8 ms·

|Again, what other country is out there doing more to defend freedom? Examples of the US defending freedom. 1973 Chilean coup d'état http://en.wikipedia.org/

|Again, what other country is out there doing more to defend freedom? Examples of the US defending freedom. 1973 Chilean coup d'état http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat The US supports a coup of the democratically elected President Salvador Allende who is replaced by the dictator Augusto Pinochet. Chile lived under a military dictatorship until 1990. Pinochet was responsible for the death and torture of tens of thousands of Chileans. 1953 Iranian coup d'état http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat The US overthrows the democratically elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh and have him replaced with the Shah of Iran, who acts as a proxy for US interests and uses the Iranian Intelligence Agency to crush political opposition. US support of Saudi Arabia Saudia Arabia is an absolute monarchy with no political parties or elections. It was rated in the Economists 2010 Democracy Index to be the seventh most authoritarian country in the world, and ranked higher than both Iran and Libya. The Saudia Arabian monarchy has given hundreds of billions of dollars to the US in exchange for military weaponry and the building of military infrastructure. Recently, Obama approved the biggest arms sale in US history, $60.5 billion in arms sold to Saudia Arabia. Now, I'm getting a bit tired, so I'm not going to go into a lot of detail for the rest, but you can look into US support for King Abdullah in Jordan, US support of Murbarak in Egypt, US support for Suharto in Indonesia, the list goes on. Sometimes the US supports democratic governments, often they support brutal tyrannical dictators. Generally it has to do with whether or not the policies of theses countries are in alignment with US economic interests.

diogenescynic 15y ago
You didn't answer the question: if the US is so bad--who is better? WW I/II, Vietnam, Korean War, Gulf War, intervention in Kosovo, among others were all conveniently left out. All your examples are from 2-3 generations ago. Get real, all countries make compromises with their philosophies/ideologies when it comes to national interest. What country has done better? Military intervention should only be used when our nation's interests are at risk. We are not the world's police force. We're already spending $4million/day in Libya and the Iraq/Afghanistan wars will cost $4trillion. Not to mention 6,026 US soldiers who have died. We cannot afford anymore wars. Now here are some facts: The biggest portion of U.S. aid goes to Iraq ($4.27 billion), Afghanistan ($1.46 billion), Sudan ($725 million), Colombia ($562 million), Egypt ($541 million), Nigeria ($514 million), Democratic Republic of Congo ($486 million) and Pakistan ($465 million). (Figures are for Gross Bilateral Official Development Assistance, 2006-2007 average) * The United States has always been the world's largest donor, except in the mid-1990s when Japan briefly topped the list. http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/01/06/us-usa-aid-factbox-idUSTRE6054DT20100106 http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/01/06/us-usa-aid-factbox... This does not support your argument and you still haven't answered my original question.
- wnight 15y ago
  > Military intervention should only be used when our nation's interests are at risk. Or when you caused threat to others and now need to take care of it. Or where you'd want others to help you, and thus should help them. But yeah, it's pretty obvious you're only in this for yourselves. > We are not the world's police force. Strange, you say otherwise when it comes to wiretapping the world, enforcing your drug laws around the world, forcing your patent system on others, etc. > We're already spending $4million/day in Libya and the Iraq/Afghanistan wars will cost $4trillion. What of it? You've not only blow more on crooked bank bailouts, but you easily gain more value than that in ensuring American control of Iraq and Afghanistan's resources and in permanent military bases in more countries. Financially your wars are a huge win, as soon as the world forgets you started them and lets you profit. > Not to mention 6,026 US soldiers who have died. No, not to mention them. They've killed and participated in the deaths of over a million people. At a thousand-to-one kill ratio, when you're the aggressor nation, you need to quit whining. That the war was predicated on false pretenses was known long before troops got overseas. The virtuous among them had plenty of time to refuse to fight. > The biggest portion of U.S. aid goes to Iraq ($4.27 billion), Afghanistan ($1.46 billion), Sudan ($725 million), Colombia ($562 million), Egypt ($541 million), Nigeria ($514 million), Democratic Republic of Congo ($486 million) and Pakistan ($465 million). So you spend less fixing up Iraq, Afghanistan, etc, than you did on ammunition, let alone bombs, to destroy them and you want thanks? You give (to cronies) about as much aid money as you spend air-conditioning your soldiers. > We cannot afford anymore wars. You don't even begin to suffer from your wars. When you say things like that remember the countless dead who cannot afford your war anymore, either.
  - diogenescynic 15y ago
    |...it's pretty obvious you're only in this for yourselves. Yeah because not intervening in one marginal conflict invalidates all the good America has done in WWI/II, Israel, Korea, Thailand, Philippines, Kosovo, Africa and the fact we already do more than the rest of the world... you're still claiming we're the worst. You would never be happy and we don't have to please psychotics like yourself. |you easily gain more value than that in ensuring American control of Iraq and Afghanistan's resources and in permanent military bases in more countries. More conspiracy theories, devoid of logic, reality or facts. |Or where you'd want others to help you, and thus should help them. Syria would never help the US under any circumstances, but the US is a better country than Syria and yes like I've pointed out Obama has already spoken out against it. You wouldn't be happy no matter what. So why did I even bother? You're clearly mentally imbalanced/unstable and have some issues with conspiracy theories. And like I've asked repeatedly: If the USA is so bad who is better? I'm taking you repeated avoidance as tacit admission that the USA has done the most good to the world and received the least back from it. And please explain to me our world 24-7-365 everyone/everywhere wiretapping program you referenced? Also in case you haven't noticed, PG/Y-Combinator are from the USA? You're commenting here on their site. Ironic. You've made many ridiculous accusations without backing them up with facts. It's 4th of July. Have a nice life.

diogenescynic 15y ago

You didn't answer the question: if the US is so bad--who is better? WW I/II, Vietnam, Korean War, Gulf War, intervention in Kosovo, among others were all conveniently left out. All your examples are from 2-3 generations ago. Get real, all countries make compromises with their philosophies/ideologies when it comes to national interest. What country has done better? Military intervention should only be used when our nation's interests are at risk. We are not the world's police force. We're already spending $4million/day in Libya and the Iraq/Afghanistan wars will cost $4trillion. Not to mention 6,026 US soldiers who have died. We cannot afford anymore wars. Now here are some facts: The biggest portion of U.S. aid goes to Iraq ($4.27 billion), Afghanistan ($1.46 billion), Sudan ($725 million), Colombia ($562 million), Egypt ($541 million), Nigeria ($514 million), Democratic Republic of Congo ($486 million) and Pakistan ($465 million). (Figures are for Gross Bilateral Official Development Assistance, 2006-2007 average) * The United States has always been the world's largest donor, except in the mid-1990s when Japan briefly topped the list. http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/01/06/us-usa-aid-factbox-idUSTRE6054DT20100106 http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/01/06/us-usa-aid-factbox... This does not support your argument and you still haven't answered my original question.

wnight 15y ago
> Military intervention should only be used when our nation's interests are at risk. Or when you caused threat to others and now need to take care of it. Or where you'd want others to help you, and thus should help them. But yeah, it's pretty obvious you're only in this for yourselves. > We are not the world's police force. Strange, you say otherwise when it comes to wiretapping the world, enforcing your drug laws around the world, forcing your patent system on others, etc. > We're already spending $4million/day in Libya and the Iraq/Afghanistan wars will cost $4trillion. What of it? You've not only blow more on crooked bank bailouts, but you easily gain more value than that in ensuring American control of Iraq and Afghanistan's resources and in permanent military bases in more countries. Financially your wars are a huge win, as soon as the world forgets you started them and lets you profit. > Not to mention 6,026 US soldiers who have died. No, not to mention them. They've killed and participated in the deaths of over a million people. At a thousand-to-one kill ratio, when you're the aggressor nation, you need to quit whining. That the war was predicated on false pretenses was known long before troops got overseas. The virtuous among them had plenty of time to refuse to fight. > The biggest portion of U.S. aid goes to Iraq ($4.27 billion), Afghanistan ($1.46 billion), Sudan ($725 million), Colombia ($562 million), Egypt ($541 million), Nigeria ($514 million), Democratic Republic of Congo ($486 million) and Pakistan ($465 million). So you spend less fixing up Iraq, Afghanistan, etc, than you did on ammunition, let alone bombs, to destroy them and you want thanks? You give (to cronies) about as much aid money as you spend air-conditioning your soldiers. > We cannot afford anymore wars. You don't even begin to suffer from your wars. When you say things like that remember the countless dead who cannot afford your war anymore, either.
- diogenescynic 15y ago
  |...it's pretty obvious you're only in this for yourselves. Yeah because not intervening in one marginal conflict invalidates all the good America has done in WWI/II, Israel, Korea, Thailand, Philippines, Kosovo, Africa and the fact we already do more than the rest of the world... you're still claiming we're the worst. You would never be happy and we don't have to please psychotics like yourself. |you easily gain more value than that in ensuring American control of Iraq and Afghanistan's resources and in permanent military bases in more countries. More conspiracy theories, devoid of logic, reality or facts. |Or where you'd want others to help you, and thus should help them. Syria would never help the US under any circumstances, but the US is a better country than Syria and yes like I've pointed out Obama has already spoken out against it. You wouldn't be happy no matter what. So why did I even bother? You're clearly mentally imbalanced/unstable and have some issues with conspiracy theories. And like I've asked repeatedly: If the USA is so bad who is better? I'm taking you repeated avoidance as tacit admission that the USA has done the most good to the world and received the least back from it. And please explain to me our world 24-7-365 everyone/everywhere wiretapping program you referenced? Also in case you haven't noticed, PG/Y-Combinator are from the USA? You're commenting here on their site. Ironic. You've made many ridiculous accusations without backing them up with facts. It's 4th of July. Have a nice life.