We are who we are because of the cumulation of experiences we have and memories forged.
We are where we are because of the actions we have taken in our *history.

We will become who we will be by choices we make.

Adding video to channels (History) - requested by notarobot.

Republicans just do not know what debate and discourse is. "Debates" like this are just GOP echo chambers. Tell us what we want to hear, not what we should hear.


well to be fair, I would all of America really doesn't know what debate and discourse is.

Santorum just confirmed Pauls point entirely - "We stand for American exceptionalism.."

This is a derogatory term everywhere but the USA.

I loved Ron Paul's half-smile of resignation? pity? when the crowd lapped up Santorum's empty catch-phrase at 3:50.

It seemed to say "Oh, you poor, fearful, weak-minded people."

You may stop watching this bullsh1t at 1:29 when the entire Vietnam war is labeled as US soldiers--without any context--killing 4 million people in Southeast Asia. REALLY?

NEWSFLASH: the world has always been a violent place. Spin the globe, point to any country and there's a long history of military failures and maybe a few successes. If you're looking for utopian perfection, check the Fiction section.

RoPaul doesn't seem to know that the cult of islam has been at war with everyone around it since its inception. osama was a prick now and forever, and if we aligned with him it was to fight even bigger pricks.

NEWSFLASH 2: Right now, in 2011, the world is also more peaceful than ever

I'm with @quantumushroom on this one. If you're going to be so bold as to say "look at the world through the eyes of truth," and then make me watch a bunch of horrific clips set in a kitsch way to "What a Wonderful World" you need to be as and frank as you can be.

Part of that includes avoiding over-generalization that will distort fact.

@JiggaJonson
really?
so a man makes a video pertaining to the republican debates in where ron paul tells the audience the real reason certain middle eastern countries have a problem with american foreign policy and your criticism is that it was too "over-generalized"?
the video is four minutes long!
should he have made it a documentary?
i guess i dont understand your position my friend because you dont seem to have a problem with the information just that it was over-generalized leading to distorted facts.which i am assuming you mean context.
that would be a mighty long video.
which leads me to @quantumushroom and his comment.
what bullshit?
were you aware that there are some estimates reaching as high as 5 million? and some as low as 700,000?
should this man have included the gulf of tonkin?
cambodia? east timor?
and what does fundamentalist islam have to do with what ron paul is stating?
i am not denying the horrors of radical islam and neither is this video and has nothing to do with the conversation.that is a wholly different discussion.you are free to be afraid of brown people and their mysterious "allah" character but you are NOT free to ignore historical facts.to do so is the epitome of 'willful ignorance".

the main reason i dont understand either of your positions is that ron pauls premise is quite simple:
they dont hate us for our freedom or because we are just chock full of awesome.
they hate us because we have been fucking with their shit for over 50 years.
bin laden was pretty upfront the reasons why and the defense department agrees.
this is where ron paul got his information.
he didnt just pull it out of his ass.
this video highlights some of the dire effects of american foreign policy over the last 50 years.
we may not like that information nor be proud of what our government did in our name but not liking something does not make it less true.

could either of you explain your position a bit further please?
maybe i am just misunderstanding.

It's harder to forget history when you're on the receiving end of the big stick.

@enoch

Whoa there partner, you might want to re-read what I posted above. Let me restate myself in more specific terms to avoid confusion.

My exact criticism is that if you're going to criticize anyone for being dishonest about history, you should do it in a very earnest way so as not to create a self defeating argument.

@quantumushroom makes a valid point. Saying that, specifically, the American military killed 4 million Southeast Asians IS an over-generalization. According to The National Archives, roughly 58,000 American military personnel died in the Vietnam War. It wouldn't be fair to say "Look through the eyes of truth. 1960-1975, South Vietnamese military kills 58,000 Americans."

On another note, here's another source that confirms the 58,000~ I quoted above. I've spent 20 minutes now trying to find any credible record of the 4 million dead (the closest I came was 3.9 million total dead but that also included the deaths of French, Australian, New Zealand, South Vietnam, Korean, and American Forces which account for roughly 410,000 of the original figure).

So the problem is tri-fold here. The American military is not solely responsible for the 3.9 million deaths that happened during the occupation of Vietnam from 1960-1975. Furthermore, 3.9 can be assumed to be an inflated figure since it's likely safe to say that American forces were not assassinating allies and their own squad members en mass. Finally, again, if you're going to attack someone (or some group) for being dishonest, you yourself had better get your facts straight and not just gloss over the unpleasant details.

p.s. Learn how to use a fucking paragraph enoch.

iirc, that 'what a wonderful world' clip is from one of michael moore's films

there's some 'truth' in there, but also a lot of untruth...

for example, the mossadegh and shah segments, and the whole bin laden / cia angles

there IS blowback, and rp is correct in stating that obl referenced some previous us actions as the basis for aq's attacks

but as a whole--and in virtually everything--if you overstate your argument, well, you're already on your way to losing it

Jaysus lads, is there really any arguing with "American interventionism gets people killed"?

Though it reminds me of the problem the arguments for the stimulus package face in retrospect. Well sure, things are bad but they'd be a heckuva lot worse if we hadn't had the stimulus.

America is a force for evil in this world.

^That was a huge over-generalization though.

Anyway, the world may indeed be more peaceful than ever before, but because information travels so much faster than ever before, we still see more and more violence and war. As the flow of information grows, the perceived war increases.

Imagine this, how fucked up could police have been in the 80s, when no cameras caught anything?

Secret wars are coming to an end, although the propagators of them really wants to keep them around (look at what's happening with wikileaks).

It's "Through" the eyes of truth, not "Though"

This public announcement has been brought to you by the spelling police!
The spelling police: Fighting orthographic crime one letter at a time since 1965

That list of American crimes in the video is just the beginning, America's assassination of the democratically elected Prime Minister of Congo in 1960 and subsequent installation of a dictator (Mobutu) has led to countless millions of deaths. Just in the decade between 1998-2008 there were 5.4 million deaths from Malaria, diarrhea, pneumonia and malnutrition.

"Most of the deaths are due to easily treatable and preventable diseases through the collapse of health systems and the disruption of livelihoods,"

from http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/01/22/us-congo-democratic-death-idUSL2280201220080122

These figures also don't shed light on the fact that the Congo is the rape capital of the world, and the absolute greed of Mobutu (when he was alive) - "Besides what Mobutu siphoned off and stole, he paid himself generously. His personal salary was 17% of the state budget. By 1989, he officially received $100 million a year to spend as he wished, more than the government spent on education, health and social services combined."

http://articles.latimes.com/1997/sep/08/news/mn-30058

Here is a list of some other regime changes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_U.S._regime_change_actions

My exact criticism is that if you're going to criticize anyone for being dishonest about history, you should do it in a very earnest way so as not to create a self defeating argument.


I fully agree here. Obviously American intervention has worked out bad in lots of places - but every one of the situations in the video was complicated, and summing them up as "Americans made X people die" is ridiculous - just as dishonest as pretending America's hands are clean.

The other thing which seems to be in question now (in general Internet discussion) is whether the Cold War was real or serious or something. It was. It was a complicated political and military battle, with fantastically high stakes. It looks different now because now we know how it ended. It never exploded, but it could have. If it had, if there had been anything resembling total war, it would have killed billions. The US did some horrible things, but many of them were earnest steps to try to avoid something unimaginably worse. Really.

People now are used to America having trumped up wars - Wars on Terrorism and Drugs and Counterfeit Goods. The Cold War wasn't a war like that, it was a real war and a very messy one. And for that I give US leadership from 1945-1989 a lot of leeway on some very important and sometimes very bad decisions.

If I was looking forward from 1960, I would be pretty happy with the state of the world in 2011. Sure it could be better but it could have easily been a lot worse - a lot more people could have died, and its hard to blame America if its decisions have resulted in more people dying "elsewhere" rather than among its own people (who've had a pretty safe 70 years).

The suggestion that people hate America for its freedom and not for its history of intervention is just so laden with hubris it beggars belief. There is just no perceptible rational basis for that argument, and I refuse to believe anyone informed genuinely believes it.

Like the Swiss have less 'freedom', or the Danes, or the British. How much freedom do the Kiwis have? They must be loathed around the world, right? Them and their 'freedom'.

>> ^kymbos:

The suggestion that people hate America for its freedom and not for its history of intervention is just so laden with hubris it beggars belief. There is just no perceptible rational basis for that argument, and I refuse to believe anyone informed genuinely believes it.
Like the Swiss have less 'freedom', or the Danes, or the British. How much freedom do the Kiwis have? They must be loathed around the world, right? Them and their 'freedom'.


The Swiss, the Danes, and the Kiwis* are not the "leaders of the free world". While I agree that interventionism plays a large part in the legitimate grievances people have against America, I would say that a percentage would be ideologically opposed to the west and America is simply the largest target there. Reality, as always, is not that simple. There are a myriad of reasons America is targeted, some political, some economic and yes, some people genuinely do "hate freedom".

So yeah, you're right, but I don't think it's the whole story.

* I deliberately left the British out of that list. As a former colonial power, they have their own set of issues and in case you missed it, they're not exactly popular around the world.

The suggestion that people hate America for its freedom and not for its history of intervention is just so laden with hubris it beggars belief. There is just no perceptible rational basis for that argument, and I refuse to believe anyone informed genuinely believes it.


Meh... read one of the Al Qaeda manifestos (they're fairly interchangeable, at least the ones I've read). It's certainly in there - they see the West as extremely corrupt and immoral, and it makes sense that they resent/fear the cultural influence.

Obviously it's only part of the picture, but it's an important, reasonable part. Western culture and values have been eroding traditional cultures and values all over the world. Why would it be strange to hate and fear that?

Sure, but to take that on face value you must believe there's something genuinely special about America's 'freedom'. That's the hubris. Every country calls itself the best on Earth - most other countries understand they're not that 'special'. America's been calling itself special for so long its people actually believe it.

America is targeted because it dominates politically, culturally, and definitely because it intervenes in other countries out of perceived self interest.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Yep, gotta agree with this. "American exceptionalism" is really jingoism. The Chinese believe in Chinese Exceptionalism just as much - and it's just as ugly and misguided. I'll be glad with nationalism fades away. >> ^kymbos:

Sure, but to take that on face value you must believe there's something genuinely special about America's 'freedom'. That's the hubris. Every country calls itself the best on Earth - most other countries understand they're not that 'special'. America's been calling itself special for so long its people actually believe it.
America is targeted because it dominates politically, culturally, and definitely because it intervenes in other countries out of perceived self interest.

I'm a New Zealand sheep farmer trapped in an American corporate prison.

Can anyone point out an example of "American Interventionism" that turned out well post WWII? By well, I mean one that had tangible benefits for the subjects of the changed regime. I guess maybe Korea? I know there are big question marks even about Kosovo, so I'm clutching at straws.

American exceptionalism = we're so fucking special

The only reason the Proglibdyte left is such a fan of Ron Paul is because he is a non-interventionist. The liberal left's vision of the ideal world is the United States giving all its cash - no questions asked - to the United Nations. At that point the US is supposed to sit down, shut up, and do whatever the UN orders them to do. Then - in the minds of the left - we will have world peace. RP would do about 90% of that by just being an isolationist. He won't give the UN any money, but the left will settle for the US just shutting down all its involvement (especially military).

But American Exceptionalism is not jingoism or arrogance. It is a quick way to summarize the American spirit of enlightened self-interest combined with personal freedom and entrepreneurism. The liberal left hates to admit it, but the US Constitution, economy, and position in the world was no accident of chance or random luck. Our constitution was a model to the rest of the world. Our freedoms and way of life still make us the envy of just about everyone. People still want to come here in droves to escape oppression, poverty, and intolerance. America was innovating, inventing, testing, and producing when the rest of the Western world was literally standing still. This is not arrogance or snootiness. It is just fact. American Exceptionalism summarizes this - and apparently makes Proglibdyte leftists squeal like stuck pigs when they hear the words.

Yeah, coz America invented democracy, right? America invented 'freedom'? This is the kind of breath-taking ignorance I'm talking about.

The rest of the developed world does not want your constitution, your economy or your position in the world, let alone your 'freedoms and way of life'. And you know who does? People from poor countries, who covet the same from every other developed country.

America has a lot to be proud of, but its only as much of a success or a fuck-up as every dominant culture before it, and what comes after it (ask the Brits). To that extent, it is far from exceptional.

Where in there was a justification for global empire? We aren't debating words "the left hates." We're debating why we were attacked by a handful of radical folks. Further we're debating whether or not our military engagement, specifically since WWII, has been productive in any measurable way. Can you provide some examples?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

The only reason the Proglibdyte left is such a fan of Ron Paul is because he is a non-interventionist. The liberal left's vision of the ideal world is the United States giving all its cash - no questions asked - to the United Nations. At that point the US is supposed to sit down, shut up, and do whatever the UN orders them to do. Then - in the minds of the left - we will have world peace. RP would do about 90% of that by just being an isolationist. He won't give the UN any money, but the left will settle for the US just shutting down all its involvement (especially military).
But American Exceptionalism is not jingoism or arrogance. It is a quick way to summarize the American spirit of enlightened self-interest combined with personal freedom and entrepreneurism. The liberal left hates to admit it, but the US Constitution, economy, and position in the world was no accident of chance or random luck. Our constitution was a model to the rest of the world. Our freedoms and way of life still make us the envy of just about everyone. People still want to come here in droves to escape oppression, poverty, and intolerance. America was innovating, inventing, testing, and producing when the rest of the Western world was literally standing still. This is not arrogance or snootiness. It is just fact. American Exceptionalism summarizes this - and apparently makes Proglibdyte leftists squeal like stuck pigs when they hear the words.

You're a funny guy Mr Pennypacker
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

[...]
But American Exceptionalism is not jingoism or arrogance. It is a quick way to summarize the American spirit of enlightened self-interest combined with personal freedom and entrepreneurism. The liberal left hates to admit it, but the US Constitution, economy, and position in the world was no accident of chance or random luck. Our constitution was a model to the rest of the world. Our freedoms and way of life still make us the envy of just about everyone. People still want to come here in droves to escape oppression, poverty, and intolerance. America was innovating, inventing, testing, and producing when the rest of the Western world was literally standing still. This is not arrogance or snootiness. It is just fact. American Exceptionalism summarizes this - and apparently makes Proglibdyte leftists squeal like stuck pigs when they hear the words.

Sure, but to take that on face value you must believe there's something genuinely special about America's 'freedom'.


Well, it's tied together. Freedom and tolerance are a big part of American culture - and it's American culture (to a certain extent Western, but also specifically American) that's threatening traditional ones throughout the world. They don't care whether Swiss people are free, because they aren't inundated with Swiss movies and TV and music and Swiss-targetted products making that culture look desirable.

Again, clearly "they hate our freedom" (said as an American, though I'm Canadian) isn't anywhere near the whole story, but it's a non-trivial part of it. And it's a self-serving way to say it, because really it's more about "culture of decadence and immorality" than it is directly about "freedom" - but it's still at least partly true. A random terrorist's vision of proper civilization involves significantly less freedom than the US model - but US cultural hegemony makes that vision very hard to sell.

America was innovating, inventing, testing, and producing when the rest of the Western world was literally standing still.


Well... the US did grow quickly in the 19th century as it utilized its tremendous, largely untapped natural resources, but it didn't take its "super-power" position in the world until after WWII. And then it took the position by default; Europe was a series of craters.

Now clearly the US did well post revolution (I mean, compare it to other places in the Americas with similar opportunities), but I don't think we can ascribe this to specifically American stuff. Its advantages: good organization, infrastructure ideas, lack of corruption, strong property rights, rule of law, and empowerment culture - these were all borrowed ideas. No, its prime differentiator was fantastic natural wealth. By the time America was ascendant, countries in Europe (especially Britain) had to import tremendous amounts of raw resources while in America you could - for example - just cut down a tree if you needed wood, or wander over a few more miles if you wanted land and water and minerals and (later) oil.

Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of good things about American culture and institutions. But using its economic and innovation success as proof of that is a little too convenient.

We're debating why we were attacked by a handful of radical folks

Pht - I can answer that in one word. Isreal. Next?

...whether or not our military engagement, specifically since WWII, has been productive in any measurable way...

Productive to who and in what way?

You see - to a leftist - your question is unanswerable. Like Ron Paul, leftists view any military intervention by the United States as unproductive. By their very natures it is literally impossible to supply a leftist with any response that they will find satisfactory. Leftists come from a particular philosophy and perspective that disallows the word 'productive' to be used in the same sentence as 'American military engagement'. Heck to this day there are leftists who even question whether the US should have gotten involved in WW1 or WW2 or not.

Other people with other perspectives are not quite so closed-minded about whether or not a military action was 'productive' or not because they allow other definitions of 'productive' to be satisfied. But to a Proglibdyte, ANY US military action is viewed as unproductive. Someone could wax eloquent on the subject, but to a dyed-in-the-wool leftist who views the US military as the chief evil of the modern world, it is an anathema.

"they hate our freedom"

As I said before - the primary reason they are hostile is Isreal. However, from a cultural perspective the Islamic world DOES hate our freedom. The Muslim world wants Sharia Law as the method of governance for the entire world - and stuff like the US Constitution is viewed (at best) as a secular affront to Islam that is viewed with latent hostility or (at worst) a "Christian" modern Crusade to be viewed as a military enemy.

Ron Paul deserved to be booed, but you can be pretty sure that the crowd was right for all the wrong reasons.

Al Qaeda listed support for the state of Israel at the top of the USA's crimes. Paul is correct in pointing that out. He is WRONG to simply leave it at that, as though by capitulating and turning our backs on Israel that we could live at peace with Al Qaeda.

The truth is, the majority of people killed by Al Qaeda and similar jihadist groups are muslims living in the middle east. Either Shia's for simply not being Sunni's as the late Osama was, or for any other failure to adopt the specific brand of Sharia that the jihadist groups want.

These terrorists have killed countless more of their neighbouring muslims than imperialist Americans, it is dishonest, contemptible, and worthy of booing Ron Paul suggesting American actions made the difference between the attacks of these terrorists and them leaving us to our own ways. These terrorists ARE enemies of the free world, starting most importantly with their own fellow muslim neighbours.

conflations.
deflections..
and false equivalencies are all the dissenting arguments i am seeing.
and this is not due to me being a "leftist' and therefore not owning the ability to critically digest historical information and come to a conclusion.

someone spent 20 minutes to refute some of the data in this video only to find out the numbers were accurate BUT they did not reveal the specifics and hence the argument was invalid.
kinda like: "the yellow honda ran over a man today crushing his skull"
"HA! the car was GREEN"
"so it was but how does that change the fact the car crushed a mans skull?"

some have suggested that american interventionism is sometimes messy but usually a necessity.so while it may be complicated,sometimes america has had to do what the rest of the world would not.
this (falsely) implies that their is a thread of moral good when america attempts to straighten out an ugly situation in a foreign country and that sometimes,sadly,this leads to unintended consequences that may lead to blowback.
this is pure propaganda and i say this not because i hate my country but because if it were a true statement then america would be where ALL human rights,oppression and suffering under the hands of despotic governments resided worldwide.

see:rwanda,east timor,bangledesh there is a massive amount of places where america had a strict non-interventionist attitude.
and the reason is simple.those countries had nothing to offer,but our government seems to REALLY like working with dictators.easier to deal with one person who is friendly to american interests than a whole population that might (gasp/horror) have the ability to vote your interests down.so not only does america not give two shits about a country with no resources to exploit,they prefer despotic dictators and have installed them when necessary in the name of american interests.

war is always for the same things:resources,land and labor.now for thousands of years it was religion that was the driving force to get the average person to go out and slaughter but for the past 100 years it has been nationalism.

one last thing to address those who have mentioned alqaeda and what they post.
firstly:this has nothing to do with this video and is a false equivalency.
secondly:look up where alqaeda was on the FBI's most wanted list in 1999.look at who trained alqaeda,even funded them.notice anything?

so we can say vietnam was complicated.
ok..i can agree with that but lets remember it would have never even been issue if not for our government creating a false situation in which to enter vietnam in the first place.see:gulf of tonkin.
and again,has nothing to do with the premise of this video.

we can say muslims dont hate our freedom but rather they perceive us as immoral and decadent.
i would agree with that also if we were in the 1950's and the conversation was sayyid qutb and the muslim brotherhood but we are talking alqaeda which is the creation of the american intelligence CIA.
so it is america which created the complications we are speaking of.so whatever propaganda alqaeda uses now to recruit besides just pointing to us bombing the shit out of them is still indirectly a result of american interventionism.

neo-conservative ideology has nothing to do with being conseravtive but everything to do with using the massive might of the military to secure american interests globally.
might makes right.

lets also remember traditionally republicanism tended to be isolationist and faaar less hawkish.so ron paul is just being a traditional republican.of course now we live in bizzarro universe where everything is opposite so we have self-proclaimed republicans admonishing ron paul for ..what exactly? being a republican?
thats just weird.

and please understand that my points are not just some rage against america.i am not,by my commentary,ignoring the vast amount of good and noble things my country has done over the past 100 years or so but i also will not shut my eyes to what my countries foreign policy has done to so many small countries who happen to coincidently all be populated by brown people.

might i suggest:
chalmers johnson "blowback"
bryzenski's "the grand chessboard"
or the stellar book by john perkins "economic hitman"

maybe you will understand ron pauls position on these things.
/rant off

every nation acts in what it perceives to be its own self interest... it's a given

i think it's impossible to give an example of american intervention that has 'turned out well'... well, because it's impossible to say how it would have turned out without said intervention... and history never stops

maybe at some point in the far future, after we've all destroyed ourselves, some alien race will arrive and piece together the entire history of humanity

at that point, perhaps, they'll be able to gauge right and wrong definitively... but i doubt it -- moot point for us anyway

alien #1: "wow, those humans were messed up! why didn't they listen to ron paul?"
alien #2: "well, at least their wiping themselves out did subsequently allow the tadpole-squirrel race to evolve in peace on this planet..."
alien #1: "yeah! grytzlaak the great of the tadpole-squirrel people did go on to bring ultimate equilibrium to the entire universe!"
alien #2: "yup! i love you, dude..."

do competing ideologies cause suffering? absolutely

would a single, global ideology alleviate suffering? maybe, but what a boring world we'd live in

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

We're debating why we were attacked by a handful of radical folks
Pht - I can answer that in one word. Isreal. Next?
...whether or not our military engagement, specifically since WWII, has been productive in any measurable way...
Productive to who and in what way?
You see - to a leftist - your question is unanswerable. Like Ron Paul, leftists view any military intervention by the United States as unproductive. By their very natures it is literally impossible to supply a leftist with any response that they will find satisfactory. Leftists come from a particular philosophy and perspective that disallows the word 'productive' to be used in the same sentence as 'American military engagement'. Heck to this day there are leftists who even question whether the US should have gotten involved in WW1 or WW2 or not.
Other people with other perspectives are not quite so closed-minded about whether or not a military action was 'productive' or not because they allow other definitions of 'productive' to be satisfied. But to a Proglibdyte, ANY US military action is viewed as unproductive.

Bollocks. I'm a socialist and I firmly believe that not only was America right to get involved in WW2, it was right to get involved in Libya recently.

Typical "rightist" attitude. You can't see any nuance or context. The left opposed Americas intervention in Vietnam, in Iraq and guess what? They turned out to be fucking right. Hell, I don't even remember that much left wing opposition to gulf war 1, other than the likes of Bill Hicks pointing out the ridiculous position you were in was largely of your own making.

As for "American exceptionalism", the USA had some grand ideals, and should be commended for that. But the reason it occupies the place it does in the world today is down to geology (it was rich in natural resources) and geography (America has never had a strong belligerent neighbour). So really, more down to good luck than good management.

1) The left-wing textbook on the Vietnam War always ends right before the communist genocides.

2) Europe should be paying for its own defense, except thanks to socialism it can't even pay to keep the lights on.

3) America is evil? Here you're free to leave, which in itself is more than one can say for red china, which will promptly gobble up the rest of the world as America's military mistakenly retreats under President Paul.





>> ^gwiz665:

America is a force for evil in this world.

1) I'm not going to contest that. I am not knowledgeable in the Vietnam war. It's also 8 million years ago, so it doesn't really apply anymore.
2) Yes and no. You have some 20~30k troops in europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_deployments#Europe) They shouldn't be there. As for your socialism remark, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita the socialistic states of europe, scandinavia, are the highest gdp per capita. How do you figure that? Magic?
3) You're not free to leave if for whatever reason the department of homeland security deems you a threat, which means they can abduct you and torture you and even have you assassinated, EVEN THOUGH you're an american citizen. In the last 10 years it seems to me that the US have given up more freedoms that most countries have. As a freedom loving american, don't you hate the patriot act? I mean, really? I can't understand why americans who are otherwise so proud of their freedoms would willingly, some even lovingly, give up their freedom for a perceived sense of security.
>> ^quantumushroom:

1) The left-wing textbook on the Vietnam War always ends right before the communist genocides.
2) Europe should be paying for its own defense, except thanks to socialism it can't even pay to keep the lights on.
3) America is evil? Here you're free to leave, which in itself is more than one can say for red china, which will promptly gobble up the rest of the world as America's military mistakenly retreats under President Paul.


>> ^gwiz665:
America is a force for evil in this world.