Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • It's a great country to live in if you are a white person. It's a great country to live in if you are middle class (or better).

    It's not such a great country to live in if you're a person of color, though it could be worse (or better). It's not such a great country to live in if you're very poor. Though again, that could be worse and better, depending on where you look.

    And the really fucked up thing about the US has very little to do with how its own citizens are treated, but rather with how the US tre
    • I wouldn't want to be a poor peasant living Afghanistan right now, or Colombia, or Cuba, or anywhere in most of Africa, or Russia, or any of a dozen other places where US foreign policy is making an already difficult life nearly unbearable

      What are you talking about? Is it your opinion that the US is holding these countries down? Let's look at two of your examples:

      1) Africa. Not a single great nation has come out of Africa since Hannibal & Cleopatra. I'm sure Africa's "demise" had much more to do

      • Well, the American slave trade didn't exactly do any good for Africa. Nor did US support of the South African apartheid regime.

        Russia, yes, had internal problems. The cold war, explicitly designed to destroy the Russian economy, also didn't help.

        But here are a few others:

        - Iran, where we installed a dictator that served our (oil) interests. That dictator's oppression was so severe that he was overthrown by a fundamentalist Islamic regime, which has been making Iran miserable ever since. Remember, at
        • Well, the American slave trade didn't exactly do any good for Africa

          True, but then let's keep in mind that we were still Europeans when we were first dealing in the slave trade. In other words, we have plenty of company in that area.

          Nor did US support of the South African apartheid regime

          True, but then it was partially US pressure that ended it as well. I can also tell you that the American public despised the South African regime. And where does the South African government have its origins, hmmm?

          • Nicaragua, where US support of the contras led to thousands of murders

            Replace "US" with "Russian" and "contras" with "Sandinistas" and you would have an equally accurate statement.

            No, that's not true. The Sandinastas received basically no foreign aid from Russia. What they did do, because they were cut off from all trade with the US and Europe (by the US), was trade with Russia. Nothing wrong with that. The US did that through the entire cold war too.

            As to Turkey, I know why the US supports them, b
            • Argentina, where the US supported Augusto Pinochet for many years.

              Actually, Pinochet was the dictator of Chile, wasn't he?

              As to Turkey, I know why the US supports them, but that doesn't make it ok

              They *are* part of NATO. You can lump most of Europe (i.e. NATO) in there right with us if we're *evil* for supporting the Turkish government.

              Colombia - what you propose is a false dilemna. There are groups who are working for democratic change in Colombia who could use our support

              It would take direct mi

              • Actually, Pinochet was the dictator of Chile, wasn't he?

                Yep, you're right. Brain fart. Same point, different country.

                They *are* part of NATO. You can lump most of Europe (i.e. NATO) in there right with us if we're *evil* for supporting the Turkish government.

                I do lump them in with that. Western Europe has long been a supporting player in US malfeasance abroad, though they often draw the line a bit sooner, though England usually toes the US line the longest.

                It would take direct military support to keep them in power, otherwise they'd be murdered by drug lords or replaced (and murdered) by some despot. And who shall provide the military aid for this almost-certain-to-fail endeavor? The UN? The US?

                That, or they would soon become utterly corrupt themselves and eventually be (popularly) replaced by another dictator (as in Pakistan) and the whole cycle could repeat. Yee-haw.


                Fine, if we can't do anything good (which I think may be true) then at the very least we can not arm the government to the teeth so that they can go form death squads to execute peasants. We also shouldn't be "crop-dusting" drug farms with potentially dangerous chemicals.

                Well, since you seem to like to go back in time as far as suits your argument (i.e. slavery), why don't I remind you that these countries were formed by the Spaniards and Portuguese who wasted no time exterminating the local population. If the US is to blame for Africa, then Spain and Portugal are to blame for Central and South America. I don't believe either, by the way.

                I never suggested they weren't at least in part to blame. Certainly, Western Europe is where the whole colonialism thing got started, and they've done more than their fair share of damage around the world.

                The point is, you can look at virtually *any* country on the planet and find flaws in its history. Show me one that doesn't and I'll show you one that isn't involved in world politics.

                I agree 100%. So why do you get so upset that I'm criticizing the US? Do you think I'm unaware of the role other countries have played? That is certainly not the case.

                However, I do think that the US, in the post-WWII period, has been the single most malevalent player in world politics. In earlier times, we can see Spain, Portugal, England, and France jockeying for that position, with possibly England coming out as number one.

                Anyway, enough of this. Back to downloading Kylie Minogue's latest video.

                Sorry to interrupt you. Of course, you can go back to doing that, because you're in a position to do so. Most people around the world are not, and through no fault of their own.
                • However, I do think that the US, in the post-WWII period, has been the single most malevalent player in world politics.

                  Perhaps. It's also been the single greatest benefactor.
                  • Bwah hah hah ha!

                    I think you'll find that, as far as the rest of the world is concerned, the balance comes down heavily weighted on the 'malevolent' side.

                    But the Marshall Plan was really good. Thanks for that.
                    • That's clearly false. Many people even in your own country agree that the benevolent side outweighs the rest, if you choose to attempt to balance it. *shrug* Sure, you and autarch believe otherwise. But please don't pretend that means the rest of the world agrees with you.
                    • I think you may be confusing "Being nice to the US because it's carrying a really big stick." and "Being nice to the US because it's genuinely doing good things in the world."
                    • I think you may be confusing your opinion with the world's.