Trump (Page 2)

LiptonCambell
LiptonCambell: lol and people say having guns to protect their citizens from their government going fascist is a unlikely event....
8 years ago Report
0
ghostgeek
ghostgeek: Roll on Syria on the Potomac.
8 years ago Report
0
ASuzette
ASuzette: It went fascist with Ronald Reagan
8 years ago Report
0
sebtheanimal
sebtheanimal: The people here are more uninformed and bewildered than Trump.
8 years ago Report
0
chronology
chronology: The Ronald Reagan era was completely different from today. After Vietnam the U.S. approached Foreign Policy with a far more cautious approach. Washington insisted on respect for Human Rights in Iran under the Shar, they called for Arms Control with Russia, and Revolutionaries in Latin America were invited to negotiations. As President Carter said 'why fight fire with fire? why not use a hose pipe to put the fire out' .

The response of hostile countries to this was Russia began launching ship after ship to challenge the U.S. Navy. Communist Governments took over in some Latin American countries, the Shar was deposed and a new Dark Age began in Iran with catastrophic results for neighbouring Iraq.

Reaching out a hand of friendship can make you look weak and vulnerable. But at least the U.S. can say it tried the 'Peace Method' but in this world it just does not work. If you think getting involved in Iraq caused trouble, take a look at the hellstorm that erupted when the U.S. left Iran.
8 years ago Report
0
ASuzette
ASuzette: It would probably have been better if the US had not gotten involved in Iran in the first place
8 years ago Report
1
SWlNE
SWlNE: *It would've been better if the US had not gotten involved in the first place.

Agent Orange was very peaceful. Reagan's tightening of Cuba's embargo was very peaceful. The invasion of Panama to make sure the Panama Canal remained in their control was very peaceful. The backing of Noriega until he no longer had use and Batista very peaceful.

The US' governments goals were never to cause 'peace', it was always for their own selfish gains, just as Russia and every other dictating country. You're no different. The only difference is that you tout your actions around as if it is for the greater good, as hollywood heroes when it's not your citizens paying the price but everyone else.

Man, people don't know the nonsense Latin America had to deal with, now the Middle East. Everywhere you touch turns to crap, why is that? Stop touching.
(Edited by SWlNE)
8 years ago Report
0
chronology
chronology: Slaughterin. Look I understand you are indignant at some places in history, but let us look at this from a objective point of view, not an emotional one.

First, can you name any major country anywhere that does not and has not taken an active interest in it's neighbours during a war? Britain planned an invasion of Sweden during WW2, much to the indignation of the Swedish people. Germany had no choice but to invade Denmark during WW2 to protect it's boarders. Neither France nor Spain would have allowed a Socialist Catalonia during the Cold War, this would never have been permitted.
Did the U.S.A. take an interest in Latin America during the Cold War? well like Britain, Spain, and France and Germany, yes the U.S. watched it's neighbours closely in war time. As one retired White House staff member said; 'it is at times regreteble to think of some of our history with Latin America, but we simply could not allow a Soviet friendly Government to become established there. The very possibility of Soviet Air Bases and Naval Bases on our own doorstep was unthinkable' .

Would England accept Soviet Bases in Ireland? would France have allowed Soviet Bases in a socialist Monte Carlo? Would Spain have permitted Soviet Bases in Catalonia? you know none of them would. The U.S. was simply defending it's self.
8 years ago Report
0
SWlNE
SWlNE:
I have read your post twice and it relates zero on what is being discussed here between us, which is the US' negative involvement in Latin American. Lots of smoke screens.

For starters I will tell you it was not interest in time of war. It was not based on the good will of any Latin American country. It was not acts of self defence. It was and has always been for the sole interest of the US and its gains at the expense of the inhabitants.

I know my Latin American history and the injustice that took place is something to be indignant of and passionate about. Want a cold hard objective point of view in lieu of your patriotic emotional 'God bless America' one? No problem. Let us begin with your statement that it was due to the Soviets or self defence because that is absolute nonsense.

The US actions were not due to Cuba's aligning itself with the Soviets, keep in mind the timeline:

-Cuba had to align itself with the Soviets after the Cuban revolution in order to survive.
-The Soviets didn't even had their focus on Castro at the time.
-Castro made efforts to make contact with the US. Do you recall Castro's visit to the US and the US president at the time refused to have a meeting with him?
-Do you recall that it was after the US embargo and Cuba's slow decline that Castro went seeking other markets?
-Do you recall that the deal between the Soviets and Cuba was on sugar after the said embargo?
-The relationship Cuba had with the Soviets was an economic one, not a military one at that point.
-Do you recall that the US instigated Bay of Pigs hostile invasion? Because this is where the move for Cuba's self defence came in. This is where the real threat of a US invasion (like they have done so many times) presented itself. Not the other way around.

With the Missile crisis which followed, the Soviets' position was that they will withdraw in return for a U.S. guarantee not to invade Cuba or support any further invasion. This was accepted and it caused the crisis to desist. Nothing on self defence.

Should I continue or you get the point now? I can go on about Guatemala and Armas or Edward Bernays and the United Fruit Company. Or Panama, etc. Your call, man.

Call these actions of the past and those of the present for what they are, no sugar-coating and bullshitting, the US is like any other political power looking for its self interest at the expense of others. Nothing honourable in the acts. It's okay all superpowers do it, just they don't really try to excuse their behaviour or pretend. Guess they didn't have good PR like the US.


(Edited by SWlNE)
8 years ago Report
0
ghostgeek
ghostgeek: Yes, countries, like people, look out for their own interests. Always has been the way and no doubt it always will be.
8 years ago Report
1
SWlNE
SWlNE:
I get you though, Chronology, don't get me wrong. I might be harsh and passionate when I type but I understand why you say what you say and think the way you do. You're like someone who's now being told his mother is the main village ho. All you remember is her tucking you in bed saying she's going to out to buy bread then coming back with a black eye. I get it. Doesn't mean you shouldn't love your motherland, just know that it screwed around a lot and not in a loving way.

And it still screws around.
8 years ago Report
0
chronology
chronology: You are just raging against the U.S.A. Most reasonable wireclubers will see America was just doing what all countries did during the Cold War, protecting it'self America could never allow a Soviet friendly country to be established in its own back yard. As a young man I sometimes worked in an Office with a huge mosaic of south America on the floor. Imports or Rubber, Wood, Bananas were shipped in from the company's shipping. Actually you could argue the company had a longer connection with Latin America than most of your political parties. Company ships sailed to and fro while you guys still had no political boarders.
8 years ago Report
0
SWlNE
SWlNE:
And you call me emotional. You have not addressed anything directly stated or against the facts presented.

The points showed that Cuba did not position itself as a Soviet friendly country prior to the US embargo and its economic problem. They had to use the Soviet market in order to trade. As for the other invasions they were also not related to the Cold War or Soviet-friendly. It was not based on self defence but on US economic interest at the cost of the lives of these people and at the resources of these countries. Same thing happening today.

Don't care about your 'as a young man' stories. As a young man in the US you weren't aware of what was happening, that is understood. The United Fruit Company was strongly politically involved in the politics and US imperialistic activities. Even using dictators to prevent labourers from protesting. Man, do you know the half of it. Trust me, you don't.

You call this raging? I'm pointing out the history that the Latin Americans had to deal with from the US. You can't handle it and I've not even gone deep.
8 years ago Report
0
chronology
chronology: The Office you have no interest in was in England not America. All you shout is the same old raging leftist BS. The Company's relationship with Latin America went back a century before you were born. Company Representatives purchased and organised farms, constructed railroads and had quite an interesting tourist venture on the Amazon River, which was quite popular I understand. As well as meat freezing facilities.

But you rage about 'imperialism' when in fact people were simply earning a living. Making sure bananas arrived fresh and in good order, making sure cargo was well ventilated, making sure tourists had clean tea towels when they were deep in the Amazon River. Am sorry if none of this fits into your fantasy of imperialism. But hey, most of us have to work for a living. A lot of America haters seem to make a living out of spreading hate.
8 years ago Report
0
SWlNE
SWlNE:
I can back each of my points. And I have addressed each of your points even though you've not extended the same to me. Quit hiding behind the "raging leftist BS", "America haters", "Anti-American" rhetoric and respond directly to the discussion. You said you want to do this objectively then do it. It is real issues not accusations or lies. It is real history.

I take it that your omission to comment on how the timeline of events showed Cuba's action was not a threat to the US' defence but the other way around means you have accepted it. Also the declining to comment on actions done in Latin America as being unrelated to a defence stance by the US against the Soviet as acceptance.

You can not justify the actions done by the US as nothing other than one of political and economical imperialistic self-interest.

And now I'll present points on each of your statement as it relates to the United Fruit Company.

The United Fruit Company making a living? They took control of a great percentage of Guatemala's land and made sure to undermine the value of the land so that they'll reduce their tax and even been exempted from paying import duties. Farm labourers were set in debt slavery. We're very aware of the monopoly it had on the political system and on the railway system (the telephone lines too). What did the Guatemalans gain from that? A US based company propping up their political favourites to secure their position in a country they're contributing shit to but taking from, with that money benefiting the US economy and not Guatemala's. Did the money from the railway go back to Guatemala? No, it was in the control of said company.
When the Guatemalan president finally came to his senses and began being for the people by taking steps for land reform that company pressed against it. Something to benefit the people first. An elected person. You know what that company did? Called in Edward Bernays to head a propaganda campaign against him in the US press and later the US CIA started covert missions to overthrow him with attacks on Guatemala City. Stupid as the man was he believed the US an ally had his back, not even knowing what was happening at the time. Setting up Armas the dictator.

You don't think that the Latin American people know and remember to tell their kids about these things? They do. While you were a bright-eyed little boy in the office worshipping your company as a good worker these things were happening. Now you're a grown ass man go do your research and see what happened and what's happening.

8 years ago Report
0
chronology
chronology: Same old raging matra. I have told you about decent hard working chaps who earned their own daily bread in your continent. Men who paid for farms and built them, took boat parties of tourists deep into the Amazon. Built railroads, constructed docks and cleared tracks. All this a hundred years before you were born. And you just fill your posts with sensational big time stories.

Well I think the company had nothing to be ashamed of. Just decent honourable folks earning a living.
(Edited by chronology)
8 years ago Report
0
SWlNE
SWlNE:
I had faith that you'd stand up and present a case against what was said or even hold a discussion on it but you return with undermining the entire discussion as a 'raging matra'.

I know of the decent hard working men who earned their daily bread in Latin America but I'm also aware of the US companies who took advantage of that and used Latin America. I am also aware of the US' governments similar actions.

It's not 'sensational big time stories', you're just unaware of it because you've lived in a place outside of this and you select what you want from your history to believe in. Insiders see it differently because they've experienced it and we know the true history.

I have called names and explained fully. Edward Bernays is a real person who was hired by the company for the purpose of spreading propaganda about the Guatemalan president after the president moved in the best interest of these hard working people and the country. The CIA backed the coup to further overthrow the president and propped up Armas the dictator. The number of human rights violations the US pulled in Latin America and mess it caused. You call that a raging rant and I call it history.

Not my fault you're oblivious and ignorant of what happened and happens in Latin America.

You remain proud of oppression and injustice. Good for you.

(Edited by SWlNE)
8 years ago Report
0
SWlNE
SWlNE:
(mildly sugarcoated) Documentary even by your own:
(Edited by SWlNE)
8 years ago Report
0
Farouquddeen Mumtaz
Farouquddeen Mumtaz: Folks these guys want to murder you and you are even arguing whether they should have Internet.
8 years ago Report
1
WonderWoman1
WonderWoman1: Lol..ghostgeek about those walls in 1rst page...funny....
Donald thanks for thumbsup buddy....
......Im kinda worried now...if Trump wins.....
8 years ago Report
1
Farouquddeen Mumtaz
Farouquddeen Mumtaz: Don't worry women love Trump because they need the kind of leadership that empowers.
8 years ago Report
0
ASuzette
ASuzette: If you are going to quote me, quote me correctly
8 years ago Report
1
WonderWoman1
WonderWoman1: Trump Town...
8 years ago Report
0
lori100
lori100: they are getting scared....----At Secretive Meeting, Tech CEOs And Top Republicans Commiserate ...

www.huffingtonpost.com/.../aei-world-forum-donal...

The Huffington Post

- How to stop Republican front-runner Donald Trump. Apple CEO Tim Cook, Google co-founder Larry Page, Napster creator and Facebook ...--------The main topic at the closed-to-the-press confab? How to stop Republican front-runner Donald Trump.

Apple CEO Tim Cook, Google co-founder Larry Page, Napster creator and Facebook investor Sean Parker, and Tesla Motors and SpaceX honcho Elon Musk all attended. So did Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), political guru Karl Rove, House Speaker Paul Ryan,
---------Philip Anschutz, the billionaire GOP donor whose company owns a stake in Sea Island, was also there, along with Democratic Rep. John Delaney, who represents Maryland. Arthur Sulzberger, the publisher of The New York Times, was there, too, a Times spokeswoman confirmed........
8 years ago Report
0
ghostgeek
ghostgeek: The more the Republican bigwigs try to derail Trump, the greater the like likelihood he'll be their presidential candidate.
8 years ago Report
0