Is America turning Against the US?

turnmeon says on Sep 25, 2008, 21:55:

Bump

0 funny, 0 helpful.

turnmeon says on Sep 25, 2008, 22:05:

thats true morphus, intelligent comment i think, strenghting the commercial relationship with LA will bring more estability to the continent

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Iowano says on Sep 25, 2008, 22:07:

The U.S. is an empire, and often a bully. Even a precursory analysis of history shows that. So some countries are getting fed up.

Most U.S. Americans are greedy, and our standard of living is so high precisely because of third world exploitation. U.S. Americans are also warmongers. The recent opposition to the war is due, for the most part, to the fact that we're losing and that it hasn't been a good investment. Most U.S. Americans don't give a damn about the hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Tejeringo says on Sep 25, 2008, 22:08:

did the NAFTA ever work ?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

turnmeon says on Sep 25, 2008, 22:11:

i have to agree with you on your comment Iowano, the US has been a bully even back then on teh grandpas time, maybe a change on foreing policy is due but Bush is not helping to better anything, unfortunately the US is paying a high price now just look at the way the economy is going.

dont get me wrong, the US have also some of the nicest people i have ever met

0 funny, 0 helpful.

turnmeon says on Sep 25, 2008, 22:13:

i havent seen any colombian made clothe in the US even that colombian quality is good, but it seems that those big chain stores are not so interested in quality but quantity

0 funny, 0 helpful.

turnmeon says on Sep 25, 2008, 22:39:

lol parceriximo you got a point

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Catfish35 says on Sep 25, 2008, 23:55:

In my opinion more money should be spent fixing our relations with New Jersey..since we have labeled them the "arm pit of America" they cut all ties with the USA and frankly its been damning us ever since..and I am not talking about a place that is overseas or a real big country either..it wouldn't take that much!
I am with you on that TURNMEON..exactly.

Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

0 funny, 0 helpful.

manINred says on Sep 26, 2008, 00:01:

"what is causing those tense relations? "

The realization that for decades the US has imposed its will on Latin America making these states subservient to US hegemonistic self-interest.

I say bravo!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rowdy Yates says on Sep 26, 2008, 05:37:

It is interesting that you all seem to claim the US is some emperialist bully yet you hold them and them alone responsible for everything that happens. It must be difficult for them to solve all the worlds problems without appearing to some to be an imperialistic bully.

Countries in SA that have turned against the US have no responsiblitity for that action what so ever. You put all the responsibility for it in the hands of the US and all the responsiblity for making it better in the hands of the US and then you wonder why the US appears to be the bully.

Furthermore the countries in SA that as you put it "have turned against the US" is it possible they have done so to take the eye off their own governments shortcommings? When does Chavez take responsibility for wrecking the economy of Venezuala or will it simply be the fault of the US? I beleive that whatever actions these countries will take in your minds does not bring any responsibility to them. They just can blame the US and you join in the party.

Meanwhile the countries in SA that have good relations with the US are doing the best in SA. You somehow skipped over that fact. Have you been to Chile lately? They have a free trade agreement with the US and have had for some time and that country is benefiting from it. Colombia has one of the best economies in SA.

So here you are posting on a Colombian site who has a good relationship with the US. Why don' t you go over and post your antiamerican propoganda on a Venezuala site? Furthermore why don't you go live in one of those countries on your list? Venezuala, Argentina, Ecuador, Bolivia? You can set around and blame the US for all your troubles and you will have plenty of time to do so since I doubt you will be working.

My guess is most of you are benefiting from the US being in power in one form or another just like the rest of the world has. But if you don't like that then you should make a statement with your life and go live somewhere where they don't like that or have not beenfited. It will not be China as they have benefiting emensly from the US. Try Cuba or Venezuala, oh wait no Venezuala gets the lions share of its income from selling to the US. Try again, Cuba is nice.

What urks me is I am here in Colombia wanting to benefit from a relationship with the US and people like the ones above are most likely setting in Miami or somewhere in their US based jobs. They are trying to convince me that I should go against the US and follow some idealistic hate journey of the US like some SA countries have done. Follow who? Chavez? Sorry I would like for my family to keep their jobs and have a future just like your families do.

0 funny, 1 helpful.

manINred says on Sep 26, 2008, 06:05:

"post your antiamerican propoganda on a Venezuala site? "

Very defensive response Mr. Yates, wouldn't you say? Any criticism of the US is antiamerican propaganda? Gimme a break! That sorta detracts from your point. Yes the US offers great opportunities to its citizens, no one is disputing that fact. Also, no one held them alone responsible for all the problems in Latin America. Those are your perceptions of what people here are writing, not what is actually written.

It is a fact that the US has unfortunately undermined many democracies in latin america over the past decade. And by the way, Chavez is legitimate regardless of whether the US thinks so or not.

So use your rhetoric elsewhere to address the real issues.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rowdy Yates says on Sep 26, 2008, 06:10:

There are two sides to this issue. It looked to me that your side had made its point known. I wanted it to be clear what side I was on. In typical form when anyone stands up against your antiamerican laced opinions you label them as being defensive or you launch an attack directed at them and not the issue. I find that interesting since if I am being defensive then you must be being offensive. Isn't that how the game is played? The point is your positions are so easily exposed for what they are it is hardly worth my effort.

If you can not handle a difference of opinion then perhaps you should not post that crapola on a public website? Maybe you would be better off under the political protection of a government that will protect your opinion and deal harshly with anyone that dissagrees with it. I think you would be happier like this. You should head on down to Cuba or Venezuala with your opinions, they offer that sort of protection for them.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

manINred says on Sep 26, 2008, 06:19:

This is not a game. Now quit with your straw-men, tu quoqe and ad-hom arguments and engage in a real debate.

You call my criticisms (which are no more than criticisms) anti-american propaganda. What I said is fact, something which you still have not disputed. I could care less whether you disagree or not, but at least address the issue.

Furthermore this is much more complex issue than a two-sided issue. It is not "for the US" or "Against the US". Unless you address the issues at hand (US foreign policiy founded in self-interst that is not necessarily parallel to the interests of latin americans, as well as whether LA states "turning their back" on the US is justified), it is impossible to have a discussion with you. I never said that the self-interested stance of US in LA is bad necesarily, indeed it is logical from a realist perspective.

Capiche?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rowdy Yates says on Sep 26, 2008, 06:27:

I got your number Maninred. Don't worry I am not sweating you at all.

I addressed the issues as much as anyone did above. The posts above were not addressing issues but expressing a certian idiology, I responded in kind. But as usual you can not handle a difference in opinion, idiology, way of thinking. Savy what that is? Fascism. Like we don't know what that is in South America. My guess is your young enough to think it is something new.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Titofijo says on Sep 26, 2008, 06:38:

What else would you expect from the lil brother from Canuckastan to say about the U S A ??

You know who would have to protect ol Canuchastan if they were ever attacked?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rowdy Yates says on Sep 26, 2008, 07:05:

Here is the point they just can not get. They back the US into a corner and say OK what are you going to do about all our problems? The US steps into the trap and actually does something and then it does not go exactly the way they want and they blame it all on the US emperialism. Or it does go well for someone and not someone else so they take up the side of the someone else and the whole plan helped no one and only led to spread US emperialism. Then they wonder how they get the label as antiamerican?

The only way the US can win in this is if they do like Europe does, who have already learned this lesson and that is set back and debate the issue. Act concerned and make some nice speaches to that effect, offer to help but never give it. This way you give the appearance of caring but not stepping into the trap. Of course in the case of Rwanda and some other examples millions of people die due to the innaction. Action leads to the measure of perfection. No one ever asks what if there was no action? What would have happened had the US done nothing? This never gets addressed.

In the case of Colombia I will tell you what would have happened if Plan Colombia never happened. If the US had never acted to help Uribe, Colombia. We would still be dealing with kidnappings and bombings and too afraid to travel our roads, visit our farms, contribute to any form of economic growth for fear of being extorted or kidnapped. Thank God those days are gone for the most part. Thank God, Uribe and the US!

So they ask is SA turning against America? If they are complete fools they will. The US is the Papa and that is the way it is so it is best to go with it if your smart. The benefits far out weight the alternatives at the moment anyway.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

FreakyG says on Sep 26, 2008, 08:35:

lowano:
"Most U.S. Americans are greedy, and our standard of living is so high precisely because of third world exploitation."

" Most U.S. Americans don't give a damn about the hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians killed in Iraq and Afghanistan."

I have to respond to this as both statements are just factless at its very base. lowano, where are the numbers / stats to back this up? It is a very dangerous thing to put a bunch of people in a box and start labelling they are this or that. That my friend divides people, not brings them together. I do see a lot of greed in the US as I see a lot of people do things for others who arent as fortunate. "Most Americans this or Most Americans that" really is nothing short of just being anti-US at its very core; just like "Most Colombians this or that" should be considered anti-Colombian. I have spent 40 years in the US and I cannot say if most people in my country felt one way or another about an issue. I can say that I have a rather large circle of friends and business associates and not ONE of them doesnt care about civilian deaths caused by our military. I have had to explain to some people here that in our initial air strikes in Iraq caused 30,000 to 35,000 civilian deaths -that IS something to get pissed about. I find it insulting lowano would imply that people in my country would not even care about those poor people who died who had nothing to do with this. Hell, when the twin towers fell, other countries had people in the street dancing and shooting AKs in the air in celebration of the death of innocent civilians. You comment just flat out sucked.

Thank You Eversomuch, and then some

0 funny, 0 helpful.

PBHjon says on Sep 26, 2008, 10:45:

I think a computer program randomly creating sentences could have created a more cogent argument.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

quaid1 says on Sep 26, 2008, 11:17:

Hegemonistic??? I am so impressed with your completely self absorbed command of REALLY BIG WORDS!!!

Rowdy/Freaky good replies or maybe I should say Retorts to impress.

Thanks for not letting it pass
Signed
The Warmongering Greedy Bully American

My 2 pesos

It’s like Polo shirts in the 80’s its cool to be anti US right now. Every one is sporting their little logo at the club with their collar turned up.

Its cool until the lunatics you put in power tell you they have a “Final Solution” to solve the problems you have and ask you all to please board this train so we can show you. Don’t worry though. We will be there as usual.

0 funny, 1 helpful.

corporalgator says on Sep 26, 2008, 12:15:

Latin America is turning against the US for precisely the same reason why we're now fighting Muslims. We have abused the Muslim world for centuries (it was the British Empire first, but we took over the banner lately) and now we're paying the price. A lot of Americans call me a flaming liberal, anti-war, US hater when I point out that we are large part of the reason for why we were attacked, but, while this also may seem lame, I always have my service in the Marines to fall back upon to make them shut-up since I don't feel like arguing with people who will just stick their fingers in their ears and go la-la-la when I try to point that the US simply cannot abuse people and never expect resistance.

Latin America is a different situation for two reasons. One, religious extremism is not present. They don't have this irrational ferver to attack the heathens based upon their fundamentalism. The second is the Monroe Doctrine that really still is in place today. The US may not have absolute control over the hemisphere, but it has been successful in keeping anyone else from taking control. The US doesn't have forward bases and hasn't attacked any of the countries for oil although the CIA has done quite a bit of meddling.

Against the Muslim world, it has been a systematic exploitation, but they have the means to retaliate. Iran is inching towards nuclear weapons, and Pakistan, who is actually the greatest threat to the world's security and not just our own, already has them and has shown they aren't really afraid to use them. In Latin America it has been more of a systematic repression. Nothing is allowed to come in or out and so, while the nations may have been exploited also, none of them really have the capability to do anything about it. They have not been able to better themselves through trade and alliances with their neighbors like the Muslim countries, because the US is their only option and they only give just enough to keep them happy while not giving enough to make them powerful enough to oppose the US.

It is ironic, because if they US had practiced better foreign policy on this hemisphere helping to bring up the economies of everyone and creating strong allies, than the problem with terrorism would be non-existent.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Swinn88 says on Sep 26, 2008, 13:10:

I think Rowdy is on point. Very well said Rowdy Yates.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

corporalgator says on Sep 26, 2008, 16:03:

tomtom, I think you are confusing insurgency with terrorism. 9/11 was a terrorist act, meant to instill fear and destruction, hence terror, but those who perpetrated it were not losing any war to us at the time.

We're winning the war in Iraq, mostly due to the Sunni awakening. We just finally hit the point where the insurgents were causing more grief than we were and they turned against them. Couple that with the extra troops from the surge, and that one has begun to turn for the better.

Unfortunately, the Afghanistan war has gone the other direction, but there's no rival ethnic group to awaken and we do not have the number of troops needed to secure that region with or without the Iraq war. The USSR learned that a long time ago. We have to secure Pakistan's help and then get the population to trust us and drive out the insurgents themselves. That is difficult when those we are hiding are striking from their strongholds inside Pakistan where we cannot enter safely yet.

I guess you could say they were losing a culture war to us and a war for resources even without being in a true military struggle with us, so they did what any group does as a last resort and strike back with terrorism. I don't support it, I don't like it, but all I am saying is that I understand it. They didn't just wake up one day and decide to hate us. The US and Britian's actions in the Middle East region stirred up a lot of hatred, which when mixed with religious extremism, turned into terrorism.

The Seven Pillars of Wisdom by T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia) gives a lot of insight into this.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

corporalgator says on Sep 26, 2008, 16:27:

Sorry, I was just responding to your statement that US foreign policy has nothing to do with terrorism. We stirred it up and now we're fighting against it. It's driving our entire foreign policy at the moment.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

ujay says on Sep 26, 2008, 17:47:

i just read ,the fattest people in the world are in the usa,

so you could say the the biggest arseholes come from the good old usa.

http://www.jukelightning.com

0 funny, 0 helpful.

corporalgator says on Sep 26, 2008, 21:15:

Of course they would be killing each other, but if the US never existed, they obviously wouldn't be attacking the US. I think it is productive to figure out why someone is attacking you so it can be prevented in the future. Pretending like we have no hand in it and we're innocent victims of their attack is both a naive stance and an unproductive one. The Sunni and Shia will always attack each other, but we don't have to put ourselves in the middle of it and cause them to attack us too.

That is simplifying things, of course, but I can see us stirring up the same kind of sentiments in Latin America except that in LA, the religious extremism doesn't exist. It has not caused us to be attacked, but it has caused countries to look elsewhere for allies like Cuba and Venezuela have with the USSR/Russia. We could help bring the entire hemisphere up creating strong trade allies, or we can continue to drive them away further eroding our standing in the world.

By the way, you're a Wisconsin Badger fan, right? What are you expectations for the football team this season? Is the Big-10 championship with a Rose Bowl berth a reasonable goal and will fans be very disappointed if they don't get that?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Catfish35 says on Sep 26, 2008, 23:36:

Parc..are you on drugs man? This post sounds like you all have been in class too long with Timothy Leary..remind me never to catch a buzz with any of you nitwits..talk about jammin up a buzz..but damn...this shit sounds like an explosion at the Funk & Wagnalls Factory and the shits coming out your mouths..

Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

0 funny, 0 helpful.

turnmeon says on Sep 26, 2008, 23:39:

the US has lost lots of its allies in America, the point of this thread is as to why? and what should the US do to recover the status on the continent.

as you can see im in the middle, not backing up any side of the topic, i believe all of you expressed wisely showing your thougths about this matter, this is like a coin with two faces and it is necesary to understand both sides of the problem to find a solution

i always expresed my love for the US and its citizens calling them one of the nicest people i have ever met and one of the most beautyful countries in the world

i believe all of you got a point since there is no absolute truth

i never said that i am against the US or the rest of the countries in America, in fact the US have helped a lot to the other countres in the continent, but also have bullied some others a bit.

and for all of you who forget this is a website about Colombia, in Colombia the US is known as the United States not America and the continent is known as America and everybody who lives in this continent in known as american(including US citizens, Canadians, Brazilians, etc) also the word America is used to refer to the continent in all of the spanish speaking countries and the US to refer to the country.

please stick to the thread which is the actual relationship of the US with some countries in LA.

thanks to all of you wh have comented on my post and i want hear more from you

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Catfish35 says on Sep 26, 2008, 23:48:

This thread is ridiculous! Has somebody told this Ritz Cracker that LA is in America..its only the biggest City in California...

Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Catfish35 says on Sep 26, 2008, 23:49:

Couldn't help myself//sorry

Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

0 funny, 0 helpful.

turnmeon says on Sep 26, 2008, 23:51:

catfish LA stand for Latin America too

0 funny, 0 helpful.

turnmeon says on Sep 26, 2008, 23:52:

off course if you are trying to be funny you got to the right place

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Man Tequila says on Sep 27, 2008, 01:03:

I might have phrased the question in the OP differently.

Aunque no me creas/ si me lo propongo/ lograre olvidarte/ porque a fin de cuentas/ no soy tan cobarde./ Y termino todo una de estas tardes/ no sera dificil buscar algún sitio donde refugiarme/ donde nunca mas vuelvas a encontrarme. (Polo Montañez)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

ujay says on Sep 27, 2008, 06:50:

mongo,
Try traveling somewhere to get the truth, not watching T.V. Everywhere I've traveled (and I've traveled alot): South America, the Middle East, and Europe everyone loved America. I've never met another person in another country who didn't have great things to say about the USA.

get real,
you been to the uk,you been to nam,you been to iran ,iraq,russia,Venezuela,thailand,and the list goes on ,usa sucks,and i never watch tv,but i travel ,

http://www.jukelightning.com

0 funny, 0 helpful.

papiChulo says on Sep 27, 2008, 07:46:

Titofijo says on Sep 26, 2008, 06:38: flag

What else would you expect from the lil brother from Canuckastan to say about the U S A ??

You know who would have to protect ol Canuchastan if they were ever attacked?


...the typical responce of the ingrorant.

I'm givin'er... givin'er HARDCORE

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Titofijo says on Sep 27, 2008, 10:45:

Who would protect the great Canada, their "peacekeepers" ?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

papiChulo says on Sep 27, 2008, 10:57:

NATO?

I'm givin'er... givin'er HARDCORE

0 funny, 0 helpful.

La_Huella says on Sep 27, 2008, 11:58:

Mongo you have to be kidding.

My friend nearly got the shit kicked out of him by some local goons in Leeds. Fortunately he had his Canuck passport on him, it surely saved him a trip to the hospital.

Even in relatively pro-US places like Colombia and the Dominican Republic, there is a lot of anti-US sentiment. Back in the day perhaps, everybody wanted to go to the US, now people either want to stay here and try their luck here, or go somewhere else, I frequently hear Canada, Australia, the UK, Israel, the Emirates, just about anywhere but the US.

As for what the US should do, I sumbit, instead of acting when we KNOW we won't be doing things right, as tomtom pointed out, why not just simply do nothing and let the rest of the world build itself up or tear itself down on its own merits?

And sorry to say, US foreign policy is DIRECTLY responsible for the current terrorist threat. We never should have done that stupidity of making Israel become a nation. That was the first mistake. We never should have gotten in bed with the Saudis, nor should we have started bribing Egypt to stop attacking Israel. Live and let die, that's what I say. That includes Colombia. I think you guys are vastly overrating the effectiveness of Plan Colombia. I think Colombia has solved its problems and is moving up in the world but because of Plan Colombia, but in SPITE of it.

I certainly wouldn't have any problem with the US acting in an enlightened fashion in its own self-interests, even to the detriment of other nations. It is a competitive world after all. But that's not what we are doing or have been doing at all for the past 50 years or so, unfortunately.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

ujay says on Sep 27, 2008, 12:19:

mongo ,
BETTER than the USA,in what way.
are the usa better at droping shit on people from 5000 ft ....yes ,but on the ground the usa has never won a war,your 4th of july is down to france.
are the usa the only country to have used a wmd...not once but twice.and now you want to build 45 more plants ,while saying iran cant build one.
are they best at raping other countrys for thier own needs ...yes
are they best at using 25% of the world oil for its own use ,when they only got 3% them selfs ,....yes
Are they guilty of genocide ...yes ...just ask a native Indian
Are they guilty of the millions of Palestine people being killed staved treated like dogs for more than 50 years while backing the jews.....yes
Are they guilty of selling the Jews wmd ,.....yes
Are they guilty of going into Iraq on one broken resolution,yet veto when the Jews are in violation of more than 28.....yes
Are you guilty of keeping Cuba down ....yes
Castro has seen off how many in the white den of equity, run by halliburton and co.
Are the CIA not the biggest importers of drugs into the USA ....yes
Is the USA not the best at black opps and setting up dictators around the world .....yes
Did the USA not keep the blacks in slavery for as long as it possibly could....yes
Did the USA not come into ww1 more than 2 years after it started ,and ww2 3 years after....yes
Did the USA not bring all the Nazi war mongers to the USA ,and let them build the atomic bomb,which you then dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ....yes
Were the USA down to just 3 ships ,only because the japs messed up , only 3 ships that saved the USA after that the Enterprise, Yorktown, and the Hornet
And we could go on and on at what the USA is best at....
Cover ups ,9.11 and the likes,
Bush and his mates the bin larden family and his administration policies have reduced America's options
For influencing world events. Militarily, diplomatically and
Economically, you now have fewer tools in the box, and most of those
Tools are rusted or worn. Now your choices vanish, you rely more on
The options still left. That includes more reliance on the worst
Option of all: your nuclear deterrent. Ultimately, such increasing
Reliance makes America less safe. What's worse, it actually encourages circumstances
More favorable for touching off a full-scale nuclear war.

So yes I agree with you the USA is best.

http://www.jukelightning.com

0 funny, 0 helpful.

ujay says on Sep 27, 2008, 14:18:

And you talk about the USA ,as if you own it ,
The USA has no money,
You owe 500 billion to the people you are running down,
The Japanese and China,the Jews and the Arabs now own the USA.
Now you want to borrow 700 billion more of money you have not got.

While you let the gun oil and health lobbyist rake in billions in profit ,
50 million people not even got money to go into hospital.

One thing you can look up ,I said it before ,a paper plate ...yes a paper plate ...
Cost you get 24 of them in any dollar shop,
Halliburtons bill for one paper plate in Iraq 8 dollars,but hold on ,the trooper then takes another plate to put on top to keep out the sand ,16 dollars a meal x 3 now 48 dollars x that by how many now 140.000 per day .on just a bloody paper plate.
You will drop a 60.000 dollar bomb or more on a mud hut.
You drop them cluster fucking bombs which leave mines for years after killing kids
You want lecture the world on human rights, while staving raping killing torturing people for your own greed.
You want and have put missiles all round Russians borders,and cry blue murder now you think Russia may well put some in Venezuela.
The USA best ,ask the people in NO that were in the football bowl for a week in shit ,how good you are.
Ask the firemen you killed and the ones need medical help now and cant get it ,how good you are.
Now the land of the so called free,the home of the so called brave ,are now treating the Mexicans like shit .

Your white house ,soon to be painted pink and yellow and renamed the jessie Jackson free at last do drop in house,with new basket ball courts on the lawn,and the oval office renamed the Oprah Winfrey office.
Treat you lot like mushrooms ,keep you in the dark and feed you shit.

The 1st time in the history of steel building fall after just an hour ,but not only that disappear up its own arse.
The USA that good ,guys that cant even fly a 2 seater,fly a passenger jet ,do loop the bloody loop fly it faster than the plane can go,and hit the target,when airforce pilots say they could not have done it flying for 20 years.
The USA that good could not even get a plane to intercept 2 hours later.
After the 1st plane hit ,the worlds media were there ,all new York ,phone cams ,video cams ,digital cams ,TV cams,all pointing at the tower ,but not one photo of any passenger plane ,not one decent photo,just don't happen.
Then even better ,only in the USA ,not one plane ,not 2 not even 3 but 4 planes just vanish.
4 plane crashes for fuck sake ,but no planes ,its never happened.
Fire too hot it melted the engines,it completely removed 4 compleat passenger planes ,but bloody hell the DNA of the people were there,just what would go 1st a body or the engines.
The biggest crime in USA history,3 crime scenes,yet nothing roped off,
Every thing shipped off to China out the way.
The USA spent more investigating clintons blow job then it did investigating the 9.11,well fuck me.
Every plane in the USA grounded ......but 2 ....who were on these 2 ,the bin larden familys .

And it goes on and on,
What business man would buy the wtc,
It was not making money,
It had a NYC bill on it for asbestos removing at the lowest 2 billion.which had to be done in 2 years or shut down,and you buy it.
And insure for plane attack which it had never had ,
Then on top the bastard wanted more for 2 attacks,7 billion a new wtc and half the gold that went missing from below ,not bad is it for 100.000 dollars .
Then add the other tower that fall ,with all the oil bills in it another 80 billion made there,
Then the money made on wall St,now add the money on the arms dealers are now making ,then add halillburton and brown and root into the mix.
Then ask why Clinton was never bought up on murder for the 2 boys that came up on clintons drug running in his home town.
Then ask where the bush family were when Kennedy jr plane went down.for 3 days not a record ,the CIA the FBI the dea the white house the congress ,the senet ,the body guards,the police,and not one can come up with a record of where they were for 3 days.bollocks.
Bush the dad ,has had 3 company's ,all went bust ,but he was good enough to be in the white house ,and who bought out his 3 bust company's ,well blow me down ,the bin larden family.
So another thing the USA is best out making you all mushrooms and fairy tales.
Shell we go on ,
If you want we can by e mail.

http://www.jukelightning.com

0 funny, 0 helpful.

ujay says on Sep 27, 2008, 14:42:

hotels real estate land not as a country.
here just 3 of them.
Yamauchi retired from Nintendo in June 2005 after 55 years at the company. Yamauchi isn't that far behind the two front runners: Akira Mori, a real estate mogul; and Masayoshi Son, chair of Japan's number three wireless service provider. Both have a net worth of near $5.5 billion each.

http://www.jukelightning.com

0 funny, 0 helpful.

ujay says on Sep 27, 2008, 14:59:

you dont need guns and bombs to bring down a country,they are doing it with oil and money,the usa has oil rev across 3 states,but you see how much you lot pay out for them not to use it,you got 15 years at most ,out of oil your fucked.
your friend in leeds ...by goons ...and they stopped to look at his pass port ....get real ,they would have kicked the shit out of him there for nothing and took his passport....

about history. And yes, I do. I've got a degree in it, as a matter of fact.,?????
where from hoillywood films cnn mbc fox all bollocks most jew owned.

You still haven't told me the name of a country BETTER than the US
i asked you 3 times ,better in what way,jobs ,cost of living ,safety,weather,health,what way ,and i will answer you.
and no one is saying we all hate the people of the usa ,we are talking about the whitehouse,not the normal joe soap.

http://www.jukelightning.com

0 funny, 0 helpful.

ujay says on Sep 27, 2008, 15:47:

Conspiracy BS!!
No I don't go in for that,I just look at the facts,
Coincidences can happen ,or seem to happen depend how you look at it,
But.....
But not one tower fell but 3, and one not even hit,,
All fell same way ,all went to dust,
You don't need to be a rocket scientist ,
Ok the towers fell,but the rubbish would still be 15 floors high,they would not... no matter how hot it was ,or not, just turn to dust.
Plus no steel building has ever done it ,let along 3 in one day.
Coincidences
Not one plane but 4 ,on the same day ,all vanish ,never happen,
No bodies ,no luggage ,no planes at all ,all 4 ,Coincidences get real.
No matter how when or why ,planes hitting the building ,the wings would not enter,they would snap off ,but here 8 wings vanish.
And don't forget these were not pilots flying these,
And then I ask my self ,
I want to hit the pentagon,I make it there ,I can see it ,so I would head right for it ,
Not pass it ,do a loop de loop ,come down that low to the ground,and touch nothing,then just happen to hit the only part of the building that was under repair any way.I would have made sure and gone over the roof and hit the middle of the place.
And even here ,its supposed to be a passenger jet ,with passengers ,not a case ,not a body ,not a tail or wing.it could never happen.nothing at all on the out side.wings full of fuel 60 ft wide ,cant brake glass 15ft away.no matter how you try it parts of these planes would be out side ,but here on this day all 4 vanish. Coincidences is one thing ,bollocks is another.

http://www.jukelightning.com

0 funny, 0 helpful.

turnmeon says on Sep 27, 2008, 16:28:

rubberducky

didnt you read my last comment?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

turnmeon says on Sep 27, 2008, 16:38:

a little history here

"La primera vez en que fue utilizado el nombre "América" en Europa para designar las tierras a las que llegó Cristobal Colon en 1492, fue alrededor de 1507 en el libro Cosmographiae Introductio, escrito por el cartógrafo alemán Martín Waldseemüller, y que describía en sus trabajos las posesiones españolas de las islas del caribe, América Central y América del Sur, que dibujo en el primer mapa mundi existente, y que nombró en su conjunto como America en honor a Américo Vespucio,[1] [2] navegante de origen florentino al servicio de España, que fue el primer europeo en proponer que esas tierras eran en realidad un continente aparte y no las Indias como se pensaba durante de su descubrimiento."

0 funny, 0 helpful.

turnmeon says on Sep 27, 2008, 16:42:

"The earliest known use of the name America for this particular landmass dates from April 25, 1507. It appears first on a small globe map with twelve time zones, and then a large wall map created by the German cartographer Martin Waldseemüller in Saint-Dié-des-Vosges in France. Nearby Strassbourg was energized by the Renaissance Spirit of science and innovation. Here, the Duke of Lorraine, purchased the latest invention of a printing press and recruited a think tank of experts to render a new image of earth as a planet, using the reported findings of European explorers. An accompanying book, Cosmographiae Introductio, explains that the name was derived from the Latinized version of the explorer Amerigo Vespucci's name, Americus Vespucius, in its feminine form, America, as the other continents all have Latin feminine names.[13]

Vespucci's role in the naming issue, like his exploratory activity, is unclear. Some sources say that he was unaware of the widespread use of his name to refer to the new landmass. Waldseemüller may have been misled by the Soderini Letter, now thought to be a forgery, which reports that the New World is populated by giants, cannibals, and sexually insatiable females and implies it was discovered first by Vespucci.[14] Christopher Columbus, who had first brought the region's existence to the attention of Renaissance era voyagers, had died in 1506 (believing, to the end, that he had discovered and colonized part of India[citation needed]) and could not protest Waldseemüller's decision.


Map of America by Jonghe, c. 1770.A few alternative theories regarding the landmass's naming have been proposed, but none of them has achieved any widespread acceptance.

One alternative, first advanced by Jules Marcou in 1875 and later recounted by novelist Jan Carew, is that the name America derives from the district of Amerrique in Nicaragua.[15] The gold-rich district of Amerrique was purportedly visited by both Vespucci and Columbus, for whom the name became synonymous with gold. According to Marcou, Vespucci later applied the name to the New World, and even changed the spelling of his own name from Alberigo to Amerigo to reflect the importance of the discovery.

Another theory, first proposed by a Bristol antiquary and naturalist, Alfred Hudd, in 1908 was that America is derived from Richard Amerike (Richard ap Meryke), a Welsh merchant from Bristol, who is believed to have financed John Cabot's voyage of discovery from England to Newfoundland in 1497 as found in some documents from Westminster Abbey a few decades ago. Supposedly, Bristol fishermen had been visiting the coast of North America for at least a century before Columbus' voyage and Waldseemüller's maps are alleged to incorporate information from the early English journeys to North America. The theory holds that a variant of Amerike's name appeared on an early English map (of which no copies survive) and that this was the true inspiration for Waldseemüller."

0 funny, 0 helpful.

turnmeon says on Sep 27, 2008, 16:43:

"In Spanish, América is the name of a region considered a single continent composed of the subcontinents of Sudamérica and Norteamérica, the land bridge of Centroamérica, and the islands of the Antillas. Americano/a in Spanish refers to a person from América in a similar way that europeo or europea refers to a person from Europe. The terms sudamericano/a, centroamericano/a, antillano/a and norteamericano/a can be used to more specifically refer to the location where a person may live.

Citizens of the United States of America are normally referred to by the term estadounidense instead of americano or americana. Also, the term norteamericano may refer to a citizen of the United States. This term is primarily used to refer to citizens of the United States, rarely those of other North American countries.[50]"

0 funny, 0 helpful.

turnmeon says on Sep 27, 2008, 16:44:

"In Portuguese, the word americano refers to the whole of the Americas. But, in Brazil and Portugal, it is widely used to refer to the citizens of the United States. Sometimes norte-americano is also used, but americano is the most common term employed by people and media at large, while norte-americano (North American) is more common in books. The least ambiguous term, estadunidense (used more frequently in Brazil) or estado-unidense (used more frequently in Portugal), something like "United Statian" or "estadounidense" in Spanish language), and "ianque"—the Portuguese version of "Yankee"—are also used, though almost exclusively in academic language.

América, however, is not that frequently used as synonym to the country, and almost exclusively in current speech, while in print and in more formal environments the US is usually called either Estados Unidos da América (i.e. United States of America) or only Estados Unidos (i.e. United States). There is some difference between the usage of these words in Portugal and in Brazil, the Brazilians being less prone than the Portuguese to apply the term América to the country. A well-known example of such use is the translation of the title of Alain Resnais' movie "Mon Oncle d'Amérique": "O Meu Tio da América"."

0 funny, 0 helpful.

turnmeon says on Sep 27, 2008, 16:45:

"In French, as in English, the word Américain can be confusing as it can be used to refer either to the United States, or to the American continents.

The noun Amérique sometimes refers to the whole as one continent, and sometimes two continents, southern and northern; the United States is generally referred to as les États-Unis d'Amérique, les États-Unis, or les USA. However, the usage of Amérique to refer to the United States, while technically not correct, does still have some currency in France.

The adjective américain is most often used for things relating to the United States; however, it may also be used for things relating to the American continents. Books by United States authors translated from English are often described as "traduit de l'américain".

Things relating to the United States can be referred to without ambiguity by the words états-unien, étasunien, or étatsunien, although their usage is rare."

0 funny, 0 helpful.

usagringo says on Sep 27, 2008, 20:22:

I have many Colombian friends a Colombian wife, plus I've became a Colombian Citizen and proud of it , I love Colombia and I pray that the great citizens of Colombia continue to be our friends, GOD knows we need not lose more friends..

But my observation is that when people of all nations want a safe place to go or their money to go it's the good ole USA. Yes our leadership role has gone to our governments head and my feeling is that our government should get out of every country and just take care of our own for awhile and let Russia or China take over supplying for the worlds needs,. I know that they could do a better job and unlike the USA they would not expect anything in return. Example like Cuba when Castro opened their harbors (jails & looney bins) and said go if you think our system is bad, they hated the USA so bad they almost sunk Florida. Point is weather I agree or disagree with the USA haters here I want our government to go home and take everything but the dirt under there foreign investments with the millions of jobs they provided in thou countries and put them back on American soil where they are truly needed and wanted, then maybe the average over taxed American could afford to buy more than Chinese products. By the way China takes a very hard line against buying foreign made products as they have over a billion people that need those jobs.

turnmeon - Your work is really cut out for you because even thou your history lesson is perfectly true, i dont think most people of the world if asked what nations citizens are known as Americans would answer Peru, Chile, Colombia, Brazil, Costa Rica, Mexico, or any other etc:, Now remember most are not as enlightened as you or would even care to waste the time to care because they are to busy living, unless they want to find another reason to march to the in fashion drummer of hatred, like Mr,Chavez.
.

Be the first to stop stupidy by not added yours to mine if you think mine are!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

ujay says on Sep 27, 2008, 20:28:

medlleras (newbie) says on Sep 27, 2008, 16:12 (today): flag

"all went to dust," says Ujay

Nope. I was there. There was about 10 stories of twisted metal, electrical, plastic, and every other stinking mess of stuff you could imagine.....
OH REALLY,FIRE HOT ENOUGH TO BRING DOWN THE TOWERS AFTER JUST AN HOUR,HOT ENOUGH TO MELT A PLANE AND ALL THE BODIES,BUT YOU SEE PASTIC.MAY IT WAS YOU WHO SEE A PASSPORT FLY OUT THE HIJACKERS POCKET,FLY OUT THE PLANE ,FLY OUT THE FIRE SO HOT IT BOUGHT THE TOWER DOWN ,LAND IN ALL THIS 10 STORIES OF TWISTED METTED METAL ELECTRICAL PLASTIC AND EVERY OTHER STINKING MESS OF STUFF YOU COULD IMAGINE ,AND STILL NOT HAVE ONE MARK ON IT AND FOUND WITHIN 45 MINUTES.AND WAS ONE OF THE 19 HIJACKERS THAT DIED ,BUT 11 WERE STILL ALIVE AND WELL ,AND WERE NEVER EVEN ON A PLANE LET ALONE IN THE USA.

"Not one plane but 4 ,on the same day ,all vanish", says Ujay

They didn't vanish. 3 hit buildings and one the dirt.
YES THEY DID ,THEN THEY VANISHED ,YOU SEE THEM ,ANY PHOTOS OF ONE PART OF A PLANE OF ONE BODY ,OTHER THAN THE POOR BUGGERS THAT HAD TO JUMP.

"No bodies ,no luggage ,no planes at all ,all 4 ,Coincidences get real", says Ujay

The ones that hit the buildings burned in the fuel.
REALLY,PLANE FUEL MOST OF WHICH YOU CAN SEE BURN YELLOW ON INPACKED,CAN NOT NEVER BURN HOT ENOUGH TO VANISH THE WHOLE PLANE STEEL AND BODIES,JUST CANT DO IT.
PLUS DO WE DISBELIVE A NY FIREFIGHTER THAT OVER HIS RADIO SAYS HES ON THE 78TH FLOOR ,AND HE CAN KNOCK DOWN THE FIRE WITH JUST 2 LINES,
IS THIS THE SAME FIRE THAT BURNED UP EVERY THING EVEN STEEL ,YET 2 LINES COULD HAVE KNOCKED IT OUT.
Didn't the one that hit the dirt have debree?
YOU SEE THE TOWERS YOU SAID BUT THIS YOU NEVER ,NO, NO DEBREE A LITTLE 10 FEET HOLE IN THE GROUND ,NO DEBREE ,NO PLANE PARTS ,NO BODIES ,NO LUGGAGE,

"the wings would not enter,they would snap off", says Ujay

Who says?
THE MAKERS OF THE PLANE ,MOST WHO FLY THEM,BY SEEING EVERY OTHER PLANE CRASH,AND BY ME.
AS I SAID YOU ARE MUSHROOMS.

http://www.jukelightning.com

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Sep 27, 2008, 20:50:

"

ujay says on Sep 26, 2008, 17:47: flag

i just read ,the fattest people in the world are in the usa,

so you could say the the biggest arseholes come from the good old usa."


Maybe so, but it sure beats being the pettiest assholes in the world. Now where might those be from?

"All I want to know is where I'm going to die, so I never go there" Unkown (at least to me) wise man.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

ujay says on Sep 27, 2008, 21:05:

according to miss world has to be Venezuela

http://www.jukelightning.com

0 funny, 0 helpful.

billyb says on Sep 27, 2008, 21:08:

jajja, yes, I did leave the R out.

"All I want to know is where I'm going to die, so I never go there" Unkown (at least to me) wise man.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rowdy Yates says on Sep 28, 2008, 08:39:

Spelling Colombia with a U in the US? An interesting subject...Certainly more interesting than all the stereotyping and US bashing above.

The speling of Christopher Columbus with a U is the anglo way of spelling his name and it is this person that both Colombia and Columbia University, Columbia the city in SC are named after. The Colombia we know is named after the same person but with an Italian spelling of his name which is Cristoforo Colombo.

I think it could be argued that one could spell correctly Colombia with a U in the US being that both spellings have there origins in the same person. The spelling of the United States has certainly been adapted to a Spanish spelling and not the anglo spelling you see in the US. So why would the people in the US not be able to do the same to Colombia? Use the anglo spelling of Colombia which is Columbia?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

FreakyG says on Sep 28, 2008, 09:00:

ujay: "OH REALLY,FIRE HOT ENOUGH TO BRING DOWN THE TOWERS AFTER JUST AN HOUR,HOT ENOUGH TO MELT A PLANE"

As a structural engineer I have to say yes to both of these. Structural steel loses half of its strength at 650 degrees Celsius. The estimated 90,000 litres of jet fuel which burns approximately 1,000 degrees Celsius was more than enough to weaken the angle clips which supported the floor joists in this type of building design. When the towers collapsed there was a pancake type of reaction we all saw in the video -this was caused by the angle clips failure and then it was just one floor taking out the floor below. Each tower weighs an estimated 500,000 tons and with this amount of inertia, the towers dropped in a straight path to the ground instead of topple. As far as the plane melting, that is easy. A planes fuselage is mostly made up of high strength aluminum alloy ( T6061 or 7075 variety ) with the exception of the keel beam which is usually an aircraft chrome moly steel. At approximately 1,1000 degrees Celsius the aluminum melts which is what happened on the initial impact.

"the wings would not enter,they would snap off", says Ujay

No, the wings would embed and eventually melt into the structure of the WTC, especially the outer columns the WTC was designed with. Now I would think that part of the wings might break off but at a velocity these planes impacted (est. 400 mi/hr) those too would become embedded. The wings of an airliner are some of the strongest parts of the structure, yet as you approach the wingtips, they are capable of deflecting an amazing amount considering they are made of aluminum. Another reason they didnt just "snap off" is they also contain about a third of the total weight of the plane mostly in fuel.

ujay: " just read ,the fattest people in the world are in the usa,

so you could say the the biggest arseholes come from the good old usa."

Wow man, what are you, 15 years old, or just retarded?

Thank You Eversomuch, and then some

0 funny, 0 helpful.

turnmeon says on Sep 28, 2008, 09:53:

I found this interesting article about 9-11 and structural steel


"The Fires' Impact
How the Towers' Fires Affected the Structural Steel
As an exercise let's set aside all of the evidence about the actual severity of the Twin Towers' fires, and imagine that the fires were incredibly intense and widespread. Let's imagine that the jets were full tankers and spilled 80,000 gallons of fuel into each tower. Let's imagine that there was a strong wind giving the fires plenty of air. Let's imagine that the the fires engulfed over 10 floors in each tower, saturating the capacity of the steel buildings to draw away the heat. Let's imagine the fires burned intensely for hours, completely gutting several stories of each tower. Would that cause them to collapse? Not according to people who have studied steel structures subjected to such stresses. The following passage is from Appendix A of FEMA's World Trade Center Building Performance Study.

In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments).

This graph represents strength as a function of temperature, which is expressed in degrees Celsius (C).

At temperatures above 800° C structural steel loses 90 percent of its strength. 1 Yet even when steel structures are heated to those temperatures, they never disintegrate into piles of rubble, as did the Twin Towers and Building 7. Why couldn't such dramatic reductions in the strength of the steel precipitate such total collapse events?

High-rise buildings are over-engineered to have strength many times greater than would needed to survive the most extreme conditions anticipated. It may take well over a ten-fold reduction in strength to cause a structural failure.
If a steel structure does experience a collapse due to extreme temperatures, the collapse tends to remain localized to the area that experienced the high temperatures.
The kind of low-carbon steel used in buildings and automobiles bends rather than shatters. If part of a structure is compromised by extreme temperatures, it may bend in that region, conceivably causing a large part of the structure to sag or even topple. However, there is no example of a steel structure crumbling into many pieces because of any combination of structural damage and heating, outside of the alleged cases of the Twin Towers and Building 7. "

0 funny, 0 helpful.

turnmeon says on Sep 28, 2008, 11:18:

tomtom33 do some research, the fire on the towers wasnt even close to what it needed to be to demolish the building, in the other hand not too long ago a building in Spain burned out of control and with huge flames for almost a week yet the building stood up and was then demolished by the goverment, how come a building with small flames and black smoke which is a sign of lack of oxigen which is needed on high pressure and enriched o create the tempeture needed to obtain that kind of heat went downt in less than a hour while the one in Spain stood for almost a week with a fire much bigger and didnt came down? the proofs are out there, the fact is that people are too affraid to find the truth because its scary to know that the NWO is behind this

0 funny, 0 helpful.

turnmeon says on Sep 28, 2008, 11:19:

as a contribution to the website im gonna post videos about it very soon

0 funny, 0 helpful.

FreakyG says on Sep 28, 2008, 14:40:

tomtom, I hear you on that -the facts seem pretty boring sometimes, speculation -much more interesting.
As far as to why the WTC's structure failed, this is the best explanation I have read:

" As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour."

those are some crazy numbers to get your mind around, and this has to be one of the more plausable reasons for the structural failure.

turnmeon:
"In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments)."

The fact that the above experiment was just an 8 story building and more than likely, not near the magnitude of the trade center in weight makes it a pretty different animal.

"how come a building with small flames and black smoke which is a sign of lack of oxigen."

I found this as far as the color of smoke from the WTC fire

"It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke."

Check out this link as it is about as factual as it gets

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

Thank You Eversomuch, and then some

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Rowdy Yates says on Sep 28, 2008, 15:37:

Ok so let me see if I understand this? The terrorists somehow coordinated an effort with George Bush to bring down the WTC? Or was it actually Secret Service personel who hijacked the planes and then committed suicide flying them into buildings?

Not to mention the pure lack of capacity to pull off such a plan. So the pilots of the planes knew exactly what floor the explosives were on and flew the planes perfectly into those floors? Upon succeeding in such a monumental task they did not disturb any of the blasting cords or explosives that were put in place upon impact? The fire that burned on and on did not ignite the explosives?

The way the WTC was constructed led to it being brought down by these planes exploding and burning for a period of time. Sounds much more logical than anything these nuts have come up with. God help us if there are people in this world who can not put simple facts like this together and recognize obvious crappola. We are in a lot of trouble.

More questions?

Just when exactly did George Bush install these explosives in sufficient amounts to bring down a building of this size? During office hours? No one noticed them loading in explosives? Ok after hours? No one on the maintenance or security staff thought it odd that people were going up with boxes and installing primer cord to connect them throughout the floors?

Maybe it was the firemen that went into the building? Maybe they took the explosives up there and then blew themselves up? Yea, yea that is it.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

ujay says on Sep 28, 2008, 17:15:

parceriximo,

great link to the doc site thanks ,spent the whole day watching

http://www.jukelightning.com

0 funny, 0 helpful.

manINred says on Sep 28, 2008, 19:31:

Let's continue addressing the issue at hand: Are Venezuela, Ecuador et al. 'wrong' in turning their back to the US? NO!

This is a world of self-interested actors. The US has no problem turning their back on the democracies of Latin America when it suits them, so they should be able to take it up the ass (just as well as they give it) when other nations in their own self-interest decide to ignore the Untied States. Don't dish if you can't handle.

I believe someone implied that Chile is a prosperous nation and even tried to link Chile's prosperity to good relations with the US. BOLLOCKS!!! Chile has succeeded DESPITE the US. Remember, they were subjugated to a Pinochet regime in large part because of a CIA backed initiative to, against human rights, destroy the democratically elected Allende government. This was part of the US containment policy. Look it up in the history books. Chile has good relations with the US because it suits Chile to do so, and they succeeded despite everything. They still have a fairly liberal government to this day, and let us not assume that it is modelled on democracy in the good old US of A.

Again, I never condemned any nation for acting in its own self-interest. But to try and claim otherwise, that it is not self-interest, is delusional.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

manINred says on Sep 28, 2008, 19:43:

La_Huella, let me expand upon your line of thought: "I think Colombia has solved its problems and is moving up in the world but because of Plan Colombia, but in SPITE of it."

Plan Colombia is poorly thought out, all things considered. It is yet another example of a self-interested policy. The plan came about in an effort to eradicate drug supply thereby creating a drug-free domestic US society.

I ask, where are the majority of Plan Colombia's funds allotted? To crop spraying. Let us examine the effectiveness of crop-spraying. Is it effective? No. Last year, more coca was cultivated in Colombia than was cultivated in 2006, in fact there was between a 25% and 30% coca cultivation INCREASE! Let us examine why this is the case:

Aerial spraying affects not only Coca crops are more resistant to the aerial crop spraying than other cash and subsistence crops. Aerial spraying also destroys crops that are not coca. Farmers who have their non-coca crops destroyed must shift to cultivating coca crops which are more resistant and yield much greater profits because they need to feed their families. This is a documented fact. As farmers find it more and more difficult to successfully cultivate legal crops, they must switch to illegal ones in order to survive.

So yes, La_Huella, you make a very good point.

Further more, when initiating Plan Colombia and in deciding to increase aid to Colombia, Bill Clinton gave permission to the US gov. to ignore human rights abuses that occur in Colombia... hmmmm... strange, but another self-interested act. A very dangerous precedent to set while going to war. Anything to get drugs off US streets. Sadly, it isn't even working.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

manINred says on Sep 28, 2008, 19:57:

The US has helped Colombia in providing funds to strengthen the Colombian military. However one cannot overlook the fact that Colombians themselves are the major players who are making Colombia a better place.

From greater transparency in government with the advent and implimentation of independent institutions that monitor government transparency and accountability, to policy aimed at demobilizing large criminal organizations, Colombians have a lot to be proud of.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

turnmeon says on Sep 28, 2008, 22:37:

ok there is a truth to it and i didnt want say it all at once but here it is, leave it or take it

Yes there is a secret society controlling the world, not just the USA, but Colombia, Russia, Chinna, Venezuela, Ecuador, Afganistan, etc, they are called the Skull and Bones society also known as the Masons, Freemansons and other names which they all are one single entity, they control the TV that we watch, the Internet, the Radio, the Economy, the countries in general, they have a plan of a NWO"New World Order" in which the whole planet is under one person control, there have been people killed around the world for speaking the truth, if you know too much you will be killed, it have happened and it will keep happening, the 9-11 was just one of their step towards their plan, a not-so far step is a World War III, or example did you know that Sadam Hussein used to work for the FBI? did you know that Osama Bin Laden used to work with the FBI? people wake up 9-11 was a inside job, a strike against America, the Cold War was fake, the Russian invation of Georgia was another of their plans as well as whats going on with Russia aproaching once again to Latin American countries, Colombia is no exception, Uribe is one of them as sad as it sound, have you ever wondered why the US as hard as they try they cant never find Bin Laden? also have you ever seen the video of the dead of Hussein? with the rope to the side of his ear when it have to be on the back to kill break the neck, come on you all seen the Hussein video, why they dont show you a actual video instead of a 10 seconds looking towards the feet video? yeah Mr Bush is part of this as well as McCain and Obama, want see proofs? i sure will post proofs of it unless my account get banned, suspended or who knows what, since i been investigating about this i been getting strange people dressing on black with black glasses coming to my work place for no reason on a daily basis, are they aware of me? Gods know but im sure they do.

also you been lied about UFOs and Alien civilizations, call me cazy, but have you seen the pictures on the European version of the NASA about Mars? you can clearly see cities on its surface, Mars is a planet full of life, they just want keep us blind to the truth, I have already spoken too much, but i can back up what im saying, call me crazy, call me a lier, call me a person with no life, or just ignore me, but wasnt columbus called crazy and all that when he talked about a new rout to the indias? there is actual written proof that Columbus and his tripulation saw a UFO on the Columbus day back in 1496 before they discovered America.

they are keeping this information from you now just give it a chance and analize the info that im gonna post in here, also i havent checked the link that parceriximo is posting here, but it seems it contain good information, just open your mind for one second and then after analizing the evidence decide for yourself

0 funny, 0 helpful.

turnmeon says on Sep 28, 2008, 23:02:

0 funny, 0 helpful.

turnmeon says on Sep 28, 2008, 23:06:

0 funny, 0 helpful.

turnmeon says on Sep 29, 2008, 11:19:

0 funny, 0 helpful.

turnmeon says on Sep 29, 2008, 11:22:

0 funny, 0 helpful.

turnmeon says on Sep 29, 2008, 11:24:

0 funny, 0 helpful.