The Best Reason Now To Be An Expat In Argentina...

[John.St]

... The point of war is not to kill the enemy. The point of war is to achieve a particular objective.

von Clausewitz: War is the continuation of politics using other means. Reversed von Clausewitz: Politics is the continuation of war using knives in the back

I think the point Bajo_cero2 is pointing to is a good one - about attacking. I personally believe that my country has gone way too far in the way of "pre-emptive" attack. I would rather spend that money and training in creating a strong defense. If we get attacked then retaliate with a vengeance.

I agree re. pre-emptive strikes, they seem to have become a religion. The retaliation part is more complicated, given that every country in the world has the means to reach the US with a nuclear weapon, once they get one. Religious nuts are especially dangerous, if they sincerely believe they become martyrs and thus earn immediately access to Paradise.

 

[John.St]

The recent "debate" over intervention in Syria and Libya illustrates much of this. One side wanted to invade, the other side just wanted to bomb the bejeezus out of them. That's the extent of the spectrum. The option that Matías mentioned of not attacking other countries doesn't even enter into the conversation.

It certainly did. Almost all the European allies set their foot down and said "you'll have to go it alone". Who attacked Syria? When?

Look at that list again: when did ... South Vietnam,... or anyone else attack the US its assets, people or allies? And I didn't even list half of the countries the US has attacked.

Your list is somehow missing North Korea and North Vietnam, both of which were communist dictatorships, which attacked their southern counterparts, US allies.

In April 1950 Stalin gave North Korea permission to invade South Korea if the the Great Leader and mass murderer Chairman Mao agreed to send reinforcements if needed. Mao decided to support the North Korean invasion, sent Korean veterans from the Chinese 'People's Liberation Army' to North Korea and promised to move the Chinese Army closer to the Korean border. Soviet generals planned the attack on South Korea. 25 June 1950 North Korea attacked across the border.

Why should the US intervene? why not just let North Korea assisted by China and the Soviet Union attack and conquer South Korea? none of their business, was it? North Korea, the Soviet Union and communist China had the right to do what they wanted, didn't they?

Starting app. January 1957, the North Vietnamese communist government actively supported the insurgency in South Vietnam. Communist forces were active in 1958. In January 1959 the North Vietnamese Communist Party approved a "people's war" on the South. North Vietnam invaded Laos in 1959 and established the Ho Chi Minh Trail through Laos and Cambodia to support the communist insurgents in South Vietnam with weapens and ammunitions.

In the years 1961–63 some 35-40,000 North Vietnamese soldiers infiltrated into South Vietnam and in 1964 North Vietnam sent 10,000 regular army troops to attack South Vietnam, in 1965 their number had increased to almost 100,000. Why should the US intervene? why not just let North Vietnam assisted by the Soviet Union attack and conquer South Vietnam? none of their business, was it? North Vietnam, the Soviet Union and communist China had the right to do what they wanted, didn't they?

The same goes for Europe - let the Soviets conquer Europe. And Africa. And South America. And Canada. And Mexico. Why not right away become the United Soviet Republics of America? wouldn't it be nice to have the moral upper hand - living under a communist dictatorship?

There is plenty of reason to criticize the US for being heavy handed - let's limit the critique to a reasonable level.

 

[Ries]

Hey Ries, read and learn:

The USA's "powers that be" are turning the most powerful country in the world (an accomplishment that could never have been reached had socialists and communists like you had had their way) into a third world country. Societies with those principles do not succeed, are not sustainable, it has been proven time and time over again.
People from those 'heavenly' regimes have died trying to reach the shores of the USA, FOR A REASON: to escape the very way of life you and other sheepel idolize. Of course that was then, and this is now. Now, they are leaving in droves.
The massive agenda to destroy the USA from the inside via indoctrination, etc., and reach third-world rank, was started a long time ago. It is in recent years that the x-rays have started to show the shadows that keep getting bigger and darker every day.
It was Austrian economics and the likes of JFK, yes the RATIONAL democrat JFK, the free market, the freedoms, liberties, human rights and capitalism which our forefathers tried to protect in those magnificent documents (that are now being trashed in favor of satanism and insane laws protecting the criminals and denying good people of their rights) that allowed us to flourish, to grow, and to become the envy of the whole world. However, the claws of the sinister puppeteers were already sunk in 1913. The rest, as they say...
So do not mouth off about how much to the right we are in comparison to other countries that have already collapsed, we are already there. "They" just have not pulled the plug yet. When they do, I doubt you'll enjoy FEMA camps.
Good luck my friend.

"Satanism", eh?

Wow.

Anyway, the USA is still your last best chance, especially if you like tinfoil hats.

There is NO 1st world country to the right of the USA.
In fact, there is almost no country in the world that combines the USA's current mix of laissez faire economic policies, low taxes, loose gun laws, lack of Unionisation, feeble social services, low wages, lax environmental standards, and christians passing laws to institute moral standards on other people.

Even Paraguay doesnt have Nazis anymore.

Where you gonna go?

 

[Bajo_cero2]

Why does the bloody police arrest highway robbers? it isn't their money that is robbed. Stay away and let decent criminals do their job.

Interesting point, the dictators in south america sponsored by the US were nice and decent people.

 

[steveinbsas]

There is NO 1st world country to the right of the USA.

Where you gonna go?

To the campo, amigo.

To the campo.

OF ARGENTINA

Thank god I am already there,,,

 

[Bajo_cero2]

There is plenty of reason to criticize the US for being heavy handed - let's limit the critique to a reasonable level.

Ok, what about since Bush Jr. until nowadays?

von Clausewitz: War is the continuation of politics using other means. Reversed von Clausewitz: Politics is the continuation of war using knives in the back

I agree re. pre-emptive strikes, they seem to have become a religion. The retaliation part is more complicated, given that every country in the world has the means to reach the US with a nuclear weapon, once they get one. Religious nuts are especially dangerous, if they sincerely believe they become martyrs and thus earn immediately access to Paradise.

As far as I remember, the one who quoted the bible and mentioned god all the time during their speachs was Bush Jr. So, I have to agree, religious nuts are very dangerous.

 

[GS_Dirtboy]

The US government has done a lot that I don't agree with. Meddling in South American countries was an hold-over from our anti-communist chess play (using other countries) against Russia. The Korean and Vietnam wars were fought on those grounds alone - to block communism. There is no oil there.

We've played favorites in Middle Eastern politics and it has cost us. I would go so far to say that the contemporary "terrorist" threats, 911 and forward, are a result to a large degree of our foreign policy.

I think many of us Americans are getting tired of playing World Police, eg Syria. Ok, there were chemical weapons used. Why is it our job to go in and deal with it?

The current stance on anti-terrorism has cost us. Taking the war to Afghanistan was a mistake. I think the drones - though highly effective in killing the right people - have a cost in terms of world opinion. Plus, killing terrorists creates more terrorists. Where does it end? We'll need to kill them all.

The significant cost is liberty. The America that exists now is very different from the America that existed before 911. The Patriot Act completely re-wrote how domestic policy is viewed and implemented. It significantly expanded Executive powers to the point that checks-and-balances are almost non-existent. I didn't elect a king. I elected a President. You might say that this President uses those powers wisely. Ok, how about the next President?

And yes, there are many of us conservative Republicans who can actually think through issues and put consecutive sentences together.

 

[khairyexpat]

To the campo, amigo.

To the campo.

OF ARGENTINA

Thank god I am already there,,,

ARGENTINA is to the right of USA?
Am I reading this correctly?

 

[EdRooney]

I think many of us Americans are getting tired of playing World Police, eg Syria. Ok, there were chemical weapons used. Why is it our job to go in and deal with it?

[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]I think the drones - though highly effective in killing the right people - have a cost in terms of world opinion[/background]

I think your confusing the mafia with the police. Want less chemical weapons? OK stop using them (depleted uranium in Iraq, Agent Orange still affecting Vietnamese). Or stop supplying Israel, Saudi, Yemen, Bahrain etc. Support a full chemical and nuclear weapon ban in the Middle East.

[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]We've played favorites in Middle Eastern politics and it has cost us.... [/background][background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]I think the drones - though highly effective in killing the right people - have a cost in terms of world opinion[/background]

[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]Again the same line: we are terrorising entire populations of citizens in numerous countries, but the downside is we lose popularity points in the world. It cost US, never mind the hundreds of thousands we "inadvertently" slaughtered[/background]

[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]I definitely see you as intelligent and articulate GS, and I have no more issues with Republicans than I do with Democrats, but that's not the point here.[/background]

 

[John.St]

Ok, what about since Bush Jr. until nowadays?

As far as I remember, the one who quoted the bible and mentioned god all the time during their speachs was Bush Jr. So, I have to agree, religious nuts are very dangerous.

Yep, that particular group of religious nuts are actually called "The American Taleban".