Rant with Valid Points

[Aakosir]

divineseraph

Aakosir

I'm not referring to the economy here. I know it's about to callapse, what I am saying is without our military we would have already been taken over. I mean look at all the s**t going on in the middle east. The stupid presidents can't keep their frickin' nose out of there! How many people think Vietnam would have invaded us? How many people think the Japanese would have invaded us during WWII? I do, but since we have a fighting force, they saved us from the fight coming on to our soil. What would have happened to the American people if we had been invaded? It would be like WWII on our soil.

Our troops do protects us and our freedom. Sadly, considering they're spread all over the world doing the president's bidding, people think we can't defend our homeland and are too busy invading others. The Iraqis that we have met want us to be there. They like us because we're defending them. I'm sure the Libyan rebels are happy we're helping them, but that's going to turn in to what happened with Bush Sr. and the Taliban...

What, you mean the s**t OUR MILITARY started and propagates to the benefit of those in the oil and weapons businesses?

I didn't say anything like that.  

[CalledTheRaven]

Aakosir

CalledTheRaven

Aakosir

CalledTheRaven

I wasn't talking about the economy. I was talking about the state of our government.

Also, we didn't go to Vietnam to stop them invading anyone. We went there to try and keep China out. Vietnam and Korea were both about China and communism. We also didn't go to Iraq to stop them from invading. We went because we were lied to about weapons of mass destruction. It was about political B.S.

No, we went to Vietnam to stop the Vietcong from taking over South Vietnam. We helped south Vietnam with a civil war. And Iraq, has many different theories about it. I personally think that it was Jr. trying to avenge his father since he did aide Sadam or Bin Laden, I forget, and they turned on him. It's exactly like the Libya scenario right now... We go to help the rebels, arm them, then they turn against us.

And I was referring to Sanguina with the government comment.

We (as a political body mind, not individuals) didn't give a rats backside about helping the South Vietnamese. We were only worried about the North Vietnamese because they were backed by communist China, which we feared was in a larger alliance with communist Russia. It was about stopping the spread of the terrible red menace. It was the cold war. Everything was a commy plot to take over the world. And we weren't there to because the South Vietnamese asked for our help either. We were there helping the French who were still trying to assert some degree of colonial rule over Vietnam. And did I mention that even though we were only supposed to be "supporting" the French military effort, we were shouldering around 80% of the cost of the thing?

As for Iraq, While I agree somewhat with the idea that W. was fighting his daddy's war, but Bush the elder wasn't exactly what I'd call an ally of Saddam. It's hard to turn on someone you were never friends with. You might argue he turned on the US since our country was only too happy to help him into office when he was expelling Palestinian terroists (remember, we like Israel) but he never attacked us. Look up the Gulf War and Desert Storm please. Iraq had massive debts to Kuwait and they claimed that not only was Kuwait engaging in "economic warfare" against them, but that it was actually a territory of Iraq anyway so they invaded in an attempt to annex it. This was condemned by the international community and the US led the charge to push Saddam out of Kuwait. After all, we couldn't have them getting uppity and trying to invade Saudi Arabia next (holder of most of the rest of their massive debt and the place our oil comes from). Anyway, we succeeded. Hurray. We won. But we didn't stop with completion of our stated goals. No. We had to march into Iraq after the Iraqi soldiers, get within 105 miles of Baghdad, and then decide it was time to go home.

Bin Laden was another thing altogether. He wasn't in Iraq. Near as we can tell, al-Qaeda wasn't in Iraq. There were in Afghanistan (where we are also still fighting). They were merely useful boogiemen to scare us into letting the Iraq war happen. Shout terrorists and watch us all cower. If we were concerned with dealing with that problem we really should have focused on that instead of Iraq's imaginary WMDs. And did you know we armed and funded al-Qaeda (or what would become al-Qaeda) when they were fighting Soviets in the 70's and 80s? We gave them lots of money. Yeah. That was a great plan there. Lets give money to the violent extremists because they happen to be fighting someone we're scared of at this moment. It's not like they've got anything against any of our major allies in the area (*cough*Israel*cough*) or that their current conflict might ever end and allow them to look for more targets right?

The Cold War is something completely different than Vietnam. The Cold War was an arms race, two superpowers "fighting" each other for power. It was a lot of political crap. That's when McCarthyism came around and the paranoia of Communism.

I do not know much about Desert Storm, surprisingly I don't think my history class is going to cover it, but we're talking about Watergate and Reagan's conservative policies... I don't really like this hitory class too much. It seems to be too much about politics.

And yea, that's what I was talking about. We practically armed the terrorists that would then target the U.S. Which is exactly what we're doing with Libya right now!

The Cold War lasted for around 30-40 years. Vietnam and Korea happened during the Cold War and were motivated on our side by fear of COmmunism, propogated by the Cold War.  

[CalledTheRaven]

And by the way, that "Under God" part of the pledge of allegiance was added in the 50s. The man who originally wrote it in 1892 was an American Communist who had no intention of inserting religion into the thing.  

[Aakosir]

CalledTheRaven

And by the way, that "Under God" part of the pledge of allegiance was added in the 50s. The man who originally wrote it in 1892 was an American Communist who had no intention of inserting religion into the thing.

Well that's an interesting tidbit. Ironic that the religious part was just recently added too.  

[SaturnineSound]

I love my country's military. I love the ruthless efficiency of it, not to mention the countless innovations it has inspired. We're so far ahead of everyone else it's funny. I love the films and literature about it, too. Really, I love just about everything about it.

As for America itself, I quite enjoy the freedom of expression. And the music. We've definitely got the best music. We've got the first and third best gas turbine manufacturers in the world, which is really good for me. We've got a lot less gun control than other countries, which I like. I like how the government lies to its citizens so easily, that's always good for a laugh or two. I like how stupid the majority of Americans are, because it makes me feel that much better about myself. As cruel as that sounds. xD  

[trina30f]

Aakosir

Ya know, how is it that there are people who come to the U.S. from a different country, but turn out to be so ungrateful? A friend shared a cartoon about the sacrifces our military gives to protect the people of the U.S. But then we have people who come here who can't even respect our views.

One person, a Polan immigrant, said today that they don't understand the cartoons we post about the services of our military. It was a "Boddy, it's your right to not stand for the pledge, but let me introduce someone who can't stand because he was defending that right" *sits a Marine in a wheel chair*. Someone had enough nerve to say that our current troops are not protecting our rights. If we had no organized military we would be threatened by countries everyday who would want to invade. The proof is in the middle east and other countries that do not have an organized military. Hell, even if you have a small military, you're still threatened.

I do not understand where people get this logic. Like I said, if we did not have a military we would be under constant threat, domestic and foreign, even more so than we already are. There would be more terrorist attempts and success.

Anyone can respect that a military is necessary. but to call people who flex their right to not stand for the pledge ungrateful? that is just ignorant. This little rant could be right up there with the arguments Christians use when I choose not to use "under god" in our pledge, or scratch out the "in God we trust" on my dollar bills. ******** yeah I am grateful to the people who fought for that right. but that does not mean the entire government and all of it's policies deserve my unyielding support and blind following.  

[Aakosir]

shanesmith0922

Aakosir

Ya know, how is it that there are people who come to the U.S. from a different country, but turn out to be so ungrateful? A friend shared a cartoon about the sacrifces our military gives to protect the people of the U.S. But then we have people who come here who can't even respect our views.

One person, a Polan immigrant, said today that they don't understand the cartoons we post about the services of our military. It was a "Boddy, it's your right to not stand for the pledge, but let me introduce someone who can't stand because he was defending that right" *sits a Marine in a wheel chair*. Someone had enough nerve to say that our current troops are not protecting our rights. If we had no organized military we would be threatened by countries everyday who would want to invade. The proof is in the middle east and other countries that do not have an organized military. Hell, even if you have a small military, you're still threatened.

I do not understand where people get this logic. Like I said, if we did not have a military we would be under constant threat, domestic and foreign, even more so than we already are. There would be more terrorist attempts and success.

Anyone can respect that a military is necessary. but to call people who flex their right to not stand for the pledge ungrateful? that is just ignorant. This little rant could be right up there with the arguments Christians use when I choose not to use "under god" in our pledge, or scratch out the "in God we trust" on my dollar bills. ******** yeah I am grateful to the people who fought for that right. but that does not mean the entire government and all of it's policies deserve my unyielding support and blind following.

You know the "under god" part was added in the 50's? The original pledge was not meant to be religious. I don't think it could be compared, considering this country was created for people to escape religious persecution in their country. It has become hypocritical since now you must be Christian to live here. Which is not true, but is the thinking of the government and many others.