46 replies to this topic

[None of the above]

OverSword, on 05 October 2012 - 07:27 PM, said:

Have you by chance read Confessions of an Economic Hitman?

No I hadn't even heard of it. Just googled it. Looks rather scarey!

[ninjadude]

and then, on 05 October 2012 - 01:01 PM, said:

The fact that he hates the US and is working with the Iranians is reason enough to make him a target.

So anyone that hates the US is a target in your world? You're at odds with a fair amount of it.

[Stellar]

I briefly worked with a woman that immigrated here from Venuzuela. The reason she left is because of how corrupt the country is. Chavez, as she describes, is essentially a dictator. She says that the entire country knows the elections are rigged, and the government is starting to manipulate the schools in order to indoctrinate the children with their views.

[and then]

ninjadude, on 05 October 2012 - 10:09 PM, said:

So anyone that hates the US is a target in your world? You're at odds with a fair amount of it.

And proudly so.  And it isn't just "my" world....it's the real world.  You should come up for air occasionally and see the truth.

[Stellar]

and then, on 06 October 2012 - 05:05 AM, said:

And proudly so.  And it isn't just "my" world....it's the real world.  You should come up for air occasionally and see the truth.

Well, I guess your only option, then, is to conquer the entire world... because with that mentality, eventually everyone will become a "target".

Are you surprised that there are people in the world that hate your country? Maybe its because of the way people like you act. As soon as someone hates the actions of your government, they're "targeted". That is complete and utter bs. If that is how all americans feel, then you have no right to claim the moral high ground on anything. Period. Luckily, I believe that you and those like you are a minority in the US.

Youre essentially the american equivalent of the muslims you denounce.

Edited by Stellar, 06 October 2012 - 12:55 PM.

[The New Richard Nixon]

I like how people Defend Chavez have not posted again

[questionmark]

in related news:

NY Times said:

How Hugo Chávez Became Irrelevant

AS Hugo Chávez, the icon of Latin America’s left, struggles to hang on to his job, it’s tempting to read tomorrow’s closely contested election in Venezuela as a possible signal of the region’s return to the right. That would be a mistake, because the question that’s been roiling Latin America for a dozen years isn’t “left or right?” but “which left?”

Outsiders have often interpreted Latin America’s swing to the left over the last dozen years as a movement of leaders marching in ideological lock step. But within the region, the fault lines have always been clear.

Radical revolutionary regimes in Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia and Nicaragua joined Cuba, the granddaddy of the far left, in a bloc determined to confront the capitalist world, even if that meant increasingly authoritarian government.

Read more

[lightly]

uncle sam is demonizing Hugo  because he refuses to 'co operate' ?

[ranrod]

The world resembles a kindergarten by the way world leaders behave

[and then]

Stellar, on 06 October 2012 - 12:53 PM, said:

Well, I guess your only option, then, is to conquer the entire world... because with that mentality, eventually everyone will become a "target".

Are you surprised that there are people in the world that hate your country? Maybe its because of the way people like you act. As soon as someone hates the actions of your government, they're "targeted". That is complete and utter bs. If that is how all americans feel, then you have no right to claim the moral high ground on anything. Period. Luckily, I believe that you and those like you are a minority in the US.

Youre essentially the american equivalent of the muslims you denounce.

So in your world if a nation wishes you ill, works to harm you and gives aid to your enemies you would not "target" them?  That sounds like fairyland to me.  My words are often misconstrued to make me seem like a person with a bunker mentality and it simply isn't true.  The irony of the speech I often hear here is that it is the Pax Americana  that has provided that right to most of what is the free world.  And it is used to denigrate the source of it's protection.  I guess that's only proper, though it seems odd to me.  The opinions you hold of me are your own and you are welcome to them.

[Stellar]

and then, on 06 October 2012 - 07:18 PM, said:

So in your world if a nation wishes you ill, works to harm you and gives aid to your enemies you would not "target" them?

So in your world if a nation hates you, they work to harm you and give aid to your enemies?

[and then]

Stellar, on 07 October 2012 - 03:03 AM, said:

So in your world if a nation hates you, they work to harm you and give aid to your enemies?

Britain had some "friends" called Hessians.  France helped the South in our Civil War.  Germany had many, many spies and saboteurs in the US during WWI and WWII. China and Russia in the 60's - Vietnam.  Marine Barracks Beirut, Khobar Towers, The two African Embassies, the USS Cole, WTC attack one, 9-11...... Yeah...I'd say that statement was accurate...

[Stellar]

You really are paranoid, aren't you? Well, continue on your course then. Continue pissing people off, and them targeting them because you're pissed off. Clearly that's the right way to do things.

Btw, you keep claiming that people "misunderstand" you. I don't think so. You could have the stance that you target those that target you, but you didn't chose to say that, you chose to say that you target those who hate you. It is very possible for one to hate another, yet have no involvement in harming the other.

[and then]

Stellar, on 07 October 2012 - 11:20 AM, said:

You really are paranoid, aren't you? Well, continue on your course then. Continue pissing people off, and them targeting them because you're pissed off. Clearly that's the right way to do things.

Btw, you keep claiming that people "misunderstand" you. I don't think so. You could have the stance that you target those that target you, but you didn't chose to say that, you chose to say that you target those who hate you. It is very possible for one to hate another, yet have no involvement in harming the other.

Are the examples I posted inaccurate?  Why must you make this personal?

[Stellar]

and then, on 07 October 2012 - 11:48 AM, said:

Are the examples I posted inaccurate?  Why must you make this personal?

Are you kidding me? You show me a couple of examples of people who worked against the US, and therefore all people who hate you must be actively trying to harm you? What kind of a ridiculous leap on in logic is that?