We Are All Spaniards

Doug Carter wrote
THE ASSERTION:
The US installed numerous dictatorships in South America for one
reason: the fear that somehow communism would take hold of what US
considered its "backyard".

THE EVIDENCE:
Have you ever heard of a movie called "Missing"? This is a 1982
nonfiction movie, with Jack Lemmon and Sissy Spacek. Unless you fear
your beliefs can be shaken by a simple movie, I dare you to watch it.

Look, I feel like I'm talking to brainwashed zombies here. You'll
obviously resort to the lowest means just to avoid a straight answer.
You don't want to listen to other points of view? You don't want to
know what it is like outside of the US? Fine. Have it your way. You're
gona have it anyway, because you can come to my home to kill me and be
a hero at the same time. Good for you. Bye.

Doug Carter wrote
I was sort of hoping for specific cases with verifiable
assertions of fact instead of vague demogarary.

As I said to Rob, go search google. There you can find verifiable
assertions. I don't know where you can read your government's
declasified documents to actually verify what you find in the net, but
I'm sure you know.

I understand; you have no actual data, just emotional
outrage driven by the last vague collection of "facts" you
picked up somewhere.

Neither did I say I had actual data, nor did you demand it. You asked
for "specific cases with verifiable assertions of fact". I gave you
one:

http://www.crimesofwar.org/special/condor.html

There you can find verifiable data. Do your verification. Search for
the declasified documents mentioned in this site and many others. You
asked for verifiable data, I gave it to you. Now you say I have no
actual data?

The truth is you don't want to listen.

Doug Carter wrote in message ...
Before you tell me that a movie can lie, please remember that you are
talking with a witness of the kind of horror that this movie shows.

We find many witnesses in South America:
http://www.rense.com/general32/abduct.htm
http://www.labyrinthina.com/contact.htm
http://www.barbelith.com/topic/7409
http://www.para-normal.com/compendium/550.htm
http://www.ufoorganisation.com/Repor...y2003No001.htm

Doug, my sister has been tortured by the military while she was
"missing". She gave birth in jail. She and her son are exceptional in
that she survived and he wasn't taken away. Nobody in the world denies
this kind of things happened, not even the militaries. The democratic
government that followed recognized the state did wrong and payed her
and countless outher survivers money in damages. Last week our
president publicly asked for forgiveness in the name of the State.

You compare my country's well documented and universally accepted
history and my own family's history to a bunch of ufo sighters, which,
by the way, are by no means exclusive of South America?

Doug: you are a despicable asshole.

Alex wrote:
You compare my country's well documented and universally accepted
history and my own family's history to a bunch of ufo sighters...

The point of that post was to satire the rather persistant
lack of documentation. With what you have presented so
far you may be correct and accurate or a Turing machine

Doug: you are a despicable asshole.

With a sense of humor.

(Alex) wrote in message . com...
(pacplyer) wrote in message . com...
Alex, is one sick puppy. Just because he finds someone's ramblings
searching google doesn't make it true.

Ok, so you say Kissinger and Nixon had nothing to do with
southamerican dictatorships and their crimes. Ok, I can accept your
disagreement. I have no proof myself, I am only saying what I found,
and I do believe it because it is consistently mentioned throughout a
lot of very different sources. But it could be false, of course, like
anything else.

I never said either way. But giving support to people in charge to
influence their behaviors is something that happens when you are
Secretary of State. My government frequently has to deal with
unsavory characters who wield power in a particular region. I'm just
pointing out that it seems like to me you are oversimplifying
everything. When you walk into a pig sty and have to deal with a
pig, you're going to get dirty. Your other choice is Isolationism.
Stay home and tell yourself that the murders are not happening and
that you won't find any mass graves if you go down there.


His poison pen diatribes are
really deluded. All he can say is: the U.S. is bad bad bad bad bad.
The U.S., you moron, is nearly 300 million people. Ninety-Nine
percent who have nothing to do with the frequently up to 100
wars/conflicts being waged around the world. These struggles would
occur with or without our involvement. All nations have problems with
operatives in the field. Don't blame us because human life is worth
nothing below Texas.

Firtly, I never blamed all of US population. I blamed the succesive US
governments for their foreign policy. I'm blaming politicians, not
farmers or salesmen! The sub-human military we got in southamerica are
our own. That we did to ourselves. I never said otherwise. I only said
the US backed it up and helped.

I don't think you'll reach many politicians on this website. Where do
you live Alex? in Latin America? Are you a German immigrant?


Kissinger was trying to stabilize the situation.
Sometimes it works out, other times it doesn't. The fallacy of Alex's
assertion that domestic U.S. standards must exist outside the U.S. is
very very naive.

Now you're saying Kissinger *did* have something to do with
southamerican dictatorships and their crimes. Okey...

So, Pacplayer, you are making exactly my point! US foreign policy is
not guided by domestic standards, but hey, it was Rob who said it was,
not me!

Rob is right. So is Doug. The U.S. objective is always to stabilize
the region so commerce can flourish and standards of living can come
up. The disagreement arises for me when we ask: whose standards of
living come up? Corporate CEO's or the people?

I am trying to tell him and Doug that they are deluded if they
believe the US acts acording to law, human rights, etc, in their
foreign policy.

Contrary to what law? International law? Local law? Religious law?
Martial law? Again, this old saw about the U.S. breaking laws is a
play on words. War is legal. If you can't rid your own country of
despots, and your countryman's cries reach the U.S. media…look out!
Our do-gooders will get everybody upset and before you know it, the
U.S. intel or war machine may start on the way down to clean up these
perceived injustices. And odds a they're going to screw it up big
time. And guys like you are going to bitch and moan about how unfair
we are. Well I'm tired of your sad sad song. You want to convince
people here of U.S. oppression, post pictures of people being tossed
out of C-130's by U.S troops and then I'll believe it. Until you do,
I say it's bull****, and that you are one impressionable young man for
only believing one side of the argument. I try to keep an open mind.
I believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I believe U.S.
corporate CEO's are morally bankrupt, and cause most of these hard
feelings by abusing int'l labor and trashing the third world for
profit. These assholes are the guys that prop up dictators with cushy
oil/drug/lumber kickbacks and then economically enslave the local
workers. After a number of years of this the workers get fed up.
They join guerrilla movements and start shooting up villages. Police
are called out. The national Military gets involved. The CEO's
convince the president/dictator/despot to call Washington and ask for
assistance.

Citizens like me are going to try to vote out Bush and other
incombants this November to pay for this misbehavior. But can the
U.S. gov just decree that the whole world must obey human rights? No!
All we can do is take out a few of the biggest offenders. And during
that process there's going to be some heartbreak. People are going to
get killed. Human rights are going to be violated. Half of the
strongmen we support are going to stab us in the back later. That is
the nature of intervention.

It's legal to kill your wife in Argentina if she embarrasses you. Do
we like that law? (divorced guys don't answer this one.) No, of
course not. But we can not impose all our domestic American standards
on the rest of the world just because we want to. Is it legal for the
president of Columbia to declare war on his own citizens and ask for
military help from the U.S. to stop drug farms? Yes it is. Do I like
it? No. Do I want to pay for it? No. Can I do anything about it?
I'm voting against all incumbents this November.

If I understand you Alex, you're basically blaming the U.S. government
for picking sides, right? Well, they're often forced to pick between
two evils. Support Sadamn Hussein or a radical Iattola or Sheik?
They all murder, bomb, rape and wage war. We hope that the thug we
support will eventually mend his ways and give in to our pressure to
treat his subjects better. But guess what Alex? We can't dictate
this. Not unless we show up with warships. Which, we actually hate
to do. And then everybody loses.

pacplyer - over

"pacplyer" wrote in message
om...
(Alex) wrote in message
. com...
(pacplyer) wrote in message
. com...
Alex, is one sick puppy. Just because he finds someone's ramblings
searching google doesn't make it true.

Ok, so you say Kissinger and Nixon had nothing to do with
southamerican dictatorships and their crimes. Ok, I can accept your
disagreement. I have no proof myself, I am only saying what I found,
and I do believe it because it is consistently mentioned throughout a
lot of very different sources. But it could be false, of course, like
anything else.

I never said either way. But giving support to people in charge to
influence their behaviors is something that happens when you are
Secretary of State. My government frequently has to deal with
unsavory characters who wield power in a particular region. I'm just
pointing out that it seems like to me you are oversimplifying
everything. When you walk into a pig sty and have to deal with a
pig, you're going to get dirty. Your other choice is Isolationism.
Stay home and tell yourself that the murders are not happening and
that you won't find any mass graves if you go down there.


His poison pen diatribes are
really deluded. All he can say is: the U.S. is bad bad bad bad bad.
The U.S., you moron, is nearly 300 million people. Ninety-Nine
percent who have nothing to do with the frequently up to 100
wars/conflicts being waged around the world. These struggles would
occur with or without our involvement. All nations have problems with
operatives in the field. Don't blame us because human life is worth
nothing below Texas.

Firtly, I never blamed all of US population. I blamed the succesive US
governments for their foreign policy. I'm blaming politicians, not
farmers or salesmen! The sub-human military we got in southamerica are
our own. That we did to ourselves. I never said otherwise. I only said
the US backed it up and helped.

I don't think you'll reach many politicians on this website. Where do
you live Alex? in Latin America? Are you a German immigrant?


Kissinger was trying to stabilize the situation.
Sometimes it works out, other times it doesn't. The fallacy of
Alex's
assertion that domestic U.S. standards must exist outside the U.S. is
very very naive.

Now you're saying Kissinger *did* have something to do with
southamerican dictatorships and their crimes. Okey...

So, Pacplayer, you are making exactly my point! US foreign policy is
not guided by domestic standards, but hey, it was Rob who said it was,
not me!

Rob is right. So is Doug. The U.S. objective is always to stabilize
the region so commerce can flourish and standards of living can come
up. The disagreement arises for me when we ask: whose standards of
living come up? Corporate CEO's or the people?

I am trying to tell him and Doug that they are deluded if they
believe the US acts acording to law, human rights, etc, in their
foreign policy.

Contrary to what law? International law? Local law? Religious law?
Martial law? Again, this old saw about the U.S. breaking laws is a
play on words. War is legal. If you can't rid your own country of
despots, and your countryman's cries reach the U.S. media.look out!
Our do-gooders will get everybody upset and before you know it, the
U.S. intel or war machine may start on the way down to clean up these
perceived injustices. And odds a they're going to screw it up big
time. And guys like you are going to bitch and moan about how unfair
we are. Well I'm tired of your sad sad song. You want to convince
people here of U.S. oppression, post pictures of people being tossed
out of C-130's by U.S troops and then I'll believe it. Until you do,
I say it's bull****, and that you are one impressionable young man for
only believing one side of the argument. I try to keep an open mind.
I believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I believe U.S.
corporate CEO's are morally bankrupt, and cause most of these hard
feelings by abusing int'l labor and trashing the third world for
profit. These assholes are the guys that prop up dictators with cushy
oil/drug/lumber kickbacks and then economically enslave the local
workers. After a number of years of this the workers get fed up.
They join guerrilla movements and start shooting up villages. Police
are called out. The national Military gets involved. The CEO's
convince the president/dictator/despot to call Washington and ask for
assistance.

Citizens like me are going to try to vote out Bush and other
incombants this November to pay for this misbehavior. But can the
U.S. gov just decree that the whole world must obey human rights? No!
All we can do is take out a few of the biggest offenders. And during
that process there's going to be some heartbreak. People are going to
get killed. Human rights are going to be violated. Half of the
strongmen we support are going to stab us in the back later. That is
the nature of intervention.

"All we can do is take out a few of the biggest offenders."

You mean we take out those where we can steal their oil or other assets and
leave the worst offenders who would crush us if we tried it in their
country.

One rule for Iraq, another for China. Iraq with no WMD, China full of them
and both with human rights abuses.

The fact is China would whip the ass of the US if it tried to do anything.
You guys are so one eyed

"Martin Hotze" wrote in message
...
"Peter Gottlieb" wrote:

The "evidence" is far too vague and weak to be consistent with the
reported
quantity and quality of aledged encounters.

I'm not saying this is all false, just that there is not nearly enough
to
convince me otherwise.



what do you need more than the witness? ok, you can doubt his credibility.


A witness may be completely credible, yet still wrong.

Here's one thing that would completely convince me - bring me a piece of the
visiting craft and let me have it analyzed by a credible lab of my choice,
under peer (and other) supervision. No BS rocks or other junk, I'm talking
a piece of their frame or other technology.

"S Green" wrote

"All we can do is take out a few of the biggest offenders."

You mean we take out those where we can steal their oil or other assets and
leave the worst offenders who would crush us if we tried it in their
country.

What dumb comments! We import 80% of all our oil from Saudi Arabia.
Iraq is not producing squat. It is not even a drop in the bucket.
The war is costing us hundreds of Billions. There are no "assets"
worth that much that we could have stolen. We invaded Iraq because
they were menacing and disruptive to the region. Now if their tyranny
had spread out of Iraq into the real oilfields then our economy would
be jeopardized.


One rule for Iraq, another for China. Iraq with no WMD, China full of them
and both with human rights abuses.

Apples and Oranges. I've been going to mainland China since 87'.
It's clear to me you've never been there. They are one of the U.S.'s
biggest trading partners. We get along fine with them as long as they
stay away from Taiwan. Since you obviously don't read the papers you
wouldn't know that we parked two aircraft carriers in the Formosa
Straight to prevent them from abusing the people of Formosa. China is
massively over populated. Years ago the Chinese gov issued a law that
all female babies must be killed. If they hadn't done that massive
famine would surely have followed. As it is now they have over 2
billion people in poverty over there right now. Human rights concepts
have been seeded by the British in Hong Kong and western style
business is succeeding in Scezen and Shanghai and other places. It's
slow but they are making progress, where old Sadamizer in Baghdad was
regressing. So we clobbered him again because he was asking for it.
Suddenly Libya got real friendly. Can you figure out why Momar Kadafi
has renounced terrorism Mr.Green?


The fact is China would whip the ass of the US if it tried to do anything.
You guys are so one eyed

Naw, we use both eyes. You see, even you'd be pushing up daisies
where you live after a full China/US thermonuclear exchange. Ever
hear of Nuclear Winter? I have a suggestion for you Green: Try going
to college instead of just parroting headlines. You'll learn a lot
more.

pacplyer - out






in message ...
"pacplyer" wrote in message
om...
(Alex) wrote in message
. com...
(pacplyer) wrote in message
. com...
Alex, is one sick puppy. Just because he finds someone's ramblings
searching google doesn't make it true.

Ok, so you say Kissinger and Nixon had nothing to do with
southamerican dictatorships and their crimes. Ok, I can accept your
disagreement. I have no proof myself, I am only saying what I found,
and I do believe it because it is consistently mentioned throughout a
lot of very different sources. But it could be false, of course, like
anything else.

I never said either way. But giving support to people in charge to
influence their behaviors is something that happens when you are
Secretary of State. My government frequently has to deal with
unsavory characters who wield power in a particular region. I'm just
pointing out that it seems like to me you are oversimplifying
everything. When you walk into a pig sty and have to deal with a
pig, you're going to get dirty. Your other choice is Isolationism.
Stay home and tell yourself that the murders are not happening and
that you won't find any mass graves if you go down there.


His poison pen diatribes are
really deluded. All he can say is: the U.S. is bad bad bad bad bad.
The U.S., you moron, is nearly 300 million people. Ninety-Nine
percent who have nothing to do with the frequently up to 100
wars/conflicts being waged around the world. These struggles would
occur with or without our involvement. All nations have problems with
operatives in the field. Don't blame us because human life is worth
nothing below Texas.

Firtly, I never blamed all of US population. I blamed the succesive US
governments for their foreign policy. I'm blaming politicians, not
farmers or salesmen! The sub-human military we got in southamerica are
our own. That we did to ourselves. I never said otherwise. I only said
the US backed it up and helped.

I don't think you'll reach many politicians on this website. Where do
you live Alex? in Latin America? Are you a German immigrant?


Kissinger was trying to stabilize the situation.
Sometimes it works out, other times it doesn't. The fallacy of
Alex's
assertion that domestic U.S. standards must exist outside the U.S. is
very very naive.

Now you're saying Kissinger *did* have something to do with
southamerican dictatorships and their crimes. Okey...

So, Pacplayer, you are making exactly my point! US foreign policy is
not guided by domestic standards, but hey, it was Rob who said it was,
not me!

Rob is right. So is Doug. The U.S. objective is always to stabilize
the region so commerce can flourish and standards of living can come
up. The disagreement arises for me when we ask: whose standards of
living come up? Corporate CEO's or the people?

I am trying to tell him and Doug that they are deluded if they
believe the US acts acording to law, human rights, etc, in their
foreign policy.

Contrary to what law? International law? Local law? Religious law?
Martial law? Again, this old saw about the U.S. breaking laws is a
play on words. War is legal. If you can't rid your own country of
despots, and your countryman's cries reach the U.S. media.look out!
Our do-gooders will get everybody upset and before you know it, the
U.S. intel or war machine may start on the way down to clean up these
perceived injustices. And odds a they're going to screw it up big
time. And guys like you are going to bitch and moan about how unfair
we are. Well I'm tired of your sad sad song. You want to convince
people here of U.S. oppression, post pictures of people being tossed
out of C-130's by U.S troops and then I'll believe it. Until you do,
I say it's bull****, and that you are one impressionable young man for
only believing one side of the argument. I try to keep an open mind.
I believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I believe U.S.
corporate CEO's are morally bankrupt, and cause most of these hard
feelings by abusing int'l labor and trashing the third world for
profit. These assholes are the guys that prop up dictators with cushy
oil/drug/lumber kickbacks and then economically enslave the local
workers. After a number of years of this the workers get fed up.
They join guerrilla movements and start shooting up villages. Police
are called out. The national Military gets involved. The CEO's
convince the president/dictator/despot to call Washington and ask for
assistance.

Citizens like me are going to try to vote out Bush and other
incombants this November to pay for this misbehavior. But can the
U.S. gov just decree that the whole world must obey human rights? No!
All we can do is take out a few of the biggest offenders. And during
that process there's going to be some heartbreak. People are going to
get killed. Human rights are going to be violated. Half of the
strongmen we support are going to stab us in the back later. That is
the nature of intervention.

Pacplayer, thanks for a reasonable answer. Comments inserted.

... When you walk into a pig sty and have to deal with a
pig, you're going to get dirty. Your other choice is Isolationism.
Stay home and tell yourself that the murders are not happening and
that you won't find any mass graves if you go down there.

Ok, but in this case the mass graves came after US intervention, not
before.

I don't think you'll reach many politicians on this website. Where do
you live Alex? in Latin America? Are you a German immigrant?

Guilty on both accounts.

Rob is right. So is Doug. The U.S. objective is always to stabilize
the region so commerce can flourish and standards of living can come
up. The disagreement arises for me when we ask: whose standards of
living come up? Corporate CEO's or the people?

This sounds nice, but I am too cynical to believe it. I think a
country's objective is mostly what benefits the people in power, be it
politicians, military or CEOs.

I am trying to tell him and Doug that they are deluded if they
believe the US acts acording to law, human rights, etc, in their
foreign policy.

Contrary to what law? International law? Local law? Religious law?
Martial law? Again, this old saw about the U.S. breaking laws is a
play on words. War is legal. If you can't rid your own country of
despots, and your countryman's cries reach the U.S. media?look out!

There were no countryman's cries reaching the US in South America.

Our do-gooders will get everybody upset and before you know it, the
U.S. intel or war machine may start on the way down to clean up these
perceived injustices. And odds a they're going to screw it up big
time. And guys like you are going to bitch and moan about how unfair
we are. Well I'm tired of your sad sad song. You want to convince
people here of U.S. oppression, post pictures of people being tossed
out of C-130's by U.S troops and then I'll believe it. Until you do,
I say it's bull****, and that you are one impressionable young man for
only believing one side of the argument.

There are no such pictures because it wasn't US soldiers but local
ones. I never said the US did that. I said the US knew about it and
supported it. Again, I have no proof other than Kissinger's own
declasified words, which you should be able to find documented. That
should be as good as pictures, in my opinion.

I try to keep an open mind.
I believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I believe U.S.
corporate CEO's are morally bankrupt, and cause most of these hard
feelings by abusing int'l labor and trashing the third world for
profit. These assholes are the guys that prop up dictators with cushy
oil/drug/lumber kickbacks and then economically enslave the local
workers. After a number of years of this the workers get fed up.
They join guerrilla movements and start shooting up villages. Police
are called out. The national Military gets involved. The CEO's
convince the president/dictator/despot to call Washington and ask for
assistance.

Which, when they come, create more hatred and people start blaming the
US. Yes, it's an irrational spiral of violence, and there is not one
guilty side. As I said, we have our share of responsibility for it was
our own military who held the turture instruments. It was Saddam who
decided to gas his own people. It was Bin Laden who decided (maybe not
directly) to hit the towers. And it was the US foreign policy that
helped it happen, directly and knowingly as in South America or
indirectly and unknowingly (but should have known) in other cases.

I'm not saying "the US is bad, bad, bad"... I'm only trying to shed
some light into the heads of people in this newsgroup who candidly
believe in the Hollywod message that the US is marvelous and who can't
imagine why so many people throughout the world don't agree. I am
trying to balance the somewhat monotone and unrealistic chant of "the
US is right, everybody else is wrong".

Citizens like me are going to try to vote out Bush and other
incombants this November to pay for this misbehavior.

Thank you for that!

But can the
U.S. gov just decree that the whole world must obey human rights? No!
All we can do is take out a few of the biggest offenders. And during
that process there's going to be some heartbreak. People are going to
get killed. Human rights are going to be violated. Half of the
strongmen we support are going to stab us in the back later. That is
the nature of intervention.

Yes, but again, that is not what happened here, and I can't avoid the
suspicion that it neither is the case in other US interventions.

It's legal to kill your wife in Argentina if she embarrasses you. Do
we like that law? (divorced guys don't answer this one.) No, of
course not. But we can not impose all our domestic American standards
on the rest of the world just because we want to. Is it legal for the
president of Columbia to declare war on his own citizens and ask for
military help from the U.S. to stop drug farms? Yes it is. Do I like
it? No. Do I want to pay for it? No. Can I do anything about it?
I'm voting against all incumbents this November.

Hey, these are almost exactly my words a few weeks earlier in this
thread!

If I understand you Alex, you're basically blaming the U.S. government
for picking sides, right? Well, they're often forced to pick between
two evils. Support Sadamn Hussein or a radical Iattola or Sheik?
They all murder, bomb, rape and wage war. We hope that the thug we
support will eventually mend his ways and give in to our pressure to
treat his subjects better. But guess what Alex? We can't dictate
this. Not unless we show up with warships. Which, we actually hate
to do. And then everybody loses.

Agreed.

"S Green" wrote
"All we can do is take out a few of the biggest offenders."

You mean we take out those where we can steal their oil or other assets and
leave the worst offenders who would crush us if we tried it in their
country.

One rule for Iraq, another for China. Iraq with no WMD, China full of them
and both with human rights abuses.

The fact is China would whip the ass of the US if it tried to do anything.
You guys are so one eyed

Well, I don't blame the US for not going into China. But I still
haven't seen a credible justification for invading Iraq. Hussein was
not a threat to the US (inspectors were not finding WMD and the Scuds
couldn't reach the US), when he gased his people the US did not send
troops, even oil doesn't seem to be the cause (apparently the cost of
war is greater than oil revenues even if the production was up to
100%, which it is not)... The rush to invade in spite of UN wanting to
wait makes me wonder. What would have happened to the reconstrucion
contracts if the UN invaded Irak instead of the US? I'm asking out of
ignorance, I'm not trying to prove this was the real cause. It's just
a question, ok?