US Tyranny in the World

The US rapes other countries of their wealth with the excuse of democracy, which it of course doesn't support at all (look at US support for the military coup of the first democratically elected Egyptian president).

El Qahira wrote:Well to be accurate, it's only the West, especially the USA, that fights over oil. It rapes other countries of their wealth with the excuse of democracy, which it of course doesn't support at all (look at US support for the military coup of the first democratically elected Egyptian president).

Wow. You think that we should be as ignorant as possible and ally with everyone that gains power just because they did it in a democratic way?

No. But I expect you to honor your principles. But the US doesn't have any principles. It only honors it for itself.

Are you not aware of the US' horrible history of tyranny of the world? You should have taken AP US History good sir.

Read the news and analyze. Don't let the government tell you how to read the news (and history).

You're being a moron and assuming so many things. I don't get any information from the government because I don't give a damn about them. They're just a bunch of grown men that act like five year olds.

The US has never had a "horrible history of tyranny of the world". They dropped the ball on the Mid East and Hawaii, and that's it. You spread just as much propaganda as the media you oppose so much.

Ace wrote:You're being a moron and assuming so many things. I don't get any information from the government because I don't give a damn about them. They're just a bunch of grown men that act like five year olds.

The US has never had a "horrible history of tyranny of the world". They dropped the ball on the Mid East and Hawaii, and that's it. You spread just as much propaganda as the media you oppose so much.

Don't flame. No personal attacks, talk about the subject itself.
That was a rebuttal to your comment on him being ignorant, not flaming.

Here you go man: http://www.yachana.org/teaching/resources/interventions.html

I hope you learn something.

Mind you, this is only Latin America. But I hope you get the point.

El Qahira wrote:

Ace wrote:You're being a moron and assuming so many things. I don't get any information from the government because I don't give a damn about them. They're just a bunch of grown men that act like five year olds.

The US has never had a "horrible history of tyranny of the world". They dropped the ball on the Mid East and Hawaii, and that's it. You spread just as much propaganda as the media you oppose so much.

Don't flame. No personal attacks, talk about the subject itself.
That was a rebuttal to your comment on him being ignorant, not flaming.

Here you go man: http://www.yachana.org/teaching/resources/interventions.html

I hope you learn something.

Mind you, this is only Latin America. But I hope you get the point.

Nobody cares about Latin America, all they do is win FIFA cups and export cocaine!

No but seriously, I don't see how some of those are horrible in any way. Nicaragua, 1899 - Marines land at port of Bluefields. And do what? Nothing. I researched it. Nothing happened at all. There was no intervention. All I found was that the Nicaraguan gov was consistently publishing false slander against the USA every day (Like threats that were never made, and how the USA wanted to annex Nicaragua, precisely the same thing some Mid Easterners pull out of their ass except for their country). We aren't cowards. We're going to stand up for ourselves.

The same nothing happened with all the "marine landings". Yeah, lots of horrible tyranny right there.

And of course we're going to intervene in a revolution (or whatever) if it puts our interests at risk. That's called business. We aren't Walmart; we're not going to let a shoplifter just walk out of the store unopposed. China invading Korea while the North was being smashed in the Korean War sure was horrible tyranny on their part.

And wtf? How was the blockade on Cuba during the missile crises tyranny?

Dollar Diplomacy being tyranny is an even bigger joke... it wasn't even an intervention. I don't understand why it's on that list?

There's definitely some things there that probably shouldn't have been done, but a lot of what's on that list is just stupid.

No but seriously, I don't see how some of those are horrible in any way. Nicaragua, 1899 - Marines land at port of Bluefields

Look at it this way...a foreign country sends their marines to US shores. Could you imagine that happening? No, because that is an act of war and disrespect for that nation.

Cool, so are you cool with other foreign countries intervening in US business?

El Qahira wrote:

No but seriously, I don't see how some of those are horrible in any way. Nicaragua, 1899 - Marines land at port of Bluefields

Look at it this way...a foreign country sends their marines to US shores. Could you imagine that happening? No, because that is an act of war and disrespect for that nation.

Cool, so are you cool with other foreign countries intervening in US business?

They have a right to do it, just like we have a right to nail them with missiles in response.

They have a right to? Oh, well I'm letting you know now that the whole US government disagrees with you. I still disagree with your way of thinking, but at least you're not hypocritical. That's a plus.

But no, I couldn't really see another country's marines landing on US shores for a couple reasons. One, we could quickly annihilate the marines with air power, which the other countries could not do to the USA because airplanes weren't effective machines yet. And two, we have a respectable navy that could annihilate the marines before they even landed, which those other countries also probably lacked (they definitely lacked the radar and satellites to detect ships in the first place).

Also, the government is a joke. Congress/the senate is full of a bunch of stupid five year olds. And when your country's leader feels that he has to shut down miles of highway and airspace just to drive from one place to another... then you know something's wrong. The government should be afraid of the people, not the other way around. I don't have any respect for any of their decisions or ideas.

Ace wrote:we could quickly annihilate the marines with air power, which the other countries could not do to the USA because airplanes weren't effective machines yet.

Isn't this the very definition of bullying/tyranny? The US does it to countries that it knows won't be able to retaliate due to being weaker. The US wouldn't dare to it to a powerful country like the UK, France or China.

El Qahira wrote:

Ace wrote:we could quickly annihilate the marines with air power, which the other countries could not do to the USA because airplanes weren't effective machines yet.

Isn't this the very definition of bullying/tyranny? The US does it to countries that it knows won't be able to retaliate due to being weaker. The US wouldn't dare to it to a powerful country like the UK, France or China.

That's not what I meant. The USA didn't have airplanes either. We just put marines there, just cuz. Nicaragua technically could've done that right back.

We have important ties to the UK and China and we're on very friendly terms with all three of them, so why would we strike them in the first place? And waging a real war with our debt? That's insane. Although doing anything in a foreign country at this point is insane.

But regardless of that, we have no reason to invade their countries. We have to have a good reason to do something like that. We wouldn't dare do it because there's no good reason to do it. The US soldiers wouldn't be having anything to fight for, while the country on defense would. That pretty much ensures US defeat.

No, you are very very wrong. Nicaragua could not have done that back.

I'm not sure if you are aware of how the power dynamics are in the world.

Also, hypothetically is the US was on bad terms with them, it wouldn't do it.

Undeniably, the debt has crippled US tyranny a bit. But not by much.

El Qahira wrote:No, you are very very wrong. Nicaragua could not have done that back.

I'm not sure if you are aware of how the power dynamics are in the world.

Also, hypothetically is the US was on bad terms with them, it wouldn't do it.

Undeniably, the debt has crippled US tyranny a bit. But not by much.

Back then, a boatload of gunmen easily could've landed on US shores. All you needed was enough food and strong enough men and ship to survive the journey. I'm sure they had that much.

We probably wouldn't invade simply because of the current gov mentality. Half of it is just PR stunts. Presidents and others in power just say, I'll do this, without an explanation as to how or why or most importantly when it'll happen. They don't really do anything tbh.

Ace wrote:

El Qahira wrote:No, you are very very wrong. Nicaragua could not have done that back.

I'm not sure if you are aware of how the power dynamics are in the world.

Also, hypothetically is the US was on bad terms with them, it wouldn't do it.

Undeniably, the debt has crippled US tyranny a bit. But not by much.

Back then, a boatload of gunmen easily could've landed on US shores. All you needed was enough food and strong enough men and ship to survive the journey. I'm sure they had that much.

We probably wouldn't invade simply because of the current gov mentality. Half of it is just PR stunts. Presidents and others in power just say, I'll do this, without an explanation as to how or why or most importantly when it'll happen. They don't really do anything tbh.

That's not true. Either you are severally underestimating US power in the 1800s or you are overestimating Latin American rebel powers at the time.

El Qahira wrote:

Ace wrote:

El Qahira wrote:No, you are very very wrong. Nicaragua could not have done that back.

I'm not sure if you are aware of how the power dynamics are in the world.

Also, hypothetically is the US was on bad terms with them, it wouldn't do it.

Undeniably, the debt has crippled US tyranny a bit. But not by much.

Back then, a boatload of gunmen easily could've landed on US shores. All you needed was enough food and strong enough men and ship to survive the journey. I'm sure they had that much.

We probably wouldn't invade simply because of the current gov mentality. Half of it is just PR stunts. Presidents and others in power just say, I'll do this, without an explanation as to how or why or most importantly when it'll happen. They don't really do anything tbh.

That's not true. Either you are severally underestimating US power in the 1800s or you are overestimating Latin American rebel powers at the time.

Little bit of both, probably. HS History courses tend to completely ignore Latin America, Africa, and Australia, and a real history course for me comes next semester.

Alright. We'll talk then.

Ace wrote:You spread just as much propaganda as the media you oppose so much.

I'm just gonna leave the thread after this.

edit: you also are spitting out as much stuff as my conspiracy theorist father.
no disrespect tho.

Craig wrote:

Ace wrote:You spread just as much propaganda as the media you oppose so much.

I'm just gonna leave the thread after this.

edit: you also are spitting out as much stuff as my conspiracy theorist father.
no disrespect tho.

Conspiracy? I linked you. Grab a history book and check after it.

Could you argue the fact that with these tyranny comes stabilization of these regions?

Placids wrote:Could you argue the fact that with these tyranny comes stabilization of these regions?

You could, but on a ethical level that's evil. Kind of like you could make a man stop arguing in 2 ways.

1-Convince him that he's wrong.
2-Shoot him with a gun.

I think the line for ethical behavior is drawn at a different level when it comes to the countries and diplomacy. I can immediately think of North Korea and South Korea. While it may be unethical for us to invade their countries; it's also ethical for us to keep them at 'peace' and from killing each other. While I question our reasons for being in the middle east I do think it has also done what it was intended to do. Without our presence who knows what those countries would have done.

America's presence in the ME is no doubt to protect Israel.

If one must have a war, would it not be best to have a cold one? We must choose the greater of two evils occasionally should it provide the best way to preserve human life.

The issue is that the stability that comes from the tyranny is a false pretense. You look at South America, what it is is simply a long list of corruptions and bribes describe as "stability". You look at the Middle East, US and other foreign intervention has simply helped to increase chaos and open up the gates for more coups.