A sustained campaign of sponsored terrorism against civillian 'soft' targets as well as an attempted invasion doesnt strike me as particually half-hearted.

I dont really think token parcels of humanitarian aid can justify taking part in America's long term strategy of unbridled repression of any kind of demotratic or labour movement that attempted to lift people above the poverty line if it happened to affect 'US interests'.

Of course, each point of view is going to be affected by some level of bias, and it stands to reason if your a patriotic american that you're going to turn somthing of a blind eye to the atrocities funded, supported and carried out by your government since the 1950's.

But if you're fully aware that you're not acknowledging the full scope of the issue, then why not acknowledge it? It's worrying that you use the argument of ''Of course we're going to ignore and sideline the facts, because were American, and we're bound to think in this biased way'' as a rebuttal to arguments attacking America's unrelenting strategy of acheiveing dominance through terrorism, brutal suppression and economic slavery which , while you seem aware of you refuse to accept soely because of your 'bias' (?)

I dont understand how you can argue for the small humanitarian effect of the peace corps, and ignore the epic humanitarian crimes commited and made possible by the United States and its framework of strategic global dominance.



Maybe. But its even more frustrating when someone uses their own biased nationalism as a defence?

tupac, greatest rapper ever to live.

America did not put everything it had towards the ends of ousting Castro, as evidenced by the inadequate support given to the Cuban exiles who carried out the Bay of Pigs invasion. That despite the general belief that Castro was a highly unpopular puppet of the KGB, and America's fear of Soviet-wrought nuclear annihilation. In fact, Kennedy tried to talk to Castro in secret through proxies in order to improve relations. Making sure a Soviet nuke did not detonate in America was simply his top priority.

Because Castro is especially democratic?

Not a blind eye, but I do seem to understand things in a different context than you do.

What I am saying, is that Americans see American presidents in a different context than perhaps folks abroad do. A fact without context is a sad worthless thing.

For a nation that wants to dominate the globe, we sure handed over power in Iraq and Afghanistan quick enough. Also, I think the Peace Corps do a lot of good work.

I am not a nationalist. I just think JFK was a good president, because he did good things for America and the world.

And live and live and live

Abraham Lincoln, that's a big one, we'll never know how different this country would be if he had not been shot, obviously not majorly different but a few slightly different things.