A Letter to Congressman Kucinich

[Joe Wagner]

Shortly after Sept 11th Congressman Kucinich decided that the US should have little involvement with the War on Terror and that the detainees in Camp X-Ray should be given their civil rights. He also thought we should try to negotiate with Al Queda and their leaders. I recently found this letter I wrote to him and thought I would share it with everyone here:


Dear Congressman Kucinich:

I recently read about the speech that you gave in front of the United States Congress and have only one thing to say about - it's digusting. Perhaps you've forgotten the reason you were elected to the UNITED STATES Congress in the first place - I assure you it was not to guarantee the rights of terrorists that would threaten this great nation that was built upon the blood, sweat and tears of our forefathers. I assure you that it was not to take cheap shots at the current President and once more I assure you it was not to revoke the premise the War on Terror has been established on.

I have been involved with the military of this great nation for over 20 years and understand the immense planning and coordination that goes into every battle and every apprehension of a terrorist in Afghanistan. We have never purposely dropped a bomb on any innocent Afghan - but we are in a war, there will always be risks involved with any war we may be involved in. Based on your speech would you have sat idly by if you were a US Congressman during World War II? Would you have tried to negotiate with Adolf Hitler? Would you have ignored any sense of security within this great nation? During World War II I'm sure that you would have been chastised for these comments and I hope that the same holds true for the comments you've made recently.

Your speech dishonors all of the people that died on that fateful day of September 11th and everyone that has died at the hands of a terrorist since then - including the Wall Street Journal Reporter Danny Pearl and the many members of our armed services. What would you have us do, negotiate with the terrorists? Perhaps apologize for their loss of 19 people versus our loss of thousands of Americans? Maybe we should apologize for entering their country and capturing members of Al Queda and the Taliban?

Should we have sat idly by as they attacked our homes and other American interests overseas? We've seen how well restraint has worked for Israel and their own terrorists, do you truly think that this type of thinking will help end the violence? You seem to forget that you represent the American people and you speak awfully harsh for a man that has the luxury of security in a time when the world seems to be falling apart. I truly hope that the people of Ohio feel the same way I do and make sure that this will be your last term in Congress, an establishment that was created by our forefathers that would have gladly died to save this great nation. It is obviously an honor that you do not deserve.

-Joe Wagner


-Joe!

[The Guard]

I have been involved with the military of this great nation for over 20 years and understand the immense planning and coordination that goes into every battle and every apprehension of a terrorist in Afghanistan. We have never purposely dropped a bomb on any innocent Afghan

Bull. You drop a bomb, it's on purpose. We're all innocents. We all breathe the same air (except in certain cities), and we are all human.

The U.S has done it's share of terrible things. The Panama Canal situation comes to mind...

[Joe Wagner]

Originally posted by The Guard


Bull. You drop a bomb, it's on purpose. We're all innocents. We all breathe the same air (except in certain cities), and we are all human.

The U.S has done it's share of terrible things. The Panama Canal situation comes to mind...

Not quite - the reports they got were that there were terrorists within the region. With all military equipment there will always be errors - face it, we're all human. A lot of the civilian causalties that were created were because the terrorists sought refugee in these areas - a lot of times with people that supported their cause. Like I said - it was never done purposely or it was never done for the intention of killing any of their civilians.

-Joe!

[VashTheStampede]

The U.S has done it's share of terrible things
yeah maybe in some twisted bizzaro world. We never seek to kill innocents unlike our enemys and when we ACCIDENTALLY kill innocents they are usually compensated. The "we do bad things to" argument is morally and mentally weak. This enemy is one that threatens to consume the world and if we dont stop it nobody will. Oh and without us there would be no Panama Canal, we have done more for the world in the past century than any other country and we dont ask for thanks or some sort of recompense, because we are the good guys.

[randomguy]

because we are the good guys.

There are few good guys in life. There are few bad guys, too. Things are rarely black and white.

That being said, we are better than terrorists.

[VashTheStampede]

Why are people so afraid to admit that things ARE black & white.

[The Guard]

Why are people so afraid to admit that things ARE black & white.

Because they aren't. There is good in everyone. And there is evil in everyone. You have to realize...evil men have friends...families...loved ones. Hobbies...

Things were never black and white. This is not a comic book world we live in.

That being said, there are actions that are EVIL, no way around it. But people as a whole...it's rarely black and white.

yeah maybe in some twisted bizzaro world. We never seek to kill innocents unlike our enemys and when we ACCIDENTALLY kill innocents they are usually compensated.

You're in denial. I'm sorry, man, but the USA is not perfect. We've done some horrible things. Look what we did to the indians. The slaves. Look what we do to the undesirables even now...

How do you "compensate" someone who lost the love of their life?

The "we do bad things to" argument is morally and mentally weak. This enemy is one that threatens to consume the world and if we dont stop it nobody will.

That's just ignorant. I don't mean that in a mean way. But we are not the only country that works against terrorism. We aren't the only country with power.

Oh and without us there would be no Panama Canal, we have done more for the world in the past century than any other country and we dont ask for thanks or some sort of recompense, because we are the good guys.

As far as I know...they built most of the canal. It's theirs. We had an agreement to use it, because it cut shipping in half, ect. But when the time came to give it back...we didn't want to.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by The Guard

yeah maybe in some twisted bizzaro world. We never seek to kill innocents unlike our enemys and when we ACCIDENTALLY kill innocents they are usually compensated.

You're in denial. I'm sorry, man, but the USA is not perfect. We've done some horrible things. Look what we did to the indians. The slaves. Look what we do to the undesirables even now...

How do you "compensate" someone who lost the love of their life?
You are correct and sometimes we never bothered to compensate like the jews, communist and socialist during the red scare their lives were ruined and they still never got compensated and never will.

The DU rounds fired during the gulf war still spew radiation and since there is santions with Iraq since the US never finnished the job they can't be cleaned up and the innocent people affected by it can't get treated.

I don't see the US in tights with a cape. The US didn't kick Hilters ass when he did act of unspeakable cruelty when the Nazis got involved with the Spanish Civil war. The US got involved when Japan gave the US a bloody nose. I don't know one time where the US got involved becouse it was the right thing to do there was always a bigger reason.

[Joe Wagner]

While the US isn't perfect (no nation is) we also can't be blamed for not protecting every citizen of every country all the time. The reason that the US didn't want to get involved with the Nazis in WWII was because the reports took a long time to get back to the states and that very few believed it to be possible. Also the American people didn't want to become the international police force - something that we are now expected to be today.

The arguement that the US "kills innocents" and doesn't compensate is wrong. The indians where given back some of their territory and after the slaves were freed the government also established some programs to help them make a life for themselves. For a long time the socialists and communists were enemies of the US and retributions for them would not have made sense - it would be like paying Hitler for the loss of his troops. Once again no country is perfect but labeling the US an 'evil' country is far from the truth - for the most part the US has tried helping far more people than they have hurt - often taking on battles half a world away to fight for the greater good.

Also while there are powerful countries on Earth I don't think any of them would have taken on a War on Terrorism without the US leading (other than Isreal of course). Most of them have had big problems as an ally and wouldn't have taken on such an undertaking without being specifically targeted themselves. Look at the facts - the US has done far more good than they have wrong and have often gotten involved with military conflicts solely to help their citizens and not for financial gain.

-Joe!

[VashTheStampede]

Tell em Spider.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by JJWspider
While the US isn't perfect (no nation is) we also can't be blamed for not protecting every citizen of every country all the time. The reason that the US didn't want to get involved with the Nazis in WWII was because the reports took a long time to get back to the states and that very few believed it to be possible. Also the American people didn't want to become the international police force - something that we are now expected to be today.Before Hitler even invaded Poland they wiped a whole Spanish city off the map that was netral everyone knew it. But not only did the US didn't get involved the US censored the US media from reporting it do avoid harming US Nazi relations.
For a long time the socialists and communists were enemies of the US and retributions for them would not have made sense - it would be like paying Hitler for the loss of his troops. Saying US Communists and Socialist are like Hitler is just sick. Without them there would be no unions to protect workers rights and last time I checked the US was suppose to be land of the free where people are free to their political beliefs not just those that are okayed by the goverment. Close to all of the Socialist and Communist and the US were not taking orders from Moscow like the US goverment made people belived and not all wanted to turn US Communistic like the USSR or China some wanted socialist ideas to mix with democratic and capitalist to create a mix but since they were not Democrat or Republican they were arested and rights removed. The US taking peoples rights away just for an idea is just as wrong as when the Soviet Union did it for people having capitalistic ideas there. Newsflash it is okay to have politalical views that differ from the norm that is called democracy.

Also while there are powerful countries on Earth I don't think any of them would have taken on a War on Terrorism without the US leading (other than Isreal of course). Most of them have had big problems as an ally and wouldn't have taken on such an undertaking without being specifically targeted themselves. Look at the facts - the US has done far more good than they have wrong and have often gotten involved with military conflicts solely to help their citizens and not for financial gain.
What about Korea the rest of the world was there to protect South Korea. US was too but some pin head gerneral that the US put in charge wanted to try and start WWIII and brought China in and try to get the Soviet Union in as well. The War was basicly won till the US army scared China into rolling over Korea.

[VashTheStampede]

Oh Psycho Fox is Canadian, that explains it. :D And a professional Loon.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by VashTheStampede
Oh Psycho Fox is Canadian, that explains it. :D And a professional Loon. Hey I'm not saing Canada is/was much better but atleast during the red scare we didn't arest people from doing what we told them to do during WWII.

[The Guard]

While the US isn't perfect (no nation is) we also can't be blamed for not protecting every citizen of every country all the time. The reason that the US didn't want to get involved with the Nazis in WWII was because the reports took a long time to get back to the states and that very few believed it to be possible. Also the American people didn't want to become the international police force - something that we are now expected to be today.

I think it was more that the US didn't want to get involved until it saw which side was going to win. Even back then, reports didn't take YEARS to get back. We knew what was going on. And we let the French and the British fight and die, while we did nothing.

The arguement that the US "kills innocents" and doesn't compensate is wrong. The indians where given back some of their territory

They were given reservations. Crap. The reservations are no good for farming, or hunting, and the Indians on reservations today make money with casinos and being paid to accept toxic waste.

and after the slaves were freed the government also established some programs to help them make a life for themselves.

What programs? If that's the case, why are black Americans still pretty much disadvantaged over 100 years later?

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by The Guard
I think it was more that the US didn't want to get involved until it saw which side was going to win. Even back then, reports didn't take YEARS to get back. We knew what was going on. And we let the French and the British fight and die, while we did nothing. Yup by the end of the week word got to Paris, London, Ottawa, Moscow and other major powers. A city the size of Boston no longer exsisting was kinda hard for the Nazi goverment to hide. For weeks after the atrocity higher ups in the Commonwealth argued what action to take in the end like the US the Commonwealth turned a blind eye becouse the wimps in parlement at the time though the Nazi's were all powerful and could take London out. US reason is harder to know some say there was some people in the US goverment that wanted to support the Nazi's to take out Russia but they couldn't do that out right since they would have had to delcare war on the Commonwealth too so they just sat on the side lines.


They were given reservations. Crap. The reservations are no good for farming, or hunting, and the Indians on reservations today make money with casinos and being paid to accept toxic waste. Yup they are kinda pushed out of the system.

What programs? If that's the case, why are black Americans still pretty much disadvantaged over 100 years later? There was none infact alot of black groups was on Nixon's enimes list while the KKK was not.

Then as I brought up before the US used the red scare as a witch hunt once you got called to a hearning it was pretty much over. They black listed artist and writers that worked on WWII propaganda films for the Russians even though they were ordered to do it by the US goverment at the time and if they didn't they would have most likey ended up in jail or in the front lines. They black listed anyone they didn't like most of the people in Hollywood that was black listed was done so becouse they were Jewish.

[VashTheStampede]

What programs? If that's the case, why are black Americans still pretty much disadvantaged over 100 years later?

Because they dont try hard enough. :D

There was none infact alot of black groups was on Nixon's enimes list while the KKK was not.
Because the KKK unlike the Black Panthers didnt want to kill him.

Then as I brought up before the US used the red scare as a witch hunt once you got called to a hearning it was pretty much over.
So you are saying we shouldn't have done this, we shouldn't have fought the evil of communism? Whatever.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by VashTheStampede


Because the KKK unlike the Black Panthers didnt want to kill him.The Black Panthers didn't want to kill him they wanted to have their own nation or seperate state like Palestine is to Isreal.

So you are saying we shouldn't have done this, we shouldn't have fought the evil of communism? Whatever. Yes since the trials removed all the rights the US stands for. Some of the people branded communist were just done so becouse they were Jews and since it was a show trial they could convect anyone even Bush could have been braned a communist back then if he pissed the right people off. Plus even communist and socialist have rights even back then. They where an offical political parties like the Democrats or Republicans formed during the depresion. Black Listing people just becouse they where members is unconstitutional what if Clinton black listed Republicans or Bush Democrats? you can't go around punishing people for belonging to an offical party. As the socailist leader said during his time in prision, is the Democrats and Republicans positions so weak they need to snuff the other parties for fear of a debate? The USs hatred for communism even created the terrorist that now threatens the world I would rather have the Soviet Union around then the terrorist.

[VashTheStampede]

The Black Panthers didn't want to kill him they wanted to have their own nation or seperate state like Palestine is to Isreal.
Yeah that is a lot better. :rolleyes:

[Joe Wagner]

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
The Black Panthers didn't want to kill him they wanted to have their own nation or seperate state like Palestine is to Isreal.
Yes since the trials removed all the rights the US stands for. Some of the people branded communist were just done so becouse they were Jews and since it was a show trial they could convect anyone even Bush could have been braned a communist back then if he pissed the right people off. Plus even communist and socialist have rights even back then. They where an offical political parties like the Democrats or Republicans formed during the depresion. Black Listing people just becouse they where members is unconstitutional what if Clinton black listed Republicans or Bush Democrats? you can't go around punishing people for belonging to an offical party. As the socailist leader said during his time in prision, is the Democrats and Republicans positions so weak they need to snuff the other parties for fear of a debate? The USs hatred for communism even created the terrorist that now threatens the world I would rather have the Soviet Union around then the terrorist.

By fighting against the US the Black Panthers should have been considered a terrorist organization. The reason they were on Nixon's list is because they used weapons against innocent people under the guise of "liberation" so that they could get what they want. The reason they were on his list is because they were a threat - not because of the color of their skin.

As for the communist threat - we're talking about an age where the Cold War was still in full force, when nukes were still pointed in our direction and when communism was considered evil. While communists weren't barred from the states they were also watched while they were here. Much like in todays society a person of Middle Eastern decent who pays cash for a plane ticket and looks into learning how to fly a 747 is going to be watched. Why? Because statistics has shown these people to be a threat - not that they all are, but because that is the enemy of the time period. Canada did much the same thing and a lot of the people you said were black-listed did have ties to the organizations like the KGB and the Kremlin - so it wasn't "just because".

Also a lot of programs were in fact set up to help the freed slaves and quite a few former owners tried to help them make a life for themselves (not all of them were the heartless). The claim that they were never given a fair chance is kind of bogus - much like I could claim a German heritage was what prevented me from going to Havard. While I firmly believe slavery is wrong the current lawsuit against companies for millions of dollars because of ties to it over a hundred years ago (when it was still legal) is bogus and should never be heard in court. The people suing were never slaves and have been living freely for over a hundred years now. While statistically there is a poverty problem I think this has more to do with education than it does an event that happened over a hundred years ago.

As for WWII - in America Congress must approve a war before it can happen. Also there were very few reports of the concentration camps until troops made it into Poland and Germany. The US didn't want to get involved because of the backlash of WWI - mainly we didn't want to be seen as the world peace keeping force so the Congress primarily decided that Europe was Europe's problem. FDR tried desperately to get support for Britain but without Congress's approval could do nothing - although he did deploy the navy to protect both British and American ships. It is said that the Japanese Prime Minister stood outside of FDR's office with a Declaration of War and that a rumored attack would happen. FDR had tried to prepare for it but no one knew the date and on December 7th Pearl Harbor happened - leading to an opportunity for FDR to do what he wanted and that was support Britain. While the rumor was that the US wanted Germany to take out the USSR this was only a rumor - FDR wanted to stop Hitler before it broke out into a full scale war but wasn't able to because of the backlash the American people would have had and the seperation of powers of Congress and the President (Congress was not willing to approve the measure due to the climate after WWI).

-Joe!

[VashTheStampede]

Thanks Spider, at least somebody here understands the History of the U.S. and is willing to defend it.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by JJWspider


By fighting against the US the Black Panthers should have been considered a terrorist organization. The reason they were on Nixon's list is because they used weapons against innocent people under the guise of "liberation" so that they could get what they want. The reason they were on his list is because they were a threat - not because of the color of their skin.So why wasn't the KKK on his list?

As for the communist threat - we're talking about an age where the Cold War was still in full force, when nukes were still pointed in our direction and when communism was considered evil. While communists weren't barred from the states they were also watched while they were here. Much like in todays society a person of Middle Eastern decent who pays cash for a plane ticket and looks into learning how to fly a 747 is going to be watched. Why? Because statistics has shown these people to be a threat - not that they all are, but because that is the enemy of the time period. Canada did much the same thing and a lot of the people you said were black-listed did have ties to the organizations like the KGB and the Kremlin - so it wasn't "just because".Canada only black listed card carring members of the communist party to have positions where national security was an issue and the Canadain govemenet has apologized and admited that like their actions eariler with uprising during the depression they might over reacted. US went one steep farther and anyone convicted couldn't even be a dog catcher or work in the entertainment industry. If you look back into the Soviet archives, the Soviet spies in north america where card carring memebers of either the Republican or Democratic party or no party at all they were not stupid enough to have spies as member of the US solicalist or communist parties. You look at arcives of the US communist and socialist parties you see they were independant of Moscow. They had contacts with Moscow were the Soviet Union would pass on information to these parties regarding FBI and Police actions aginst the parties but these parties didn't pass information back to Moscow. There is a number of people in the entertainment industry that had nothing to do with the Soviet Union like the founder of MGM that got black listed just becouse his studio took a US goverment contract during WWII to paint the Soviet Union in a positive light other then that the hearing provided no other evidence that he was a communist. Then there was a reporter that was called communist all the evedince the goverment provided was he reported illegal US actions in Guatemala so he was unpatriotic thus he had to be a communist

The movie Ugly American had a truth that the US couldn't tell a communist from a socialist from a left wing demoractic rebel but they labled them all of them commuinist.

[VashTheStampede]

So why wasn't the KKK on his list?
What is their a rule every president must have a list and if you dont agree with the list that proves something? Listen I dont know what they do in Canada but here the president doesnt make a list, he doesnt check it twice, and he doesnt find out if they are naughty or nice.

The movie Ugly American had a truth that the US couldn't tell a communist from a socialist from a left wing demoractic rebel but they labled them all of them commuinist
You act like there is a diference. All three groups have ideals that are harmful to America and the American people. You just hate America and there is nothing anybody can say to change your mind. If this is what they teach in Canadian schools I feel sorry for your country.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by VashTheStampede

What is their a rule every president must have a list and if you dont agree with the list that proves something? Listen I dont know what they do in Canada but here the president doesnt make a list, he doesnt check it twice, and he doesnt find out if they are naughty or nice.

Say what? as far as I know Nixon is the only one that had a list and if I elect some and they make a list of enemies I think it is the publics instrest to debate that list.
You act like there is a diference. All three groups have ideals that are harmful to America and the American people. You just hate America and there is nothing anybody can say to change your mind. If this is what they teach in Canadian schools I feel sorry for your country. Ummm yhea first off I don't hate the US am a Canadain that is a American land owner. Second there is a key difference lets me give you the run down of the 3

Communism is Tribalism on a large scale. All the resources is pooled and under goverment control. The citizens act like ants or bees where there job is to work for the better good of the nation in return the pool is health thus more to go around.

Socalism is right of that and is the idea that the most important job of a nation is to look after its citizens. Since this takes up so much space on the sectrum from right wing communism to left wing Americanism I'll just put down the key ideals that some socialist take to heart to give you an idea.

Everyone has the right to eat and it is the goverments job to make sure eveyone has food even the poor.

Everyone has the right to basic health care

Everyone has the right to a job.

and workers rights.

Lastly Demoractic rebel these are people that are far left Americanism and want fast change for their nation.

These people are harmless to America, Canada has not had a problem with them and they have a right to be who they are.

[The Guitar Slayer]

Call me a bleeding heart artsy fartsy liberal. Call me a right wing fascist pig. Write your views here. Go make a protest. Go right ahead. That's your First Ammendment Right in the USA. Freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom to protest...

However, the US's Bill of Righs do prohibit slander and libel. This includes slurs, insults (deliberate or not), and bigotry. Everybody in the US was given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And when you say slanderous words and print libel all over the place, you take those away from them. And then you are no better than all those people that you think are inferior.

Has the US killed innocents? YES. Has the other side killed innocents? YES. All's fair in love and war. There are no white knights or cowboys and there are no black knights and banditos.

The US jailed and removed Japanese citizens from their homes because we thought they might be conspirators. They had to live under the military's watch until the war was over. They were treated like POWS. Their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness was removed.

Ever hear of the Communist witch hunt that McCarthy put on? He took life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness away from all those people he thought were Communists for "the good of America." Look that up as well as the Hollywood Black List. That list contained actors, producers, directors, and other people in the business who lost their jobs because of being suspected communists.

Are communists that evil? No. They're humans like us. We have "communists" here, and they can be the best citizens. They live in communities called communes. People in communes work at their individual jobs and contribute to better of the whole. The most well-known commune is the Hog Farm. They were the security at the original Woodstock. They're still around today, and living quite happily, too.

That is how a communist government is SUPPOSED to work. However, communist government leaders get greedy for power and money. Stalin starved millions of Ukrainians. Look at Cuba now. The leaders think about their good rather than the people's good. Corrupt communist governments are what we are afraid of, not the people.

Communist ideals are not hazardous to the US. Alot of things that have been mentioned aren't. It's only when they are perverted or when people fall back on stereotypes and propoganda for their information.

[The Guard]

So you are saying we shouldn't have done this, we shouldn't have fought the evil of communism? Whatever.

Communism is not evil. It's a beautiful idea, that on paper, should work. We don't know if it works or not, because it's never been allowed to develop in a vaccum, free of outside forces intervening. And there's the human angles. Greed, ect.

As for the communist threat - we're talking about an age where the Cold War was still in full force, when nukes were still pointed in our direction

And you think there aren't still nukes pointed in our direction?

[Joe Wagner]

I know there are still nukes pointed at us and it would be unlogical to believe that there isn't - my point was at the time the tensions between the USSR and the USA were very high with both countries doing their own fair share of spying and what not. The way the American government decided to do that was by putting people on alert to the potential deadlyness of Communism - marking it as anti-freedom. I will agree that on paper communism looks fantastic but the reality of it is that it has proven to not be workable - primarily because people have very little motivation to continue working for higher skills when they get paid the same as someone that does a lesser skill.

Also Canada did in fact follow people the suspected of spying or being a communist during the cold war. During the cold war every western-ized nation was concerned about the spread of communism - that's why a lot of nations tooks steps to establish democratic societies during this era - it wasn't just solely the US.

-Joe!

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by JJWspider
I know there are still nukes pointed at us and it would be unlogical to believe that there isn't - my point was at the time the tensions between the USSR and the USA were very high with both countries doing their own fair share of spying and what not. The way the American government decided to do that was by putting people on alert to the potential deadlyness of Communism - marking it as anti-freedom. I will agree that on paper communism looks fantastic but the reality of it is that it has proven to not be workable - primarily because people have very little motivation to continue working for higher skills when they get paid the same as someone that does a lesser skill.

Also Canada did in fact follow people the suspected of spying or being a communist during the cold war. During the cold war every western-ized nation was concerned about the spread of communism - that's why a lot of nations tooks steps to establish democratic societies during this era - it wasn't just solely the US.

-Joe! Yes but communist even then was harmless, both US and the Soviets knew to have spies that blended in and went with the socail norm. Thus the Soviet spies had nothing to do with local communist parties in the US it would have blowen their cover if they did. While the RCMP did follow communist during the war when it was exposed in the late 70's the RCMP was slit into the RCMP and CISC and all the top brass involved got early retirement since for us it was actully an embarrassment. Canada even allowed and funded a anti-propagana film to be made that countered US cold war propaganda called Neighbours that was released in the 50's.

As The Guitar Slayer stated the McCarthy witch hunt was totaly over the line. As I said the founder of MGM was convicted of being a communist for doing films that put Russia in a positive light but that is what the US goverment wanted during WWII. A reporter got convicted for being one for catching the US doing evil things in Guatemala. A member of the Canadain cabinet was convicted for having Soviet and Chinese contacts but that was his job, he actully commited suicide and left a note saing he killing himself since no one would belive he was not a communist.

[Joe Wagner]

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
Yes but communist even then was harmless, both US and the Soviets knew to have spies that blended in and went with the socail norm. Thus the Soviet spies had nothing to do with local communist parties in the US it would have blowen their cover if they did. While the RCMP did follow communist during the war when it was exposed in the late 70's the RCMP was slit into the RCMP and CISC and all the top brass involved got early retirement since for us it was actully an embarrassment. Canada even allowed and funded a anti-propagana film to be made that countered US cold war propaganda called Neighbours that was released in the 50's.

As The Guitar Slayer stated the McCarthy witch hunt was totaly over the line. As I said the founder of MGM was convicted of being a communist for doing films that put Russia in a positive light but that is what the US goverment wanted during WWII. A reporter got convicted for being one for catching the US doing evil things in Guatemala. A member of the Canadain cabinet was convicted for having Soviet and Chinese contacts but that was his job, he actully commited suicide and left a note saing he killing himself since no one would belive he was not a communist.

The point am trying to make here is that basically there are a lot of people in the states that are of Arab decent and are completely harmless to us but seeing as how we are currently fighting terrorism that is spread throughout these countries it has to be the primary focus - much like in the Cold War era communism had to be the primary focus. While a lot of the communists were 'harmless' there were also a lot that were uncovered to have ties to the KGB and other Russian contacts.

As for McCarthy - I agree that his witch hunt was bogus and at the end of it the people that were blacklisted were cleared - it was clearly the work of one man and not an entire nation - using people's fear of nuclear armagedon as a driving force to black list these people. I do want to know something though - what was this reporters name?

-Joe!

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by JJWspider


The point am trying to make here is that basically there are a lot of people in the states that are of Arab decent and are completely harmless to us but seeing as how we are currently fighting terrorism that is spread throughout these countries it has to be the primary focus - much like in the Cold War era communism had to be the primary focus. While a lot of the communists were 'harmless' there were also a lot that were uncovered to have ties to the KGB and other Russian contacts.
Ahh but during the Cold War the Soviet was not stupid and their agents were not card carring members of the communist party just like now there are probably members of the terrorist groups that are not Arab.

As for McCarthy - I agree that his witch hunt was bogus and at the end of it the people that were blacklisted were cleared - it was clearly the work of one man and not an entire nation - using people's fear of nuclear armagedon as a driving force to black list these people. I do want to know something though - what was this reporters name?
I forget I was it on a documentary of the US action aginst the Guatemala goverment. The US goverment at the time didn't really like him since he exposed the reason the US goverment invaded Guatemala and that they were. The Guatemala goverment took land from the US company United Fruit since they owned basicly the whole nation and divided up among private farmers and was willing to negotate with the US for a way to compensate for their loss but since Guatemala turned it from one huge US owned corperate farm to smaller privately owned farms the US supply of Bananas fell as did the United Fruit stock. The US invaded Guatemala to bring United Fruits stock back up since the goverment invested in it. At first the new Guatemala goverment was suppiled by WWII commonwealth arms but when the US invaded the commonwealth didn't want to take on the US so stoped selling arms to Guatemala thus the Soviet Union then selled arms to Guatemala. The UN wanted to defened Guatemala since it was an illegal action and they were upset with the US saying they had nothing to do with it but that would have played right into the Soviet Union of the UN and US going at it would have made the people of the rest of the west not trust the US at all. The reporter also reported the US running away from Guatemala police (once the police started firing at them they ran in terror) but they also droped bombs on their own airbase and tried to pin it on the Guatemala goverment when Guatemala didn't even have a airforce thus they had no way to drop a bomb anywere. At the end the US won the war but the people of Guatemala lost, the new goverment was just there to make sure United Fruit was happy thus famine spread throught the nation and things were even worse, the nation could have been mistaken for Cuba except it was protected and propped up by the US. The reporter was braned a communist for reporting this secret war. He lost his job at the paper becouse of it and become a freelance photographer later on during the Vietnam war when it was more okay to show US incompetence.

[VashTheStampede]

Ok this is enough. We had to beat those communist governments. For the simple reason they were evil and oppressive. When the Communists took over Cambodia they forced all the people out of of there homes and made them take what the survivors called a "death march". Thousands died during the communist takeover and the communist soldiers stole the peoples homes. People were trying to escape Russia because they would be killed, or tortured, or just disappear. They would have destroyed the entire North American continent if they would be assured minimum casualities, no matter what you think of the U.S. we wouldn't have done it. Even the South American communists were brutal dictators and in Guatamala that was true. Whenever the US gets involved it is to fight oppression. THe world is much better because we took a stand against communism when the rest of the world was ready to pretend it didn't exist, just like the NAzis.

[The Guitar Slayer]

Vash, communists are not evil. Communist ways of life can work...problem is, the leaders get greedy, as I said before. For everybody who doesn't know communism from socialism, these are definitions I got off of dictionary.com

socialism: any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

communism: a system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.


If the USSR was handled properly without being power-hungry, it'd probably be around today and be very successful. However, there were power struggles since the beginning, so even its foundation was not sound.

Do you know why we first got involved in Vietnam? I'll explain. We received help from Ho Chi Minh back in WWII. He wanted to unite his country of Vietnam and make life better for them. The US said no. The only other place he could to turn to was Russia, a communist country. So he did. The US heard about it. North and South Vietnamese were divided on the fact whether they wanted communism. US sided with the South Vietnamese against Ho Chi Minh. He had given them aid in WWII, they refused to help him later, so he went to Russia. The US then attacked him. It wasn't fair at all.


"They would have destroyed the North American continent if they had been assured minimum casualties."

They probably wouldn't have. You see, while we constantly pissed off the Russians in one way or another and vice-versa, there was some respect going on there. Also, Canada managed to keep good relationships with many countries we didn't. They still talk to Cuba to this day. Canada seems to be almost everybody's friend...and they haven't invaded us yet, like some people were predicting a long time ago. America has respect for them, even though some of the people like to to crack on them.


This is just for everybody. Let's not make this too hot, or else it'll be closed down.

[VashTheStampede]

The problem is it can't be done and it will never be done. Because the basis of communism and socialism is that nobody can do better than somebody else and it is human nature to better yourself and do better than you neighbor. People want to find their own destiny and not have to rely on the governmebt for it. Communism and Socialism are flawed ideologies and can never work and should never work.The people of the communist countries are not evil but their leaders are.

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by VashTheStampede
Even the South American communists were brutal dictators and in Guatamala that was true. Whenever the US gets involved it is to fight oppression. THe world is much better because we took a stand against communism when the rest of the world was ready to pretend it didn't exist, just like the NAzis. Okay before Guatamala got its so called communist goverment it was just like the Soviet Union it was basicly communism supported by the US goverment. United Fruit controled all the resorces and goverment of Guatamala no one could compete with them cause United Fruit would use its millitary (scary a company having one) to take them over. The people in Guatamala were pissed and revolted and wanted to embrase a Socialist - Capitalist system. The first steep was to take the land from United Fruit since they owned all of it and divide it among the people so capitalism can acure naturally. This new goverment did not kill or abuse anyone rights. Britian saw how dignified this goverment was and sold them arms they were going to dump in the Alantic anyway. The US attack becouse of the profit it has been proven by White House archives that the US knew Guatamala was capatialist but they spred propagana that they were communist. Britian stoped selling arms to them to aviod pissing of the US. Guatamala gets arms from the USSR to hold the americans off. Eventully Guatamala surrenders. Afterwards famine spreads through Guatamala as all the farm land has to be used to sell fruit to the US. The US goverment of Guatamala buchered members of the old goverment in inhuman way including being torn apart by dogs. So tell me how was this better? Even Cuba has better human rights then US put in Guatamala when they won.

The problem is it can't be done and it will never be done. Because the basis of communism and socialism is that nobody can do better than somebody else and it is human nature to better yourself and do better than you neighbor. People want to find their own destiny and not have to rely on the governmebt for it. Communism and Socialism are flawed ideologies and can never work and should never work.So is capitalism there is no idology that had all the right answers but if you mix and match the ideas. With a good mix you start getting a good goverment not perfect but decent.

posted by The Guitar Slayer
Also, Canada managed to keep good relationships with many countries we didn't. They still talk to Cuba to this day. Canada seems to be almost everybody's friend...and they haven't invaded us yetWell we did in 1812 in Retaliation of you invading us but you wanted peace so we went home.

[VashTheStampede]

And also the US government is secretly funding the mole people who own microsoft and are trying to implant mind control chips in all the peace loving nations of the world so they can be just as evil as the United States. Anyway I'm done trying to defend my country, I know how great it is and that is all that matters. I appreciate the debate but sometimes things have to end before they get out of hand. To lighten things up :D :D :D :D :D :wakko:

[Joe Wagner]

From what has been written about Guatemala it sounds more like the US was protecting their investment. A country does not have the power to take over a US owned business and then distribute their land and supplies to other people within their country which is exactly what happened. By doing such an action the government virtually attacked American property. If Guatemala was truly concerned about their people they would have negotiated with the company about higher wages or more of a share of profit - not by taking over the company. This just shows that they were far from willing to actually negotiate a reasonable solution and far more willing to take matters into their own hands.

I would also like ot make a point - communism has never worked in history - the only country that it has even come close to working in has been China and they have progressed to a more socialistic system, allowing citizens to own private businesses - a no-no in the communist system. Once again on paper communism looks great but at the same time it's flawed because of the idea that a doctor (that requires far more training) would be paid the same as the mailman down the street. As for Canada they to had their own fair share of problems with the USSR and were never "buddy-buddy" with them. While they have established some contacts with Cuba they have also been involved with operations that were meant to de-power Castro. Not only that but they have also fought against such rogue states as Iraq and helped clean up Afghanistan along with a British/American/Australian coalition.

As for the 1812 invasion - it came at a time when Canadians were working with British troops. In 1812 a small invasion force was ordered to attack Michilimackinac and Dearborn near Chicago. The attack was succesful due to a disarayed US military. Within weeks though these troops were forced to retreat back to the Detroit area. For a while there were a lot battles that had gone back and forth between the two sides. In 1813 the battle turned toward the US's favor and US troops burned the city of York (now present day Toronto). By September of 1813 Lake Erie was in US control and Canadian troops in Detroit were attacked as they attempted to retreat to Upper Canada. 1814 was a lot worse for America though as the British began to send more troops and eventually walked on and burned Washington DC. The attack ignited Americans and lead to many new offensives and eventually the Treaty of Ghent was signed but not before the Battle of New Orleans were US losses equaled 13 and British losses were 2000. The US didn't surrender to the Canadian troops and they didn't casually leave the Detroit area - they were forced out.

-Joe!

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by JJWspider
From what has been written about Guatemala it sounds more like the US was protecting their investment. A country does not have the power to take over a US owned business and then distribute their land and supplies to other people within their country which is exactly what happened. By doing such an action the government virtually attacked American property. If Guatemala was truly concerned about their people they would have negotiated with the company about higher wages or more of a share of profit - not by taking over the company. This just shows that they were far from willing to actually negotiate a reasonable solution and far more willing to take matters into their own hands.Yes that would have been nice if Guatemala negotiated with the US but them taking land owned by a US company to redistribute is no reason to invade. Guatemala wanted everything internal and no forien presents which is understandable they wanted Guatemalan farms but US owned mosty all the farm land so it would have been a uphill battle for them in negotiation tring to convince the US to force United Fruit to sell land to the Guatemala goverment so the goverment can give it was for free to brand new family farms so they can can have a piece of the capitalist dream so they did what the US did the the Indians and just took the land. Plus even now there are people that does not like the idea of global economy (take a look at G8 protests) hopefully if another Guatemala happends the US will not simply invade.

As for Canada they to had their own fair share of problems with the USSR and were never "buddy-buddy" with them. While they have established some contacts with Cuba they have also been involved with operations that were meant to de-power Castro. Not only that but they have also fought against such rogue states as Iraq and helped clean up Afghanistan along with a British/American/Australian coalition.And defended South Korea from North and later China when the US antagonized them into the war. Also Canada has done countless peace keeping mission around the world.

The US didn't surrender to the Canadian troops and they didn't casually leave the Detroit area - they were forced out.Yhea, your right my bad.

[Joe Wagner]

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
Yes that would have been nice if Guatemala negotiated with the US but them taking land owned by a US company to redistribute is no reason to invade. Guatemala wanted everything internal and no forien presents which is understandable they wanted Guatemalan farms but US owned most all the farm land so it would have been a uphill battle for them in negotiation tring to convince the US to force United Fruit to sell land to the Guatemala goverment so the goverment can give it was for free to brand new family farms so they can can have a piece of the capitalist dream so they did what the US did the the Indians and just took the land. Plus even now there are people that does not like the idea of global economy (take a look at G8 protests) hopefully if another Guatemala happends the US will not simply invade.

The Guatemalan government could have easily imposed new taxes for exports and found a more democratic way of negotiating with United Fruit. Taking the company and dividing it up is not an acceptable solution - it would be like the US deciding that foreign countries can't have businesses in the US - giving these businesses to whoever they feel like. By backing down from one government the US would have risked other businesses in other countries.

Originally posted by Psycho Fox
And defended South Korea from North and later China when the US antagonized them into the war. Also Canada has done countless peace keeping mission around the world.

America has also had countless peace keeping missions throughout the world - usually sending troops to areas that the United Nations have tended to ignore. Both the US and Canada have proven to be good negotiating partners - trying to find solutions that better both countries in talks.

-Joe!

[Psycho Fox]

Originally posted by JJWspider


The Guatemalan government could have easily imposed new taxes for exports and found a more democratic way of negotiating with United Fruit. Taking the company and dividing it up is not an acceptable solution - it would be like the US deciding that foreign countries can't have businesses in the US - giving these businesses to whoever they feel like. By backing down from one government the US would have risked other businesses in other countries.

Well it was not a cake walk for the Guatemalan presendent he got appointed by the rebels and had to make the Guatemalan people feel their lives have improved enough in 5 years for them to elect him for 5 more. Guatemala was basicly a unoffical US colony so they had no economy everthing went for the USs gain. They had no standing army or police force and basicly no arms so they had get arms from Britian and Canada that they were going to dump in the Alantic since they were obsolete. Oh and ontop of that they were all amatures when it came to running a nation. The biggiest reason they didn't negotaite with United Fruit was the sucked at negotaition they were farmers, railway and dock workers not diplomats and the presendent had a very simple idea that the American west got devloped with land grabs so if it was good enough for the US is was good enough for Guatemala and as you said that is where the problem was. I find it odd the US making so much noise about communism but no one in the US goverment desided to take Guatemala by the hand to help them be successful capitalist okay they took US land big deal wouldn't it had been a better photo op of US cares about the little guy and helps them be independant, all you people oppressed by Britain,France or US follow this example and not the Soviets? I think it would have had a impact back then to the newly freed nations.