One Political PlazaSM - Home of politics
Wall nuts
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Page: <<prev 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ... 18 next>>
Jan 12, 2019 20:51:09   #
Canuckus Deploracus (a regular here)
 
Coos Bay Tom wrote:
Lots to say about the benefits of a wall but it seems more of a bandaid type fix that doesn't correct the problem of why those people are coming here in caravans. Their home countries have become un livable for them apparently. Why not teach these people how to fight Give them arms and support hell send some of our troops with them and take their countries back from the gangs the corrupt police and politicians then help them set up a government and turn their homelands into a peaceful prosperous naion that they want to live in. The way it is now we give aid to dictators to prop them up and corrupt police who prey on the people rather than protect them. These people live in our hemisphere and it seems to me we need to strengthen all of the Americas so we don't have hoardes of desparate people fleeing to us that we just plain do not want here . My opinion is probably radical but say we do build the wall and they still come here it will be a failure.
Lots to say about the benefits of a wall but it se... (show quote)


Disagree...
There is no guarantee that the oppressed of today won't become the oppressors of tomorrow...
That would just end up like the middle east... Pointless, never ending conflicts....Whose victors would more likely than not turn on the US...

Secure your borders and put your own house in order... The wall, E-verify, more stringent enforcement of existing laws, tightening of loopholes, even Baffalo's idea (I heard it First from him) concerning a military presence on the border...
And find politicians who are willing to represent Americans first...

Agree... No more aid to dictators and failed/ corrupt governments...


| Reply
Jan 12, 2019 20:52:02   #
Canuckus Deploracus (a regular here)
 
buffalo wrote:
Ah, more US spreading democracy and nation building for the benefit of the military industrial corporations and banksters.


Indeed...

A valid argument

| Reply
Jan 12, 2019 21:05:43   #
Seth (a regular here)
 
Coos Bay Tom wrote:
Lots to say about the benefits of a wall but it seems more of a bandaid type fix that doesn't correct the problem of why those people are coming here in caravans. Their home countries have become un livable for them apparently. Why not teach these people how to fight Give them arms and support hell send some of our troops with them and take their countries back from the gangs the corrupt police and politicians then help them set up a government and turn their homelands into a peaceful prosperous naion that they want to live in. The way it is now we give aid to dictators to prop them up and corrupt police who prey on the people rather than protect them. These people live in our hemisphere and it seems to me we need to strengthen all of the Americas so we don't have hoardes of desparate people fleeing to us that we just plain do not want here . My opinion is probably radical but say we do build the wall and they still come here it will be a failure.
Lots to say about the benefits of a wall but it se... (show quote)


I actually kind of agree with you, Tom, but it needn't begin with a rehash of our 1980s adventures in the same places.

We would have to force reforms on those countries, through sanctions of various types and the everpresent threat that an invasion or the financing and training for insurrection are definitely on the table.

Our actions would be well justified not only on humanitarian grounds, but also on the reality that their leaders' failure to do their job forces their citizens to become refugees elsewhere, upsetting the economies and public safety of other countries in their hemisphere.

The underlying problem won't get fixed unless it's fixed "down there."

The bulk of the problem, from the perspective of the safety and security of America and Americans, will be fixed by a border wall and related security measures.

| Reply
Jan 12, 2019 21:07:14   #
bdamage (a regular here)
 
Coos Bay Tom wrote:
Lots to say about the benefits of a wall but it seems more of a bandaid type fix that doesn't correct the problem of why those people are coming here in caravans. Their home countries have become un livable for them apparently. Why not teach these people how to fight Give them arms and support hell send some of our troops with them and take their countries back from the gangs the corrupt police and politicians then help them set up a government and turn their homelands into a peaceful prosperous naion that they want to live in. The way it is now we give aid to dictators to prop them up and corrupt police who prey on the people rather than protect them. These people live in our hemisphere and it seems to me we need to strengthen all of the Americas so we don't have hoardes of desparate people fleeing to us that we just plain do not want here . My opinion is probably radical but say we do build the wall and they still come here it will be a failure.
Lots to say about the benefits of a wall but it se... (show quote)

Tom, we go back a few years as far as corresponding on this site.
You know I have the ultimate respect for you and the way you think.
On this issue I don't know if you're looking at the big picture.
I have friends in Arizona New Mexico and Texas along the border.... They tell me the truth.
It ain't good pal.
just because they're not doing well in their country doesn't mean that they can come in here illegally.
If they want to come in here they need to do it the way it should be.
We can't be the solution for the world they didn't take care of their own and their countries like we did in ours.
Things need to be done according to our laws not according to their wants.
We have an obligation to the citizens of this country, we do not have an obligation to people who are not citizens of this country.
They can go through the legal ways of immigration o r go home.

| Reply
Jan 12, 2019 21:10:21   #
Coos Bay Tom (a regular here)
 
buffalo wrote:
Ah, more US spreading democracy and nation building for the benefit of the military industrial corporations and banksters.


Build nations that don't have their people fleeing for their lives for the benefit of keeping them in their own country where the belong.

| Reply
Jan 12, 2019 21:24:50   #
Canuckus Deploracus (a regular here)
 
bdamage wrote:
Tom, we go back a few years as far as corresponding on this site.
You know I have the ultimate respect for you and the way you think.
On this issue I don't know if you're looking at the big picture.
I have friends in Arizona New Mexico and Texas along the border.... They tell me the truth.
It ain't good pal.
just because they're not doing well in their country doesn't mean that they can come in here illegally.
If they want to come in here they need to do it the way it should be.
We can't be the solution for the world they didn't take care of their own and their countries like we did in ours.
Things need to be done according to our laws not according to their wants.
We have an obligation to the citizens of this country, we do not have an obligation to people who are not citizens of this country.
They can go through the legal ways of immigration o r go home.
Tom, we go back a few years as far as correspondin... (show quote)



| Reply
Jan 12, 2019 21:49:29   #
Canuckus Deploracus (a regular here)
 
"The bulk of the problem, from the perspective of the safety and security of America and Americans, will be fixed by a border wall and related security measures.[/quote]"

Exactly...

Also stricter and more effective/efficient deportations of violaters...

| Reply
Jan 12, 2019 22:19:18   #
olaydee
 
old marine wrote:
Thats quiet true.

Peloski and Schumer told some of the biggest, twisted lies any politician ever spoke after the President's address that I ever heard in over 50 year's after a President spoke to the Nation.

Could these American traitors expect any sane person to actually believe their bull$hit?



That’s the problem. The people who believe their BS are not sane, but they still vote.

| Reply
Jan 13, 2019 06:55:13   #
buffalo
 
Coos Bay Tom wrote:
Build nations that don't have their people fleeing for their lives for the benefit of keeping them in their own country where the belong.


The US has wasted TRILLIONS of taxpayer dollars on "nation building and attempting to spread democracy" in South and Central America for years and has failed miserably.

Rember Chile and its democratically elected president Salvador Allende in 1970? Using $10 million of taxoayer money, the US financed the CIA to help oust Allende and install its puppet Augusto Pinochet as president, ushering in 17 years of brutal repression, state-sanctioned torture, and government-run death camps grinding people to dust in the empty wastes of the Atacama Desert. Over 3,000 Chileans lost their lives, some 35,000 were tortured, and the country was set on a long and bloody course, the effects of which can still be felt today.

Remember the hurricane that devastated Nicaragua in 1988. Reagan refused to pledge a single penny in relief because he was to busy trying to crush the communist Sandistas in power then by illegal arms deals to do anything to help ordinary, non-communist citizens facing starvation.

Imagine being a poor farmer in Columbia in the 80s. Besides living in a country torn apart by civil war and terrorism, you’re constantly crushed by corporations like Walmart selling the same stuff as you at a fraction of the price—unless, that is, you grow coca. Since the US (and Nancy Reagan's just say no campaign) took the eradication of crappy party drugs very seriously, that meant coca had to go, too. But wait—since most coca is grown by these dirt-poor farmers on tiny patches of land, how do our governments avoid collateral damage? The short answer is: They don’t.

The anti-coca spraying wiped out entire communities, forcing people already on the breadline into severe poverty—even those who weren’t growing the plant themselves.

In 2009, Honduras went from being a Latin American backwater country troubled by cartels to one of the most unstable states on Earth. Following a violent coup, the country descended into a chaos marred by extreme human rights violations. The homicide rate leaped. Journalists and activists were murdered. LGBT people were targeted while lawmakers looked on. Police units began operating unofficial kill squads, executing suspected gang members in the dead of night.How did the Obama administration respond? By pumping in millions in aid and openly supporting the emerging Honduran dictatorship. When the Organization of American States wanted to impose sanctions in an attempt to restore democracy, the Obama administration stepped in and said “no.” When reports of the kill squads started coming in, the White House brushed them aside and kept offering assistance—leading to ridiculous situations like US DEA agents being implicated in the murder of a 14-year-old boy. The list goes on, but one thing’s for sure: If Washington keeps playing favorites in Honduras, chaos will follow.

Then there is Haiti. We been screwing them over since the late 502 when the US (CIA) supported the brutal dictator Papa Doc supposedly as a bulwark against communism. When the US tired of him they supported his son Baby Doc and funneled millions in taxpayer dollars in supposed aid which he promptly pocketed. Fast-forward to 2004, when a messy web of GOP stalwarts and elements of the Bush White House kicked off a coup that ousted the elected President Aristide and replaced him with a band of violent guerrillas.

In 1976, the military junta in Argentina was taking a beating on the international stage for its lackadaisical approach to human rights. The US's official line was that these murders were a “bad thing,” so when Argentine foreign minister Cesar Guzzetti was forced to meet with Kissinger, he expected a thorough chewing out. Instead, Kissinger offered his approval of Guzzetti’s tactics, along with recommendations for staying on the right side of Congress. Since Argentina was then dependent on American aid, this amounted to a blank check for Videla’s thugs to do whatever they liked. Had Kissinger threatened to withdraw aid instead of offering his support, 30,000 people might still be alive right now.

In 1979, El Salvador embarked on a long and bitter civil war between a right-wing government and communist guerrillas. Perhaps secretly hoping that this would be the Latin American campaign that went right, Reagan’s White House threw their backing behind the right-wing government, sending over $4 billion in “aid.” Know what the Salvadoran government did with that money? Yep: It financed death squads.These death squads didn’t just target communists, not by a long shot. In 1981, for example, an entire village was massacred, with around 1,000 people—including children—tortured, raped, and arbitrarily murdered. Another squad was responsible for nearly 1,200 human rights violations, including torture, the massacre of civilians, and the mysterious disappearance of children.How did Washington react? That’s right: They claimed the abuses were no such thing, praised the human rights record of the Salvadoran government, and continued to pump money into the murder squads until the war ended in 1992. But hey, at least the commies didn’t get in, right?

After nearly 40 years, Mexico’s tiny neighbor, Guatemala, suffering coups, military juntas, a bloody civil war, and genocides, aided and abetted at every step by a US that was simply trying to do the right thing.

Then Ríos Montt came to power in 1982, and things got even worse. Agasin Ronnie decided to win over Montt with military backing, even as his army began a spree of genocide. Over the next few years, the CIA aided Montt in a war that killed 200,000 people—a policy that forced Bill Clinton to personally apologize to Guatemala in 1999. All in all, hundreds of thousands lost their lives, millions were tortured, and America made to look idiotic, all because the CIA once wanted to save Guatemalans from a relatively nonthreatening communist dictator.

Finally, remember Operation Condor? It condemned thousands of innocents to death, and helped seven rogue states create one of the most complex terror networks ever devised as the CIA ignored it publicly and probably participated in it privately.

Yep, the US has really been successful at nation building and interfering in the internal affairs of sovereign Central and South American countries in the name of spreading democracy and making life bearable for the masses.

The US would be better of and the taxpayers a little less in debt if it would mind its own fv(k!n9 business and just stop the invasion of the US by illegals, criminals, terrorists and gang members at the border with the military. Period!

| Reply
Jan 13, 2019 07:21:26   #
Bad Bob
 
Seth wrote:
That's because unlike today's Democrats; they verify the information they impart before it is published, and they don't try to get away with "reshaping" the news for political purposes.



| Reply
Jan 13, 2019 07:24:39   #
Bad Bob
 
Coos Bay Tom wrote:
Lots to say about the benefits of a wall but it seems more of a bandaid type fix that doesn't correct the problem of why those people are coming here in caravans. Their home countries have become un livable for them apparently. Why not teach these people how to fight Give them arms and support hell send some of our troops with them and take their countries back from the gangs the corrupt police and politicians then help them set up a government and turn their homelands into a peaceful prosperous naion that they want to live in. The way it is now we give aid to dictators to prop them up and corrupt police who prey on the people rather than protect them. These people live in our hemisphere and it seems to me we need to strengthen all of the Americas so we don't have hoardes of desparate people fleeing to us that we just plain do not want here . My opinion is probably radical but say we do build the wall and they still come here it will be a failure.
Lots to say about the benefits of a wall but it se... (show quote)



| Reply
Jan 13, 2019 07:41:01   #
Seth (a regular here)
 
buffalo wrote:
The US has wasted TRILLIONS of taxpayer dollars on "nation building and attempting to spread democracy" in South and Central America for years and has failed miserably.

Rember Chile and its democratically elected president Salvador Allende in 1970? Using $10 million of taxoayer money, the US financed the CIA to help oust Allende and install its puppet Augusto Pinochet as president, ushering in 17 years of brutal repression, state-sanctioned torture, and government-run death camps grinding people to dust in the empty wastes of the Atacama Desert. Over 3,000 Chileans lost their lives, some 35,000 were tortured, and the country was set on a long and bloody course, the effects of which can still be felt today.

Remember the hurricane that devastated Nicaragua in 1988. Reagan refused to pledge a single penny in relief because he was to busy trying to crush the communist Sandistas in power then by illegal arms deals to do anything to help ordinary, non-communist citizens facing starvation.

Imagine being a poor farmer in Columbia in the 80s. Besides living in a country torn apart by civil war and terrorism, you’re constantly crushed by corporations like Walmart selling the same stuff as you at a fraction of the price—unless, that is, you grow coca. Since the US (and Nancy Reagan's just say no campaign) took the eradication of crappy party drugs very seriously, that meant coca had to go, too. But wait—since most coca is grown by these dirt-poor farmers on tiny patches of land, how do our governments avoid collateral damage? The short answer is: They don’t.

The anti-coca spraying wiped out entire communities, forcing people already on the breadline into severe poverty—even those who weren’t growing the plant themselves.

In 2009, Honduras went from being a Latin American backwater country troubled by cartels to one of the most unstable states on Earth. Following a violent coup, the country descended into a chaos marred by extreme human rights violations. The homicide rate leaped. Journalists and activists were murdered. LGBT people were targeted while lawmakers looked on. Police units began operating unofficial kill squads, executing suspected gang members in the dead of night.How did the Obama administration respond? By pumping in millions in aid and openly supporting the emerging Honduran dictatorship. When the Organization of American States wanted to impose sanctions in an attempt to restore democracy, the Obama administration stepped in and said “no.” When reports of the kill squads started coming in, the White House brushed them aside and kept offering assistance—leading to ridiculous situations like US DEA agents being implicated in the murder of a 14-year-old boy. The list goes on, but one thing’s for sure: If Washington keeps playing favorites in Honduras, chaos will follow.

Then there is Haiti. We been screwing them over since the late 502 when the US (CIA) supported the brutal dictator Papa Doc supposedly as a bulwark against communism. When the US tired of him they supported his son Baby Doc and funneled millions in taxpayer dollars in supposed aid which he promptly pocketed. Fast-forward to 2004, when a messy web of GOP stalwarts and elements of the Bush White House kicked off a coup that ousted the elected President Aristide and replaced him with a band of violent guerrillas.

In 1976, the military junta in Argentina was taking a beating on the international stage for its lackadaisical approach to human rights. The US's official line was that these murders were a “bad thing,” so when Argentine foreign minister Cesar Guzzetti was forced to meet with Kissinger, he expected a thorough chewing out. Instead, Kissinger offered his approval of Guzzetti’s tactics, along with recommendations for staying on the right side of Congress. Since Argentina was then dependent on American aid, this amounted to a blank check for Videla’s thugs to do whatever they liked. Had Kissinger threatened to withdraw aid instead of offering his support, 30,000 people might still be alive right now.

In 1979, El Salvador embarked on a long and bitter civil war between a right-wing government and communist guerrillas. Perhaps secretly hoping that this would be the Latin American campaign that went right, Reagan’s White House threw their backing behind the right-wing government, sending over $4 billion in “aid.” Know what the Salvadoran government did with that money? Yep: It financed death squads.These death squads didn’t just target communists, not by a long shot. In 1981, for example, an entire village was massacred, with around 1,000 people—including children—tortured, raped, and arbitrarily murdered. Another squad was responsible for nearly 1,200 human rights violations, including torture, the massacre of civilians, and the mysterious disappearance of children.How did Washington react? That’s right: They claimed the abuses were no such thing, praised the human rights record of the Salvadoran government, and continued to pump money into the murder squads until the war ended in 1992. But hey, at least the commies didn’t get in, right?

After nearly 40 years, Mexico’s tiny neighbor, Guatemala, suffering coups, military juntas, a bloody civil war, and genocides, aided and abetted at every step by a US that was simply trying to do the right thing.

Then Ríos Montt came to power in 1982, and things got even worse. Agasin Ronnie decided to win over Montt with military backing, even as his army began a spree of genocide. Over the next few years, the CIA aided Montt in a war that killed 200,000 people—a policy that forced Bill Clinton to personally apologize to Guatemala in 1999. All in all, hundreds of thousands lost their lives, millions were tortured, and America made to look idiotic, all because the CIA once wanted to save Guatemalans from a relatively nonthreatening communist dictator.

Finally, remember Operation Condor? It condemned thousands of innocents to death, and helped seven rogue states create one of the most complex terror networks ever devised as the CIA ignored it publicly and probably participated in it privately.

Yep, the US has really been successful at nation building and interfering in the internal affairs of sovereign Central and South American countries in the name of spreading democracy and making life bearable for the masses.

The US would be better of and the taxpayers a little less in debt if it would mind its own fv(k!n9 business and just stop the invasion of the US by illegals, criminals, terrorists and gang members at the border with the military. Period!
The US has wasted TRILLIONS of taxpayer dollars on... (show quote)


That is also a point well taken.

The only problem, speaking from a security professional's viewpoint, is that a certain amount of proactive effort needs to be thrown into the mix, whether it's stepping up our intelligence gathering in those countries or simply taking out their corrupt leaders and/or the prime movers in their drug trafficking industries.

My point is that, even with maximum efforts, a wall and the latest technology, as long as there remain big money motives for penetrating our border, those that wish to do so will have all the time in the world to study our border security measures and try to find ways to defeat them.

Remember also that there are jihadis in the mix, and the knowledge bank of those behind them contains a lot of experience in guerilla combat against a wide variety of foes, including the United States and most of the developed world. It would be in their interest to work with the coyotes, drug traffickers and others interested in penetrating our southern border.

The protectors are always at a disadvantage in a situation where the target they guard is stationary, and their only two recourses are a) being proactive at the SOURCES of potential attempted security breaches, and b) making changes frequently in ones' security measures that deprive potential breachers of any "set in stone" methods or timetables they can count on in order to draw up a feasible penetration plan.

Personally, I would prefer the first proactive approach, sending a little discouragement out to potential challengers to the integrity of our wall, whether it's through the leaders of their countries or something a little more direct and covert.

| Reply
Jan 13, 2019 08:02:53   #
buffalo
 
Seth wrote:
That is also a point well taken.

The only problem, speaking from a security professional's viewpoint, is that a certain amount of proactive effort needs to be thrown into the mix, whether it's stepping up our intelligence gathering in those countries or simply taking out their corrupt leaders and/or the prime movers in their drug trafficking industries.

My point is that, even with maximum efforts, a wall and the latest technology, as long as there remain big money motives for penetrating our border, those that wish to do so will have all the time in the world to study our border security measures and try to find ways to defeat them.

Remember also that there are jihadis in the mix, and the knowledge bank of those behind them contains a lot of experience in guerilla combat against a wide variety of foes, including the United States and most of the developed world. It would be in their interest to work with the coyotes, drug traffickers and others interested in penetrating our southern border.

The protectors are always at a disadvantage in a situation where the target they guard is stationary, and their only two recourses are a) being proactive at the SOURCES of potential attempted security breaches, and b) making changes frequently in ones' security measures that deprive potential breachers of any "set in stone" methods or timetables they can count on in order to draw up a feasible penetration plan.

Personally, I would prefer the first proactive approach, sending a little discouragement out to potential challengers to the integrity of our wall, whether it's through the leaders of their countries or something a little more direct and covert.
That is also a point well taken. br br The only p... (show quote)


Albert Einstein once said, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."

Security, my ASS!

Why would the US interference in sovereign countries internal affairs be any different now than the disaster for not only the native populations of those countries while supporting and enriching brutal dictators but also to the American taxpayers as well as history has shown? The US needs to mind its own fv(k!n9 business!

| Reply
Jan 13, 2019 10:38:51   #
Coos Bay Tom (a regular here)
 
buffalo wrote:
The US has wasted TRILLIONS of taxpayer dollars on "nation building and attempting to spread democracy" in South and Central America for years and has failed miserably.

Rember Chile and its democratically elected president Salvador Allende in 1970? Using $10 million of taxoayer money, the US financed the CIA to help oust Allende and install its puppet Augusto Pinochet as president, ushering in 17 years of brutal repression, state-sanctioned torture, and government-run death camps grinding people to dust in the empty wastes of the Atacama Desert. Over 3,000 Chileans lost their lives, some 35,000 were tortured, and the country was set on a long and bloody course, the effects of which can still be felt today.

Remember the hurricane that devastated Nicaragua in 1988. Reagan refused to pledge a single penny in relief because he was to busy trying to crush the communist Sandistas in power then by illegal arms deals to do anything to help ordinary, non-communist citizens facing starvation.

Imagine being a poor farmer in Columbia in the 80s. Besides living in a country torn apart by civil war and terrorism, you’re constantly crushed by corporations like Walmart selling the same stuff as you at a fraction of the price—unless, that is, you grow coca. Since the US (and Nancy Reagan's just say no campaign) took the eradication of crappy party drugs very seriously, that meant coca had to go, too. But wait—since most coca is grown by these dirt-poor farmers on tiny patches of land, how do our governments avoid collateral damage? The short answer is: They don’t.

The anti-coca spraying wiped out entire communities, forcing people already on the breadline into severe poverty—even those who weren’t growing the plant themselves.

In 2009, Honduras went from being a Latin American backwater country troubled by cartels to one of the most unstable states on Earth. Following a violent coup, the country descended into a chaos marred by extreme human rights violations. The homicide rate leaped. Journalists and activists were murdered. LGBT people were targeted while lawmakers looked on. Police units began operating unofficial kill squads, executing suspected gang members in the dead of night.How did the Obama administration respond? By pumping in millions in aid and openly supporting the emerging Honduran dictatorship. When the Organization of American States wanted to impose sanctions in an attempt to restore democracy, the Obama administration stepped in and said “no.” When reports of the kill squads started coming in, the White House brushed them aside and kept offering assistance—leading to ridiculous situations like US DEA agents being implicated in the murder of a 14-year-old boy. The list goes on, but one thing’s for sure: If Washington keeps playing favorites in Honduras, chaos will follow.

Then there is Haiti. We been screwing them over since the late 502 when the US (CIA) supported the brutal dictator Papa Doc supposedly as a bulwark against communism. When the US tired of him they supported his son Baby Doc and funneled millions in taxpayer dollars in supposed aid which he promptly pocketed. Fast-forward to 2004, when a messy web of GOP stalwarts and elements of the Bush White House kicked off a coup that ousted the elected President Aristide and replaced him with a band of violent guerrillas.

In 1976, the military junta in Argentina was taking a beating on the international stage for its lackadaisical approach to human rights. The US's official line was that these murders were a “bad thing,” so when Argentine foreign minister Cesar Guzzetti was forced to meet with Kissinger, he expected a thorough chewing out. Instead, Kissinger offered his approval of Guzzetti’s tactics, along with recommendations for staying on the right side of Congress. Since Argentina was then dependent on American aid, this amounted to a blank check for Videla’s thugs to do whatever they liked. Had Kissinger threatened to withdraw aid instead of offering his support, 30,000 people might still be alive right now.

In 1979, El Salvador embarked on a long and bitter civil war between a right-wing government and communist guerrillas. Perhaps secretly hoping that this would be the Latin American campaign that went right, Reagan’s White House threw their backing behind the right-wing government, sending over $4 billion in “aid.” Know what the Salvadoran government did with that money? Yep: It financed death squads.These death squads didn’t just target communists, not by a long shot. In 1981, for example, an entire village was massacred, with around 1,000 people—including children—tortured, raped, and arbitrarily murdered. Another squad was responsible for nearly 1,200 human rights violations, including torture, the massacre of civilians, and the mysterious disappearance of children.How did Washington react? That’s right: They claimed the abuses were no such thing, praised the human rights record of the Salvadoran government, and continued to pump money into the murder squads until the war ended in 1992. But hey, at least the commies didn’t get in, right?

After nearly 40 years, Mexico’s tiny neighbor, Guatemala, suffering coups, military juntas, a bloody civil war, and genocides, aided and abetted at every step by a US that was simply trying to do the right thing.

Then Ríos Montt came to power in 1982, and things got even worse. Agasin Ronnie decided to win over Montt with military backing, even as his army began a spree of genocide. Over the next few years, the CIA aided Montt in a war that killed 200,000 people—a policy that forced Bill Clinton to personally apologize to Guatemala in 1999. All in all, hundreds of thousands lost their lives, millions were tortured, and America made to look idiotic, all because the CIA once wanted to save Guatemalans from a relatively nonthreatening communist dictator.

Finally, remember Operation Condor? It condemned thousands of innocents to death, and helped seven rogue states create one of the most complex terror networks ever devised as the CIA ignored it publicly and probably participated in it privately.

Yep, the US has really been successful at nation building and interfering in the internal affairs of sovereign Central and South American countries in the name of spreading democracy and making life bearable for the masses.

The US would be better of and the taxpayers a little less in debt if it would mind its own fv(k!n9 business and just stop the invasion of the US by illegals, criminals, terrorists and gang members at the border with the military. Period!
The US has wasted TRILLIONS of taxpayer dollars on... (show quote)


Get them before they even get close

| Reply
Jan 13, 2019 10:40:19   #
Coos Bay Tom (a regular here)
 
buffalo wrote:
Albert Einstein once said, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."

Security, my ASS!

Why would the US interference in sovereign countries internal affairs be any different now than the disaster for not only the native populations of those countries while supporting and enriching brutal dictators but also to the American taxpayers as well as history has shown? The US needs to mind its own fv(k!n9 business!
If what they do affects us it is our buisness

| Reply
Page: <<prev 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ... 18 next>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2019 IDF International Technologies, Inc.