I believe in the Anglosphere
- Thread starter JJJA
- Start date
Case of Britain and USA in point: Margaret Thatcher openly supported and endorsed totalitarian governments responsible of mass genocide around South America. Nixon and the CIA financed coup d etats against socialist governments too. None of this is conspiracy speculation, but actually true and you can look it up on the internet, and even on youtube. Which really made me cringe at how hypocrite that statement sounds when contrasted with the facts, if that's really how they think it is. Either they will support whatever makes them and only them "safe" disregarding whatever crimes may be commited in the meantime, which in that case, and if you agree with that, i don't really care, i know people who are far more extreme anyway. But that statement it's a lie anyway, they just turned the blind eye when it was convenient.
Each and every events, crisis and diplomatic alliance and conflict always comes with its challenges, and in the case of allowing totalitarian regimes to remain in power, I agree that the West never falls short of contenders. However, Nixon was later forced to resign due to his foreign and domestic policies and decisions, which the people and the media both agreed was the right thing to do to him, which was to remove the inevitable outcome of his impeachment by his own government; hardly what you would use as a basis to suggest that the Anglosphere as a whole supports totalitarianism. A wet argument at-best, I think you are trying too hard to cherry-pick every single mistake either the politicians or the electorates have made, and deliberately dismissing all of the many times these countries' leaders have continually opposed totalitarianism, both with the use of diplomacy or force. To suggest I am being hypocritical of stating that these nations have (may not always succeed, but have always tried) protected each other from totalitarianism is an incredible example of a staw-man argument.
Nixon resigned due to internal problems as far as i know of anyway. Also this is something that ran through many years, so this is irrelevant.
So you agree with what i said above. It doesn't matter as long as they can preserve themselves and their shared interests. Do you fight for freedom, or your interests? That's the question, and in you case, and by what you've proved from what you said, freedom doesn't mean anything. You've just admited it from what i underlined, watch each other's back. So yeah, of course it's hypocritical when someone talks against totalitarianism, while having a history of both practicing it, and endorsing it whenever it was convenient, which is funny because none of these countries were under direct threat of totalitarianism in recent history, it always had to do with foreign countries. They just do what it's convenient, don't fool yourself.
The Irish, while militarily neutral (for pretty much the same reason their flag is not depicted) have a very soft spot for the US, I don't know of any of my Irish friends or relatives who have not stopped at ground Zero at least once when visiting NY.
You underline what I said in the beginning, which has nothing to do with the your post in-which I made a rebuttal. These countries do not do as I have said based on some secret desire to watch each others' back for selfish reasons, which you claim without providing any evidence apart from the arguments you made which I refuted with logic and facts. The extent to which you and others have completely taken what I said out of context in the name of Mr. Straw-Man is absurd, and 'cringe worthy' as you put it. By saying that I 'admit' that the Anglosphere countries are looking out for each other is completely irrelevant to what you are trying to do, which is to manipulate what I have said to suit your own counter-argument about the Nixon administration and why he did what he did and how it has nothing to do with Anglosphere principles. This is, in-effect, a straw-man argument in-practice. I am afraid I must simply ask us both to agree to disagree because this 'discussion' is not going to end smoothly.
Is that why you haven't responded to my post? It would surprise me a great deal if your feelings got in your way. You are a man of logic and reason, are you not?
I was obviously questioning you but it's not like i'm acussing you directly of anything, anyway. It is widely known, so it's not like i'm making conjectures either.
School of Americas is a good example of what i was reffering to. Many dictators and people acused of violating human rights graduated from there by example. This is not secret though, neither it is like the man on the moon debunk thing. It is recognized by many american congressmen and politicians fwiw.
EDIT: As for the other part of what you've said, i'm not manipulating your words, but rather just pointing out how what you've stated, and contrasting it with the history that each of these countries have. Now if you feel like picking whatever suits your view and dismiss the rest then whatever, the stance that these countries have fought totalitarianism is not true, to say the least...
School of Americas is a good example of what i was reffering to. Many dictators and people acused of violating human rights graduated from there by example. This is not secret though, neither it is like the man on the moon debunk thing. It is recognized by many american congressmen and politicians fwiw.
EDIT: As for the other part of what you've said, i'm not manipulating your words, but rather just pointing out how what you've stated, and contrasting it with the history that each of these countries have. Now if you feel like picking whatever suits your view and dismiss the rest then whatever, the stance that these countries have fought totalitarianism is not true, to say the least...
Last edited:
What a piece of high-horse cant. I came to a logical conclusion based on observing how the discussion was going, whilst using my intuition conclude that it would be very time-consuming to proceed further when we both obviously disagree on the matter. Say something more constructive than posting little childish jibes at my judgement. If you are so keen on hearing my response, then here it is. I actually found the second-half of your response to be mostly agreeable, with a few minor disagreements on the analysis of the abolitionist movement and imperialism.
How was the discussion going? It's discouraging to see how you're using your basest emotions to silence my opposing views, while at the same time commenting on how uninformed other posters are, and accusing others of using smear-tactics against your allegiances. It seems as if you only like logic when it works to your advantage.
Let's try to remember there's difference between attacking or questioning another's stance, and attacking another person...
Who's attacking anyone?
Certainly not Harvey Dent in the most recent Batman trilogy, since Brucey kills him off in the first one. :c
R.I.P.
hush is watching you all
I swear that I was just expressing my own ...
All ... Glory ... To the ... Hypnotoad