New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus - An oldie but a goodie

middleview

President
Supporting Member
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyrs'_Day_(Panama) <---the U.S. killed unarmed civilians in its effort to hold on to the canal zone
Just as they murdered civilians in Puerto Rico http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponce_massacre and the Philippines
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moro_Crater_massacre

No, the U.S. did not launch a full-scale invasion of Panama and watch Panama and the rest of Central America ally itself with the Soviet Union and Cuba. Yes, the U.S. did give up its installation at Subic Bay after it was destroyed by a volcano http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Pinatubo#Aftermath_of_the_1991_eruption

It's hard to know what the majority thinks in Puerto Rico since people who express pro-independence views are given some of the longest prison sentences in the world

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_López_Rivera

or gunned down by the FBI

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filiberto_Ojeda_Ríos

The French used to claim, with the support of referenda, polls, and an imposed silence, that the majority of Algerians supported Algeria's being part of France. Turned out, next to no Algerian Moors or Berbers did so.
Sadly, you choose to focus on anti-US parts of the information and completely miss all else. The facts related to the Panama Canal are less anti-US than you'd admit. The "unarmed civilians" you claim killed by the US were participating in a riot that also killed four US soldiers. I'm thinking those soldiers didn't die of natural causes. If you want to debate the legality of the US treaty and control of the canal zone then that is a different thread.

No, Subic bay was not abandoned due to Pinatubo. The shutdown was already in progress long before the volcano erupted. We should have left the Phillipines a long time before we did, but that isn't a reason to put out fictional versions of history.
 
Sadly, you choose to focus on anti-US parts of the information and completely miss all else. The facts related to the Panama Canal are less anti-US than you'd admit. The "unarmed civilians" you claim killed by the US were participating in a riot that also killed four US soldiers. I'm thinking those soldiers didn't die of natural causes. If you want to debate the legality of the US treaty and control of the canal zone then that is a different thread.

No, Subic bay was not abandoned due to Pinatubo. The shutdown was already in progress long before the volcano erupted. We should have left the Phillipines a long time before we did, but that isn't a reason to put out fictional versions of history.
Thanks, I had to much of a headache to deal.
 

EatTheRich

President
The government owes money to social security recipients, and the government also owes money to China. Neither one ran up the debt ... the GOVERNMENT ran up the debt.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
In other words, they were rebelling against the American occupation.
Please go back to the treaty that allowed the US to build the canal and maintain troops their to provide security. While we had troops stationed in the Canal zone, it was hardly an occupation.
 

EatTheRich

President
You mean, the treaty that Colombia refused to sign, so the U.S. sponsored Panama's secession from Colombia via the threat of military intervention?
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
You mean, the treaty that Colombia refused to sign, so the U.S. sponsored Panama's secession from Colombia via the threat of military intervention?
And what part did the US play in the Thousand days war?

It isn't like the Panamanians were happy being ruled by Columbia. They had fought the Columbians on more than one attempt to secede.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
The government owes money to social security recipients, and the government also owes money to China. Neither one ran up the debt ... the GOVERNMENT ran up the debt.
Oh, so the GOVERNMENT should pay down the debt and not SS recipients who voted for the GOVERNMENT that ran up the debt.....I see.
 

EatTheRich

President
And what part did the US play in the Thousand days war?

It isn't like the Panamanians were happy being ruled by Columbia. They had fought the Columbians on more than one attempt to secede.
The U.S. sent warships to force the Liberals to lay down their arms and to broker an agreement between two conservative factions that resulted in the independence of Panama. And it also isn't like the Panamanians were happy being ruled by the U.S. As I pointed out, they rose up against the American occupation of the Canal Zone.
 

EatTheRich

President
Oh, so the GOVERNMENT should pay down the debt and not SS recipients who voted for the GOVERNMENT that ran up the debt.....I see.
The government does not represent the majority of social security recipients. The government is the executive council of the wealthy ruling class. Social security--and democratic elections--are concessions that this ruling class has made to the working class in order to maintain their control.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
The U.S. sent warships to force the Liberals to lay down their arms and to broker an agreement between two conservative factions that resulted in the independence of Panama. And it also isn't like the Panamanians were happy being ruled by the U.S. As I pointed out, they rose up against the American occupation of the Canal Zone.
I asked what the US had to do with the Thousand Days War....the answer was nothing.

US warships did prevent Columbian troops from landing in Panama to put down the rebellion that resulted in their independence. The point of bringing up the four US soldiers killed was to answer your statement that we killed unarmed Panamanians. Unless you have evidence that the US soldiers shot each other or died from natual causes....you were wrong.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
The government owes money to social security recipients, and the government also owes money to China. Neither one ran up the debt ... the GOVERNMENT ran up the debt.
So we can just expect the GOVERMENT to pay it back, right? There shouldn't be any need to raise taxes or cut spending.....I know, we can just confiscate the savings and possessions of everyone who ever worked for the GOVERNMENT.....
 

EatTheRich

President
The government represents the interests of a particular class--the ruling class--those with the wealth to tell the government's armies and police what to do. Through the bureaucracy, this ruling class writes laws that provide for their orderly exploitation of the working class, and create expectations of fairness to prevent rebellion, but in the final analysis do nothing to hamper the armies and police from doing what the ruling class pays them to do. Except for those born into this ruling class, or those admitted to it because they have become wealthy as politicians, military officers, or technicians commanding top dollar--presidents, senators, etc.--everyone who works for the government is exploited, not only by the ruling class which imposes an exploitative property system on them by means of this government's coercive power, but also as an employee that the government tries to swindle (by prevailing standards of fairness) to cut costs the same way other employers do with their employees. They are not the government, in other words; they are among its most direct victims.

It is this ruling class that owes social security as a debt, and it is the working class to which this debt is owed. It is not up to me to say how the ruling class should fund its payment of this debt, but I do not believe that a tax hike on the ruling class or spending cuts in ruling-class programs such as the military are morally unfair or practically inadvisable.
 

EatTheRich

President
I asked what the US had to do with the Thousand Days War....the answer was nothing.

US warships did prevent Columbian troops from landing in Panama to put down the rebellion that resulted in their independence. The point of bringing up the four US soldiers killed was to answer your statement that we killed unarmed Panamanians. Unless you have evidence that the US soldiers shot each other or died from natual causes....you were wrong.
Four U.S. soldiers were killed, along with 21 Panamanians. Unless you have evidence that all 21 had a hand in the killings of those soldiers, including six-month-old Maritza Avila Alabarca, killed by American chemical weapons, I'll repeat my claim that the U.S. killed unarmed Panamanians.
 
The government represents the interests of a particular class--the ruling class--those with the wealth to tell the government's armies and police what to do. Through the bureaucracy, this ruling class writes laws that provide for their orderly exploitation of the working class, and create expectations of fairness to prevent rebellion, but in the final analysis do nothing to hamper the armies and police from doing what the ruling class pays them to do. Except for those born into this ruling class, or those admitted to it because they have become wealthy as politicians, military officers, or technicians commanding top dollar--presidents, senators, etc.--everyone who works for the government is exploited, not only by the ruling class which imposes an exploitative property system on them by means of this government's coercive power, but also as an employee that the government tries to swindle (by prevailing standards of fairness) to cut costs the same way other employers do with their employees. They are not the government, in other words; they are among its most direct victims.

It is this ruling class that owes social security as a debt, and it is the working class to which this debt is owed. It is not up to me to say how the ruling class should fund its payment of this debt, but I do not believe that a tax hike on the ruling class or spending cuts in ruling-class programs such as the military are morally unfair or practically inadvisable.
Sounds like a vintage Pravda article.
 
Top