president does not hold as much power you think. Many people can join the Communist Party, they can also join the grass roots groups that are responisble of management of community needs. People can also be in government if they are not in the ruling party.

Yes, it's growing because of nuts like you who believe the left propaganda,

Again don't be stupid. The growing leftistm and anti americanism in the 3rd world is different then the situation here. People are starting to see no real improvement with what the US has given them and are begining to look to other models of economic organisation.

Yes i know, quite arrogant and ungrateful aren't they?

Well they do have a greater understanding of the world then you do, you do not even understand Globalisation.

The insurgency consists of criminals who were released from the prisons in their masses by Saddam just before the regime fell.

Before the War begin, i think in 2002, Saddam under world pressure realesed "prisoners".

Now these "prisoners" were infact political prisoners. They were trade unionist, opposition party members, homosexuals etc.

These people would have ended up joining their parties in the 2005 election.

 

[supercharged]

The invade the crap countries who are disorderly and are cruel to their people.

You are aware that the US supports and has as allies some of the worlds leading dictators/dictatorships, right? Past and presently.

Saudi Arabia (they opress their own Shiias, have even massacared many in the last 2 decades, horrible human rights, forced school girls to stay in burning school and die because their hair cover wasnt on proper as they were trying to escape, Women cannot even drive, just to mention a few things.)

Uzbekistan ( the guys name I believe is Islam Khaydorov, and besides torturing and killing thousands, many of them based on simply being from religious groups even non militant ones and also political opponents. A true dictator. A well known fact about him is that he has a certain trade signature of boiling his political opponents alive, literaly, and those who disagree with him and his rule. Raping family members in front of the tormentees is also another trademark of his government.)

Persian gulf arab states (all monarchy dictatorships with bad human rights)

Iran [before] (overthrew democratic elected leader Mossadegh in CIA/MI6 coup de etat, and replaced him with the ousted Shah, a brutal dictator with a terrible powerful SAVAK intelligence service trained by CIA and Mossad for watching for anti-shah people in the populace and their torture and execution, Thousands dead. )

Egypt (Another dictatorship)

Jordan (and another dictatorship with terrible human rights, even UK wouldnt send back some arrested Jordanian criminals because of no assurances regarding how they would be treated once they are back in Jordanian authority hands)

How are you going to answer to that anti-mathmite?

 

[Comrade nathan]

yes i know what globalisation is, and it isn't the devil that the left makes it out to be. No western expansionism is bad at all.

Then you know that the US makes super profit of refining raw materials then manufacturing them for incredibly low prices then sells them at least 10 times their cost of prodution. So ofcourse the US must keep a neoliberal 3rd world.

So.. The communists don't stop them?

What communists? In China they have a market system.

No it hasn't ceased, as the article i was reading it in was released in 2004. And the dollar is phasing out? The US dollar..?

Yes 2004, its now 2005. They did it this year. The plan is to make Cuba more self sufficent.

I don't think any country would want to claim communism.

What does this even mean?

yes, but everyone is still eligible

But it's not realistic, and thats all that matters.

No he released all prisoners just before the US kicked his arse, as he realised that he was no longer going to be leading this country. He released his equivalent of the scorched earth policy and released all prisoners. The murderers and rapists.. Who are now the insurgents.

No they released political prisoners, thats all there is to it. You are just making up lies.

And the voice behind that video in your sig, i highly doubt would actually be an on-the-ground insurgent in Iraq.

I do too.

 

[Iron]

Good God, this thread has a chronic shortage of Hitler and Nazi Germany.
Only when this is achieved can the circle of thread life be satisfied and the task of completion be attained.

 

[Comrade nathan]

China.. Is a communist nation.

China has a market system, what don't you understand?

Yeh they can just change it like that can't they?

They are phasing it out, it started begining in 2005, whats the problem?

ow many US presidents has the USA had in the time that Cuba has been under the rule of Fidel Castro?

So? Whats the point.

Oh incase you didn't know the President is elected in by a Central Commitee, who is elected in by and form a larger group. Then down at the end the people vote in people in various positions. Everybody is in there position from hardwork and elections.

He ignored the international pressure for weapons inspectors and ejected them from his country (which gave the us a reason if it ever needed one) so why not ignore international pressure to release political prisoners?

He was trying to ease the pressure to go to war.

Then why propagate it around the internet?

I doubt that he is Iraqi, though i don't doubt that he is correct, and supports the movement, and may even be in Iraqi.

 

[Comrade nathan]

What i don't get, is how you can deny that China is a communist nation when this is a well know fact.

For starters you mean socialist, no country has every claimed to be Communist.

After Mao's faction lost at the end of the cultural revolution, and the death of Mao, Deng Xiaping and other reformist had no opposition in and out of the party. They began reforming the economy to allow a market system and to mend ties with the US.

Today more then 70% of major industry is private owned, and well more then half of the Communist Party of China are capitalists.

Its a capitalist heaven, capitalist within and outside China invest there for cheap labour and poor worker rights.

GET IT NOW?

 

[Comrade nathan]

Whats the point you don't understand.

There is a huge gap in the poor and rich in China, get it through you thick head you idiot.