The US is the World's Liberator

Started by Amber, Dec 14, 2003, 04:21 PM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down

Amber

I'd like to get this up on websites like now so please give me feedback ASAP.

The US is the World's Liberator

The recent capture of brutal dictator Saddam Hussein disproves what Chomsky-ite leftists have been trying to propagandize for decades:  that capitalism necessarily leads to military imperialism.  In fact it is the opposite:  capitalist nations export freedom, security, and liberation around the world.

The current anti-war zealots infesting campuses everywhere are not Marxists.  They are Leninists.  Their hatred is not aimed at what a capitalist nation supposedly does to proletarians but to all the poor, oppressed people around the world.  It is taken as an axiom that capitalism, by sin of producing a robust economy and strong military might, necessarily leads to military imperialism.

The evidence for this is weak.  When Chomsky, for instance, accuses the US of killing as many people as Hitler, he will reference US bombing of a pharmaceutical company in Sudan Africa - Clinton's doing.  In his twisted logic, since this did not just kill the people at that bombing but caused many people to be without medical supplies, the US is necessarily responsible for thousands of deaths - just like Hitler.  [Although if you want to compare Clinton to Hitler, I perhaps wouldn't mind seeing that headline on CNN news].

The logic in this is absurd, but this is the type of evidence these Leninists give.  Of course, there is another dictator comparable to Hitler:  Saddam Hussein, someone whom Chomsky rarely, if ever, condemns.  

Saddam Hussein has killed upwards of one million people by direct, conscious will - including his own people.  He gassed people at whim, including children; he would hang women upside down during menstruation to humiliate them; his sons would point to women they wanted, then raped them - just to name a few of the evils this regime was responsible for.  (please note that I am using past tense!)  

This scum bucket, as of this morning of December 14, 2003, was captured and detained, and all Iraqis can rest assured that they will never suffer terror at the hands of that monster ever again.  It wasn't Canada that captured him; it wasn't Mexico; it wasn't Germany; it wasn't France:  it was the United States, the freest, most capitalistic nation in the world today or ever.  

Every American should be not only thankful but proud to be an American today.  Message to the Iraqi people:  Merry Christmas!

Is this the nation that these anti-American Chomsky-ites accuse of being a military tyrant?  The country that ridded the world of Hitler and now Hussein?  When Britain was at its prime, it would ransack, takeover, and control defeated countries.  They ransacked the Taj Mahal for their own personal profit, just as one example.  Of the countries the US invaded in the past, excluding the current situation, which one is occupied by US forces?  Japan?  Germany?    The accusations of Leninists are bogus.  A capitalist nation has no desire to pull the strings of another country:  that would be way too cumbersome.  

When terrorists caught Danny Pearl, by sin of being a Jew, he was captured, held hostage, and shot to death - leaving his pregnant wife behind. Images of Danny being detained with a gun to his head were all over the media.  When we caught Saddam Hussein today, the first image we have seen is him getting a medical examination.  Further proof of a tyrannical America - giving medical aid to our goddam enemies.  

Every benevolent, peace-loving person and nation is happy today, happy that Saddam Hussein was caught -even France!  But the silence from the Democrats is still deafening.  I went to the gym today and random strangers come up to me to tell others and me they were "Happy that guy was caught!"  You'd have to have a pretty cold heart and nasty political agenda not to be caught up in patriotic fever, joy for the Iraqi people, and thankfulness to the Bush administration today.  To his credit, Howard Dean has done the smart thing already and congratulated US troops and even the administration for capturing Saddam.  Good for him, but remember were Dean elected already; he would have pulled us out of Iraq.  The military invasion would have been futile and the people of Iraq would still be unable to sleep at night, worrying Saddam will come back.  

Of course, give them a few days, the Democrats will come out with some clever sound-bytes to put daggers in this joyous day.  I can already hear them, "Saddam was a bad guy, but he wasn't THE bad guy!"  "If Osama had oil, we would have caught him already!"  

Guess what Democrats:  freedom-loving people all over the Middle East are rejoicing at Saddam's capture.  The countries (read:  governments) that manufacture terrorism are shaking in their shoes, knowing the fall of Saddam mean their fall too.  Note to Democrats:  this is a moment that is going down in history, and you are going to be on the wrong side.  

Republicans should seize the moment and do what they have to in the war on terror:  remind Americans that it isn't over with the capture of Saddam Hussein.  Saddam Hussein was a scum bucket to be taken out, for sure.  But taking down Iraq was like shooting at the arm not the head.  We need to aim at the head and rid the world of the largest manufacturer of terrorism:  the Ayatollah Iranian government.

People tell me, "We need to stabilize Iraq before we go after Iran." Nonsense.  We need to go after Iran to stabilize Iraq.  They are up to no good, sending terrorists over to that area, attacking our soldiers, wearing them thin.

An attack in Iran would be quick, devastating, and eternally beneficial.  The Iranian people hate their government, they love America, and the soldiers working for the Iranian government will quickly turn their back on the government and work for the people if they had the certainty that the people will follow through with topping this regime.  It should happen now - it should have happened yesterday.

Today is a proud day to be an American.
he men's movement is a hate movement.  

What feminism is to men; the men's rights movement is to women.

Men's rights activists blame misandry for all their problems in the same way that feminists blame the patriarchy.

The only thing men's rights activists are good at is abusing women.  

And you can quote me on that.  :D

Amber

I ended up ending the article with this,

"Message to President Bush:  you make me proud to be an American, and please do not stop here!   "
he men's movement is a hate movement.  

What feminism is to men; the men's rights movement is to women.

Men's rights activists blame misandry for all their problems in the same way that feminists blame the patriarchy.

The only thing men's rights activists are good at is abusing women.  

And you can quote me on that.  :D

D

It also wasn't Canada who trained Saddham either.  Nor did we have interests in their oil deposits as much as ironically the Bush family.  The US can take credit for  those as well.   :D

Setaseba

Quote from: "Dan Lynch"
It also wasn't Canada who trained Saddham either.  Nor did we have interests in their oil deposits as much as ironically the Bush family.  The US can take credit for  those as well.   :D


Dan, no offence big guy but how 'bout letting the 'mericans enjoy this one small victory for a day or two? I think they deserve that much don't you?


Setaseba

Quote from: "Dan Lynch"
No.

:D


Aw c'mooooonnnnn. You're mean. :?

D

Sorry, but you can't toot your own horn based on gibberish.  If the CIA didn't put Saddam there in the first place, and perhaps allow the country to develop on its own, who know what would have happened.

You can't say, 'Canada didn't do fuck all.  That it was all the US', when in fact it was their mess to clean up in the first place.  

I cleaned my room today, nobody else did, not the french, not the mexicasas, or the US, it was me.  

Oil has been a top priority since Bush came to office, why would anyone be suprised?

Bilbo

When did the CIA put Hussein in power?
It is impossible to reason a man out of something he was never reasoned into in the first place- Swift

"The cardinal principle of judicial restraint--if it is not necessary to decide more, it is necessary not to decide more."

Daymar

They didn't. Saddam Hussein put himself in power. He became the secret police chief or something like that for the prior leader and eventually Saddam had the prior leader killed and he then took over.

The only thing the U.S. has done with Saddam is give him some weapons to fight Iran, I think, because fighting Iran was beneficial to the U.S.

Bilbo

I know.  I was kinda being a smart ass.
It is impossible to reason a man out of something he was never reasoned into in the first place- Swift

"The cardinal principle of judicial restraint--if it is not necessary to decide more, it is necessary not to decide more."

Setaseba

Quote from: "Bilbo"
I know.  I was kinda being a smart ass.


:shock: I'm shocked - not you blibo. :lol:

Daymar

I know but I felt like explaining it for Dan's sake.

Rayden

Did I miss something?  We (the US) create Saddam, then we (the US)destroy Saddam.  I think we just cleaned up our experiment that exploded in the middle east policy lab.  I don't think that is called liberation.

Bilbo

Quote from: "Rayden"
Did I miss something?




Clearly, you did.
It is impossible to reason a man out of something he was never reasoned into in the first place- Swift

"The cardinal principle of judicial restraint--if it is not necessary to decide more, it is necessary not to decide more."

Daymar

It never was about the liberation of Iraq. That was just something that was said to get ignorant people on the right side. The reason we went to Iraq was mainly for security reasons. Osama has also been pretty much strongly linked to Saddam.

Go Up