Then that is great. But I did ask you if you would use force if the natives did not cooperate. Would you?

By the way, does your group rely on the taxes taken by force from the working poor in this country to help those overseas, or is it true charity?

In the real world of political solutions, you have to give up some of your beliefs to make others work

Talk about principled! Spoken just like a "principled" Centrist. But that's my omooex, the poor guy, to him a day without contradiction is like a day without sunshine.

I got solutions! I got tons of solutions.

The first solution is to dismantle the Empire and stop pretending that only "supper smart" Americans can run the world. Bring all the troops (yes every damn one) home and leave the world alone. Be friends with all, and trade freely with all.

That will make my summer. When will you be starting?

-- heru-ur

You are one bored sum bitch.

The first solution is to dismantle the Empire and stop pretending that only "supper smart" Americans can run the world. Bring all the troops (yes every damn one) home and leave the world alone. Be friends with all, and trade freely with all.

You don't want to use American Might to provide cover and support for your save the world from itself do-gooding??

That's racist!

http://www.creepygif.com/images/full/10.gif

Andy Worthington

http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2009/07/01/when-torture-kills-ten-murders-in-us-prisons-in-afghanistan/

The first solution is to dismantle the Empire and stop pretending that only "supper smart" Americans can run the world. Bring all the troops (yes every damn one) home and leave the world alone. Be friends with all, and trade freely with all.

Wow! Unicorns, too?

Inflamed CNBC host calls bloggers ‘digital dickweeds’

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/07/01/9473/

I got solutions! I got tons of solutions.

Yeah but I don't think he was talking about the crystal meth solution you've got brewing in bath mate.

But I might be, so buzz me on my private line when its ready.

Well, let's see. The people from International Justice Network would agree on duration of conflict, they've argued it in court. Obviously Ahmed Rashid would agree, I've cited him extensively. The agencies at the U.N. would agree, the NGO's operating in Afghanistan would agree. There are journalists who have been there since the 1970's, they agree. The war was concluded by treaty in 2001. There was a nation building and peacekeeping operation set up, the documents are all there, the Security Council backed it, the donor countries pledged to fund it, the administrative agencies were set up by the new Afghan government to implement it, the tasks were meted out, country by country, there have been reviews periodically for several years. Starting in 2005-6, the weight of all the U.S. intransigence, the refusal of European donor nations to do any tasks that didn't look good on TV (like training police, for instance), the lack of money that had been promised, the CIA backing of the warlords, the explosion in opium profits and the Pakistani intransigence and manipulation, had led to the conditions that now look more and more like failure. But macgupta is largely correct. In its early stages the effort produced big improvements and enabled a lot of refugees to return home, and lives to improve.

There were a lot of reasons for doing all that, but the most basic was that Afghanistan was thought by experts at the U.N. to be a failed state (not to be confused with the same designation used whenever somebody wanted to declare a law-free zone in the Bush administration). There is a large amount of evidence that failed states do not fix themselves and require intervention. The international community felt that the U.S. bore a responsibility because they had toppled the government there. They insisted on troops, and wanted many more of them. Many wanted them to use blue helmets, the Bush administration, and some of the Europeans, would have no part of it. They were doing calculations the way Eric Shinseki does them, Rumsfeld was doing things on the cheap and itching to go into Iraq. Knowing something about the negotiations might help with your reality check.

But you don't know about all that, because Justin Raimondo didn't tell you. So what? Justin Raimondo, in nearly every article you cite from him here, doesn't appear to know detailed information about anywhere, just how to go on about imperialism. Maybe he has expertise, but I only read his articles when you cite them, and what you've picked out, to date, has been less informed than the other sources I read, in my opinion.

It was a government entity (USSC) coercing the country to accept something (integration of schools) for its own good.

You obect to the government coercing you into providing money for research on infectious diseases which could destroy not just the societies of third world countries but also our own if allowed to proceed entirely unchecked.

I suppose you could argue that no one knows if segregation would have destroyed our country, and out and out racists still think everything's gone to hell since the SC forcibly integrated us with it's rulings. But I don't think anyone who watched what the unchecked spread of AIDS in the 80's - or even more virulent diseases such as Ebola - could do if "interventions" (i.e. treatments) aren't discovered.

Have you ever been vaccinated for an infectious disease? If so, then you have likely benefited from previous taxpayer funded research.

Whenever you discuss dismantling the empire, the smug assholes that spent the last eight years crying about the "illegal wars" will all dogpile you and laugh at you for daring to claim that we need to put a stop to the juggernaut. The Democrats that the smug enablers voted into office with a supermajority don't even have the balls to vote against war funding, so it should be no surprise that their followers will mock anyone who disagrees with the bipartisan War Party. The reality is that they are all too scared and reliant and don't want to pull the plug, they just want to cry about it until they feel better.

It is exactly the same behavior when a certain 2001 attack is mentioned. All the people that praise Greenwald for exposing Government lies and corruption will defend the Government's official narratives to their last breath and mock those that disagree with their precious Establishment whitewash narrative.

That's probably why they support things like Truth Commissions, so the Establishment can whitewash the torture regime and the mockingbirds can cling to the whitewash for the rest of their lives and mock those that question it.

Like I've said many times, in Star Wars the people cheer for Luke Skywalker but in real life they cheer for the Emperor and mock any real dissent that isn't perceived as "baby steps".