voiceofthevoiceless wrote:That statement was made by Noam Chomsky originally, and Chomsky is the person with all the evidence for this.
Noam Chomsky? You mean the radical Communist peacenik who has a decades-long record of distorting the truth and pushing extremist propaganda? No thanks, you'll need a different source for me to take anything like that seriously.
voiceofthevoiceless wrote:Since the bombings of Hiroshima (killing civilians)
And which actually saved
civilian lives in the long run, as unbelievably huge numbers of people, both Japanese and American, would have died in the event of an Allied invasion of the Japanese home islands.
voiceofthevoiceless wrote:the establishment of the corrupt regime that is Israel
Corrupt regime? As opposed to the liberal, humanitarian regimes in Middle Eastern countries like Syria and Egypt, which are paragons of administrative integrity and progressive values?
voiceofthevoiceless wrote:evicting the native Muslims from their land
That's the first point you made that's even arguable. I'm really not sure about the selection of Palestine as an appropriate place to move all the displaced Jews after the horrors of the Holocaust, but what's done is done, and at this point it can't just be undone.
voiceofthevoiceless wrote:and continuing the trend of agression towards the Middle East
Which "trend of aggression" was this, again? The Middle East has been a hotbed of aggression for practically the entirety of human history, and it certainly wasn't always the Western powers on the offensive. Know anything about the caliphate or the Ottoman Empire? You know, the ones that invaded Europe in late Middle Ages and got as far as Vienna in the East and southern France in the West? The only trend of aggression that exists in the Middle East is violence in general, and really, that could be said of many regions around the world.
voiceofthevoiceless wrote:Truman really does merit the criminal status.
Based on what evidence, again? Giving a shattered ethnic group a homeland? Making an immensely courageous decision to save lives in the long run by using atomic weapons against Japan? For helping rebuild Europe after World War II with the Marshall Plan?
voiceofthevoiceless wrote:Since then, nearly every president has violated war crime laws that the UN defines.
And since the UN has absolutely no power to dictate what laws we "have" to follow, it doesn't matter one bit. And besides, if you want to start calling out American presidents for violating UN rules, then you better be prepared to do so for the same rulers of the Arab nations you seem so bent on defending, who have done far worse things in much more numerous ways and in an openly public, defiant manner. Sure some presidents have done things that they shouldn't have, but I'd personally be much more concerned about countries where public torture is an accepted form of legal punishment, women aren't allowed to do anything without their husband's consent, and anyone not of the Islamic faith is openly persecuted.
voiceofthevoiceless wrote:In modern day, Bush handled 911 and radical Islam VERY poorly
He's made some missteps, but hindsight is always 20/20. He generally made decisions that, based on the evidence he had, were in the best interests of our country and I don't fault him for that.
voiceofthevoiceless wrote:for the sake of making those "terrorist states" our puppets in which we can profit from by wrongfully taking their resources like oil
First of all, our economy is dependent on oil, so going to war to protect our resources of it is not the far-out, illogical concept that liberal pundits (and especially nutcases like your Noam Chomsky) have made it out to be. That aside, however, the whole "blood for oil" talking point is really quite ridiculous. If all we wanted was their oil, we could have had it for much cheaper than the cost of the Iraq war and with much less conflict if we'd simply negotiated with Saddam Hussein for more oil exports. But then of course people like you would have jumped all over us for selling our soul to a terrible dictator for oil - basically, we're damned if we do and damned if we don't.
voiceofthevoiceless wrote:Bush has sent our armed forces over the past several years to destroy nations and kill thousands of innocent civilians
Yes, that was the entire point of the Iraq war - to kill as many civilians as possible. The great evil dictator George Bush systematically plotted to slaughter as many innocent people as he could, and to that end, he sent over a hundred thousand American soldiers to carry out mass genocide and crush the Iraqi nation.
voiceofthevoiceless wrote:( who weren't radical Islam "animals," as we've been told, since Al Queda and the like are very small minorities).
Not nearly as small as you'd think. And even if they are, why don't the massive majorities of alleged moderate Muslims that exist speak out against and revolt against those who have hijacked their religion and are using it to achieve their own nefarious ends?
voiceofthevoiceless wrote:Look at nomorevictims.org, it is sick what our leaders are doing.
A bunch of sob stories about victims of accidental injury does not constitute an acceptable argument. I mean hey, if we're just tossing out websites as ways to make our arguments, you should go check out TheReligionOfPeace.com
, a site that tracks incidences of radical Islamist terrorism around the world. Look at that and tell me that Muslim terrorists don't deserve your scorn and anger more than American soldiers, who are fighting and dying to help bring democracy and stability to the Iraqi people.
voiceofthevoiceless wrote:We aren't eliminating radical Islam, we're giving those people more reasons to hate us and more excuses to be affiliated with terrorist groups.
Killing terrorists is indeed treating the symptoms of the problem rather than the underlying cause, but at least it's working in Iraq for now - we're starting to bring the troops home, violence in Iraq is on the decline, and things are looking up.
voiceofthevoiceless wrote:In the words of Zack : "Wake up."
Been there and done that, but the conclusions that I came to probably aren't what Mr. de la Rocha was intending...
voiceofthevoiceless wrote:Our foreign policy really is criminal and imperialistic, and the power-whores in charge really are parasites (Democrats and Republicans, both generally are full of crap). (Ron Paul, save us all)
Criminal - according to who, Saddam Hussein? Imperialistic - except that we're now beginning to pull out of Iraq. Parasites - welcome to politics. Ron Paul - good luck to Mr. Still-Polling-In-The-Single-Digits-Nationally, but let's be serious - he doesn't have a chance (not that Ron Paul would be able to do anything radical even if he did by some miracle win the election - he would still have a Congress that, regardless of whether it ends up being controlled by Republicans or Democrats, does NOT fall into the same category of libertarianism that he does).
voiceofthevoiceless wrote:And, yes, I am a fan of RATM
Nothing wrong with that - they're certainly acceptable and even fun on purely musical grounds.
voiceofthevoiceless wrote:Zack de la Rocha's lyrics really have changed my perspective on the world.
Really? You get your political advice and receive life-changing revelations from someone whose job is to entertain and sell records? Forgive me for sounding pretentious, but if it were me, I'd start looking to people with actual qualifications in fields that are apropos to the field.
voiceofthevoiceless wrote:I was among the ranks of the very Conservative until I listened to him and gave his lyrics a real listen and researched some of the points he made.
Right - I suppose you cross-checked them with works by Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, and Al Franken?
voiceofthevoiceless wrote:I disagree with some of the things he says, but I believe he makes a very valid point here.
Well, anyone is allowed to make a point, and though I'd never suggest that the US is perfect (far from it, actually), Zack de la Rocha is certainly not anyone who is qualified in my mind to make suggestions as to the direction the country should take.
"Wise men talk because they have something to say. Fools talk because they have to say something."