sleepy jack

Okay.

Nicaragua, and our overthrow of their democracy, is one example of many that can be given which display our disregard for developing democracies, actually our contempt for them. This rebuts the reasoning which YOU think is justifiable for war in Iraq, spreading democracy. Maybe democracy would be good for the Middle East, but that isn't our goal over there. That is why Nicaragua is relevant.

I have not mentioned Israel at all in any of my posts, I don't know why you keep mentioning it.

Well, we invaded their land to control oil, the number one natural resource on the planet, yes. That in and of itself was a bad decision. The way the war was handled was another bad decision, which has resulted in a country that is far less-safe than it was under Saddam. Hard to imagine, sure, but the numbers speak for themselves.

Next, you continue to assert that the Iraqis will hate us more if we leave.
They want us to leave more than anything! Polls show that nearly 66% of Iraqis want us to leave EVEN IF it leads to increased danger for them.

You can view all the Gallup/Pew polls, none of them reflect the sentiments you seem to be echoing, that the Iraqis will hate us more if we leave.

USATODAY.com - Poll: Iraqis out of patience

No, we don't. If a republican president is elected you can bet your button dollar that our occupation will continue for many more years. It means too much money for them to just leave. These warmongers aren't moral people, they don't care how much it costs Americans in tax money, all they know is that the companies which they invest in are making billions of dollars in this war that is going to be passed onto them. It would mean big losses for them to just pull out. What in the world could possibly make you believe they are looking out for the interests of the average American citizen? Because they've always looked out for us before? I think every example I've provided contradicts that, but you still don't think historic examples (even if they are only 20 years old) are relevant.

I never called Israel a facade, neither did Lord Curzon was talking about the land between the Tigres and Euphrates, which..if you look at a map, is Iraq..

Obviously this was 75 years ago, and the Iraqis had since gained some independence from Western rule, but now they are right back under it. They are being led by 25 men appointed by and American who is looking out for American interests. What do you call it? They're all American appointed. That is exactly what Lord Curzon was talking about after WWI.

No, receiving money for disability is a socialist feature of our economy. If we were purely capitalistic then you would be screwed, because as a disabled person you would be terrible labor, and therefore would not be hired. And since we are totally capitalistic, there would be no compensation check in your mailbox from the government, because in capitalism there is no government intervention. You would be at the mercy of money hungry employers who would not waste their money and lower their efficiency to accommodate a disabled person. Anytime you receive a check from the government to compensate for money you would not be able to earn in a normal capitalistic state, it is a socialist aspect. This is completely off topic however.

Maybe so, but not on foreign policy, even George Bush would describe his foreign policy as 'reaganite'.

Yeah, we did refuse to help Fidel Castro, and that has led to major problems for the US. He came to the US for help FIRST. But we liked Batista, even though he was a tyrant, because he let us establish American companies there, and again, our leaders in Washington profited. Therefore, it was not beneficial for us to help Castro overthrow him, even though Cubans were living in poverty, because we would loose money. This was during the Cold War, when it was essentially 'The US and the USSR'. Even though he pleaded with us for help, we denied him, so he turned to his only other option, the USSR, who gladly supported him. Of course, McCarthyism took over, and since Castro had been funded by the USSR, we demonized him. The demonization continues to this day. Had the US helped him, the standard of living for the average Cuban would be miles high and Cuba would likely be a democracy.

Also, Castro has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, why do you hate him so passionately again? Again because you believe the propaganda that the government dishes out.

Wow, you sure do seem to hate Fidel Castro. He has no ties to terrorism, in fact imprisons terrorists, he had huge prisons in the 60's dedicated to locking up people who tried to assassinate him, I guess that is the worst you can say about him. What fuels your hatred other than this left-over red scare business? You don't know why you hate him, you hate him because the US government hates him, which testifys to your rationality and critical thinking skills when it comes to your justification of the War in Iraq.

One, this is untrue. Two, the reasons we don't attempt to occupy France like we occupy the Philippines, is the same reasons the English didn't occupy Germany like they occupied India.

1. There really is no excuse for an invasion of France. We can't say are spreading democracy, just like the English couldn't have justified occupying Germany through White-Mans burden. Secondly, imperialism doesn't focus on established, well defended states. Had India been a part of Europe, had established Monarchies ruling it, the British would never have thought to attempt to control it. Just like we couldn't ever get away with invading any country in Western Europe. We'd be struck down immediately on all grounds, and probably face the biggest alliances of countries AGAINST us that history has ever seen. With Iraq, or the Philippines, or 1850's Mexico, you don't face these problems. They're easy targets. Saddam couldn't defend himself.

Haha. As you would say, 'good fiction, good fiction'. You must have made this up, because I cannot find a single source that validates it. Even the US government, who would like nothing more than to remove Chavez from power, admits they are no links between him and terrorism. He openly supported the US War on Terrorism. I give you some credit for stating these blatant lies so confidently, but boo boo, please. There is no connection between Chavez and terrorism.

Next, about his 'horrible' human rights record. Where is it? You just made up a little reply that sounded firm enough that no one would care to check you on it I suppose. Completely false, there are no marks on Chavez's Human Rights Record.

Again, the US demonizes him, so you have some seething hatred for him, to the point that you would support his assassination. Its ridiculous, can't you get some opinions of your own?

That is mostly because, we haven't supplied any reasoning that would point to a conclusion other than imperialism. When we invaded Texas and Arizona and New Mexico, when they belonged to Mexico, it was imperialism. When we liberated all those carribean countries from Spanish control, only to continue to occupy them, and install our own leaders, that was imperialism. Now, we've invaded Iraq and installed our own leaders in a move that is clearly imperialism. You said I didn't give any examples in response to a post where I gave three!

__________________