Do you support the Iraq war TODAY??? NOTE: READ ARGUMENT FIRST! THEN vote

[EdwardTking]

Does it mean you support the troops and hope they win in Iraq and Afghanistan, complete their mission are are victorious?

Or do you support them, but hope they fail misrably, get their butts kick and come home crying?

False dilemma. There are more than two alternatives.

I support the British troops when they are up against the towel heads, and hope for the best in their tactical operations, but I do not believe that military activity will bring any worthwhile stategic victories, and I think that Gordon Brown should bring them home.

 

[Red Door]

Does it mean you support the troops and hope they win in Iraq and Afghanistan, complete their mission are are victorious?

Or do you support them, but hope they fail misrably, get their butts kick and come home crying?

As in all things...there is 'support' and then there is 'support'. And personally, if someone says they support the troops, but dont want us to succeed, I think they are being extremely disengenuous.

It means I support our troops in staying safe and doing their mission. It does not wish harm on them, or I would've said that.

I'm not looking for a loophole, I'm looking for a definition. What does it mean to support the troops?

It means I support the troops. I don't see where you're getting anything else from that statement?

 

[Gogf]

It means I support the troops. I don't see where you're getting anything else from that statement?

What do you support? Their mission? Their presence in Iraq? Their existence? I have no clue what that phrase means, especially coming from someone who is against the war.

 

[Red Door]

What do you support? Their mission? Their presence in Iraq? Their existence? I have no clue what that phrase means, especially coming from someone who is against the war.

Their mission, and their safety. I want them to succeed, I want them to be safe. That's what it means. Okay, happy, and was it really that complicated to understand?

 

[Princeps]

I don't know why the US denied refugee status to Haitians.

Well, they should maybe, after all, US waged a bloody terrorist war against the people of Haiti after they voted for the wrong guy in the first democratic election they've had. Now, due to decades of virtual US colonization of the country, Haiti is poorest place in the region, worse than Nicaragua, which is another victim of US terrorist campaign (uncontroversial case, I might add).

I'm under the impression that the US CANNOT just open its doors to anybody claiming refugee status.

But the neoliberal elites want that -- which is why for example Bush wanted to subsidize illegal immigration. They want to lower the wages (even more than they already have) of the working people and use illegal working practices to destroy such things as the pesky unions.

I spoke in another thread about how ignorance and poverty was a powerful weapon for the left in conjuring up a populist movement.

Answering the needs of the poor is a genuine political ambition, not just populist drivel... something which the ultra right-wing American political spectrum has entirely forgotten. In a place like South America, where there is such a longstanding and wide gap between traditional poor and traditional rich, the rich minority being mostly white, and the underlying poor something more local, a genuienly populist democracy (which US has vehemently opposed in the region, with outright aggression and more subtle violence and economic strangulation) would undoubetly result in left-wing policies and that's only obvious. People are just tired of the neoliberal policies which have torn the place apart.

Well...the model of Allende was in place in Argentina and Brazil.

Actually, take Bolivia, it had 25 years of rigorous adherence to IMF rules --- wasn't exactly great I might add. Argentina too, was destroyed by irrisponsible IMF and neoliberal policies. Might add Brazil there too. Reagan -- who started the structural adjustment and other neoliberal policies, started the lost decade in Latin America, which was a major depression.

Again, Pinochet's model wasn't just...something that kind of improved the situation a little bit... Pinochet's economic model took Chile from arguably the POOREST. To the RICHEST.

There are exceptions to general rule of disaster which dominates neoliberal economies in the third world. But take for example, Bolivia, Argentina, Brazil, and so on, all have suffered as a result of following Washington and its IMF --- same is often true with sub-saharan Africa, Russia, but is not true with many massive Asian economies, which have refused to follow Washington's economic framework.

Middle classes are leaving all kinds of third world Arab countries...not just Iraq. It's called brain drain.

'

The amount of people leaving Iraq is just massive, creating an enourmous refugee mass.

What does world popular opinion have to do with the fact that one reason we went into Afghanistan was to remove the Taliban and implement a form of Democratic government there?

No it wasn't. The reason why US went there, one that I can figure out off hand, is of course... drugs. Drug trade benefits the elites in New York and Washington enourmously... its almost as profitable as arms trade, if not more.

US terrorist war in Nicaragua, directly contributed in the crack cocaine pandemic. Reagan, while preaching about the dangers of drug use, was the worst drug trader in the United States, offering the drug trading CIA assets protection. The US contra war, which murdererd 30,000 Nicaraguans and wrecked the country, was funded using drugs.

Before 1979, IIRC, US supported the extremist Muslim militias in Afghanistan to provoke Russia into a "another vietnam". They were funded using Heroin, and soon Afghanistan was set to become a narcostate, which was very beneficial to the American elites, since the drug trade brought in money for the elites in the US -- the farmers don't make the money. However, the big boss in Washington was angered when Taliban tried to take too big share of the action by hampering drug production and thus raising prices. The narcostate was saved when US invaded and allowed this proud agricultural tradition to flourish in a previously unseen scale.

Also, US could've invaded Afghanistan and Iraq to surround Iran, which is already the next target for the Empire.

But by and large, I think you're devling too much into the semantics of the situations and ignoring the broader, more important, fundamental good of these interventions.

The tortured corposes on the streets, the massive poverty, squalor and ultraviolent right-wing regimes -- sure, these are the "important, fundamental goods" of everyone's life. Let me just say that the one functioning country in the region, Costa rica has not suffered direct US interventionism, while countries like El-salvador, Nicaragua, Haiti are deeply impoverished.

 

[Merkinball]

However, I get your point. The US is, i guess, relatively "clean" compared to Britain, France, Belgium, Germany, and the Soviet Union. Mao would have stated as much (Source: Ross Terill's MAO).

The problem is that the US thinks itself to be all high and great, and doesn't admit any of its numerous crimes. The World Consensus is that the US is the world's leading terrorist state, and this seems true when you consider what it does. - MrT

Now the doozy. I really don't understand how on one hand, you'll sit here and say we're relatively clean compared to the rest of the worlds powers at be, but then turn around and seem to support the fact that we're the worlds largest terrorist organization. How stupid.

This attitude is built purely upon ignorance and jealousy. It's always gonna be politically popular to point fingers at the pro-active big guy. The biggest guy. Look at Vietnam, everyone ALWAYS criticizes us for going, ignores the genocide that would have taken place if we didn't go, and gives France a free pass for JUST LEAVING!

Iraq and Saddam. It's AMERICA'S fault that Saddam didn't get removed. Well, to all the self appointed luminaries out there. Why didn't your noble countries take him out huh?

It's real easy to point to our support of Saddam and say, "HYPOCRITES!" But when examined, it becomes clear that German, French, and Russian support of Saddam was much more overt, direct, and much more substantial than ours.

It's real easy to sit and point fingers at the US and say, "you guys were the last to unlsave your people, and desegregate." Well, let's keep things in perspective here. Portugal killed MILLIONS of people, tens, if not hundrreds times more than were killed in America. How long to the UK support subjugative systems in India and South Africa? Across all of her continents for that matter.

Look at the Rwandan genocide. Slick Willy gets his ear bit off for not going in there, but Belguim not only set UP the riff between the two ethnic groups there, but they abandoned the place like a bunch of scared girls at the first sign of violence.

France. Oh Jesus France. Look at the state of Frances colonies. Good Lord.

Examine the history that led to the rise of Adolph Hitler. Who's fault was that? It's so easy for German's, the people who committed one of the worst genocides in human history, to get a free pass because "their not Nazi's now." And now all the blood on their hands, vanishes (largely thanks to us building them up) and they get to call us the worlds largest terrorists? Gimme a break.

As for the rest of petty little struggling nations out there that point fingers at us? Must be real easy. To be in places that will never amount to anything, that will never produce anything for humankind, and never be a meaningful part of the world. Ya know, like...Slovenian's.

The funniest part of it all, is that any time anything goes wrong in the world, it's inherently expected that America be there for support. Like, Sierra Leone, Haiti, Cote D'Iviore, Somalia, the Balkan's. And when bad things happen and nothing gets done about? Such as Rwanda, or Darfur, or Somalia since the UN and Slick Willy pulled out? Oh, it's America's fault. And anytime we do something it's ALWAYS for simple economic gain. I mean, even in natural disasters...the worlds worst. Who's the first one on the seen? Who's donating more time, more money, and more logistics than the rest of the world combined? Oh, that's the US. Without the US military serving as a logistics base, relief efforts for the Tsunami would have taken days, perhaps longer. Without the US military, relief efforts in Kashmir would have taken God knows how long. We even went into Bam, Iran during their tragic disaster. All selfless, always forgotten and erased. Meanwhile, all the dirty deeds of old Europes past, Russia's past, China's past...as incredibly more brutal, and disturbing as those are...they all get a free pass. Interesting concept.

The Sandinistas were better than the Somozas. They may not have been great, but give them some credit. They were a promising force to help the economy, before the US came and devastated the land and the people and the economy. - Mr.T

Do you really think so? I mean, you hate Pinochet so much. But the Sandinista's killed way more people, forced into exile three times as many people. And that was at the advent of the revolution. That doesn't take into account thousands of democide killings, more deportations and people forced into exile, and suppression of other human and civil rights.

Let's throw up to...replacing one horrible leader with another horrible leader.

the real intervention was an international effort. - MT

That was largely suppplied, and supported by the US.

 

[neviden]

This attitude is built purely upon ignorance and jealousy.

Why is it that you always hear from the Americans that we are jealous of them. What is there to be jealous about? Not to mention the ignorance..

Let us place conflicts into proper historical contests.

Look at Vietnam, everyone ALWAYS criticizes us for going, ignores the genocide that would have taken place if we didn't go,

Vietnam was part of the whole “cold war” thing. Paranoid US and Paranoid Soviet Union fighting proxy wars. It should never have happened, but the danger was kind of real. Millions got killed, US pulled out, Vietnam became one country and the result was the same if the US never came (minus all the bombs and deaths, of course).

…and gives France a free pass for JUST LEAVING!

Vietnam was their colony. Nationalist kicked them out, not to mention that the French were broke (WW 2) and had no choice. Times changed and it was (looking back) the right thing to do.

Iraq and Saddam. It's AMERICA'S fault that Saddam didn't get removed. Well, to all the self appointed luminaries out there. Why didn't your noble countries take him out huh?

Saddam was a petty dictator supported by the west in the cold war arena. If the US felt it was on a mission from god to rid the world of petty dictators I could think quite a few more that it could remove.

Saddam did invade Kuwait, but he thought the US has given him permission to do that. It turned differently than he expected. US and the rest of the world kicked him out. Good for US. At that point he was hardly a threat anymore. Yet, 12 years later US had to invade Iraq and occupy it. To bad nobody bigger is there to kick US out of Iraq like they kicked Iraq out of Kuwait.

It's real easy to point to our support of Saddam and say, "HYPOCRITES!" But when examined, it becomes clear that German, French, and Russian support of Saddam was much more overt, direct, and much more substantial than ours.

US supported Iraq in its war with Iran. US supported Saddam before the first Gulf war and had no problems with him. “problems” with kurds? What problem.. when Saddam did something that US didn’t like, then all of a sudden everything was a problem.. it’s the same dictator. If you dislike dictators that much that you will invade and occupy their countries, why do you support them in the first place? Why the sudden need to remove him?

It's real easy to sit and point fingers at the US and say, "you guys were the last to unslave your people, and desegregate." Well, let's keep things in perspective here. Portugal killed MILLIONS of people, tens, if not hundrreds times more than were killed in America. How long to the UK support subjugative systems in India and South Africa? Across all of her continents for that matter.

You have to look at it through history. Back then everybody had colonies. And since they weren’t exactly happy with them, they kicked them out. It is relevant NOW only in the context of “is it still the same?”. It is not. Back then it was perfectly natural for big states to invade smaller.. but, now.. is it still?

Look at the Rwandan genocide. Slick Willy gets his ear bit off for not going in there, but Belgium not only set UP the riff between the two ethnic groups there, but they abandoned the place like a bunch of scared girls at the first sign of violence.

Rwanda was a bad situation. US was criticized for not doing anything, because they are invading and interfering in countries left and right for “protection of civil rights”, but when an actual genocide is taking place they are like “Genocide? What genocide? There are only bunch of people killing themselves. Why should we get involved?”. But to give US a credit. They did act sooner in Kosovo.

France. Oh Jesus France. Look at the state of Frances colonies. Good Lord.

I guess you are talking about Africa.. well.. they have their own problems that has hardly anything to do with the French bombing them or imposing sanctions..

Examine the history that led to the rise of Adolph Hitler. Who's fault was that?

Germany’s. They allowed it to happen. And they paid the price for it by being occupied at the end of war. That's why they are so carefull not to repeat the same mistake.

It's so easy for German's, the people who committed one of the worst genocides in human history, to get a free pass because "their not Nazi's now." And now all the blood on their hands, vanishes (largely thanks to us building them up) and they get to call us the worlds largest terrorists? Gimme a break.

You do realize that the WW2 ended in 1945? And you do realize that the people that call attention to what you do aren’t the same people that killed those people? Does that mean that you can always blame them for genocide? Would this be the same as me blaming US for exterminating the Indians? How about the slave trade? Who is to blame when US invades other countries?

As for the rest of petty little struggling nations out there that point fingers at us? Must be real easy. To be in places that will never amount to anything, that will never produce anything for humankind, and never be a meaningful part of the world. Ya know, like...Slovenian's.

Yes, like those that are part of EU and NATO, regularly send peacekeepers on UN missions and have GDP per capita comparable to New Zealand or Spain. Poor petty little struggling nations like that..

We must really envy USA.. yes, that’s it! It’s not that we don’t like what US does to others. We just woke up one morning and started disliking them because of their freedoms..

The funniest part of it all, is that any time anything goes wrong in the world, it's inherently expected that America be there for support. Like, Sierra Leone, Haiti, Cote D'Iviore, Somalia, the Balkan's. And when bad things happen and nothing gets done about? Such as Rwanda, or Darfur, or Somalia since the UN and Slick Willy pulled out? Oh, it's America's fault.

US citizens elected both Slick Willy and Bush. What they do reflect on US citizens. If you elect idiots that invade other countries, whose fault is it then?

And anytime we do something it's ALWAYS for simple economic gain.

Nope, it’s not always. But it’s not always for “we do it only because we are soo good and like to help others” either.

I mean, even in natural disasters...the worlds worst. Who's the first one on the seen? Who's donating more time, more money, and more logistics than the rest of the world combined? Oh, that's the US. Without the US military serving as a logistics base, relief efforts for the Tsunami would have taken days, perhaps longer. Without the US military, relief efforts in Kashmir would have taken God knows how long. We even went into Bam, Iran during their tragic disaster. All selfless, always forgotten and erased.

Who says they are forgotten?

Meanwhile, all the dirty deeds of old Europes past, Russia's past, China's past...as incredibly more brutal, and disturbing as those are...they all get a free pass. Interesting concept.

Who says they are forgotten? Why do you think Europe is not so gun ho about wars and invasions anymore?

Let's throw up to...replacing one horrible leader with another horrible leader.

Well, if it’s part of the Monroe Doctrine.. guess who gets the blame..

 

[sonorakitch]

No it wasn't. The reason why US went there, one that I can figure out off hand, is of course... drugs.

I am very close to placing this in my signature line...something I have never though of doing before.

Princeps, you really got us with this one.

Merkinball, great post...you put the truth into one concise post.

When looking at global discourse around the world today, most stems from Europe's incompetence with managing the upheaval of her colonies. Now, of course, the US is expected to pick up the pieces everywhere.

The US hasn't established the boundaries of the world, dividing ethnic groups and pitting one against the other. The whole of Africa, for example is a European invention; today it is a relentless battleground. I can just as easily as some on this board accuse Europeans for being responsible for the starvation and warring factions which plague Africa today. Middle Eastern tensions are thanks to the British with her unscrupulous carving of the region.

Of course I really don't believe this entirely, but I am not tied up in jealousy over Europe either.

~Chris

 

[neviden]

When looking at global discourse around the world today, most stems from Europe's incompetence with managing the upheaval of her colonies. Now, of course, the US is expected to pick up the pieces everywhere.

Actually, US is not expected to pick up anything. It has proclaimed itself “the world’s policemen”. Only when they do something, it becomes expected of them not to make a mess of everything.

As for whose incompetence is: most of the colonies have achieved independence quite a long time ago. It is important in what state they left their colonies, but it is more a question of what culture/work ethics are there. Compare how Africa with Asia have fared.

The US hasn't established the boundaries of the world, dividing ethnic groups and pitting one against the other. The whole of Africa, for example is a European invention; today it is a relentless battleground. I can just as easily as some on this board accuse Europeans for being responsible for the starvation and warring factions which plague Africa today. Middle Eastern tensions are thanks to the British with her unscrupulous carving of the region.

If every mess today is a result of a “divide and conquer” politics, then the whole Indian subcontinent would be burning in wars right now. But it isn’t..

Not to say that the whole “let us shred indigenous cultures to pieces so that we could rule unchallenged” was a good idea. And actually, the places where this shredding was the most effective are quite good right now (South Africa for example). It’s the places where this was not effective that are in trouble..

Iraq was not in a civil war before, but the things sure changed with US arrival.. I don’t know if I could blame UK for that..

 

[sonorakitch]

Actually, US is not expected to pick up anything. It has proclaimed itself “the world’s policemen”. Only when they do something, it becomes expected of them not to make a mess of everything.

No, the US was proclaimed the "world's policeman" by default. Following WWII, there was no other nation on earth who could handle the flareups of the world. After Europe was rebuilt, the continent still brimming from global war, it turned its revenue towards socialism, economic development, and general societal well being instead of defense. The United States was indeed expected to protect Western Europe from the Communist threat. Also, being by far the single largest military donor to United Nations endeavors over the last 50 years, it could be instead argued that the US was granted the role by a global organization with nobody else to turn to. I will say however, this new found role of the US following WWII was very good to us as well. I just don't think that is the case anymore.

As for whose incompetence is: most of the colonies have achieved independence quite a long time ago. It is important in what state they left their colonies, but it is more a question of what culture/work ethics are there. Compare how Africa with Asia have fared.

I do agree with you in point; certainly not the only factor in Africa's great failure has been the shards of colonialism (hence my disclaimer at the end of my previous post). But the whole of Africa was colonized and torn up following WWII, while many Asian countries have never been under the pressurized thumb of European colonialism (coincidentally the most impressive ones). In regards to when excactly these countries have achieved independence, most every 20th century colony held by the Europeans was granted freedom only after WWII, the exact defining point of American interventionism.

If every mess today is a result of a “divide and conquer” politics, then the whole Indian subcontinent would be burning in wars right now. But it isn’t..

The *relative* peace of the Indian subcontinent is much more to do with institutions of that region than responsible colonialism. Pakistan has been ruled with an Iron Fist, Bangladesh is a basketcase, and India is a mostly Hindu (read: peaceful) democracy with long traditions of cohesion. I would argue to the British gave much more care in the handling of the south Asian transistion, as British India was always declared the crown jewel of the British colonial empire and was economically important to Britain...much more than any other colony post WWII.

Iraq was not in a civil war before, but the things sure changed with US arrival.. I don’t know if I could blame UK for that..

Come on...by far the most grievous problem we face in Iraq today is deep divisions and social discord within Iraq. Kurdish, Sunni, and Shia all grapple for power in a relatively powerless land. The only reason Iraq maintained some stability was from despotic ruthless leaders. Now that such rule is gone, we see the ill effects of Britains partitioning of the center of the Mid-East, with no regard for Persian Shia interests, Arabic Sunni interests, and the persecuted Kurdish interests. Had Britain carved up the mid east more effectively (or perhaps not carved it up at all and let human nature handle it) this mess probably wouldn't be near the state of disarray it is in today.

~Chris

 

[Hygro]

I know almost everyone here is to FAR left, so this is kind of pointless, I guess, but do you think that the continued occupation of Iraq is justified?

I say yes. We got in there, and it is our duty to finish what we started. We should stay there and reduce the terrorist thread as much as possible. When the government WE put there is stable, we should leave.

PLEASE READ:But in the mean time, if we leave, another dictatoship will take power (openly terrorist supporting) and we will have another war that will cause the 3000 dead in Iraq to be wasted lives, and will cause another 3000 dead in the next war, not counting those dead in terrorist attacks founded by the new regime.

So what do you think on my arguments?

I think your arguments suck and makes me want to vote against my actual belief, which is that I somewhat support the occupation, just to disagree with you.

 

[neviden]

No, the US was proclaimed the "world's policeman" by default. Following WWII, there was no other nation on earth who could handle the flareups of the world. After Europe was rebuilt, the continent still brimming from global war, it turned its revenue towards socialism, economic development, and general societal well being instead of defense. The United States was indeed expected to protect Western Europe from the Communist threat. Also, being by far the single largest military donor to United Nations endeavors over the last 50 years, it could be instead argued that the US was granted the role by a global organization with nobody else to turn to. I will say however, this new found role of the US following WWII was very good to us as well. I just don't think that is the case anymore.

Yes, after WW2 destruction of Europe with various revolutionary movements led by power hungry leaders and things like that it was a dangerous world. US played a positive role in that world by being “benign giant” even if you take into account various screw-ups. And yes, it was in US’s best interest to do so, therefore they did it not only “for freedom” but to protect and to benefit themselves.

But the world has changed. EU has emerged as a peaceful and stabilizing force and a model how things can get fixed with tons of regulations, papers, treaties, agreements, trades,.. Soviet union has collapsed. China is communist in a name only. The only thing that is the same is the USA.

USA has grown used to play a role of a “giant”, only now it is no longer “benign”. While it still does things that are good and bad, there is no longer a justification for screw-ups. But it goes even further. Some of its actions are deliberate, almost evil (I know there is no such thing in politics, but this is how they can be perceived) in their nature. This gets compounded by hypocritical “we can do only good” attitude, attempts to remove any constraints on their power, attempts to destroy institutions that try to promote peace and so on..

It is hard to believe, but US has gone from “the good guys” to “threat to world peace” in only a few years.

The only reason Iraq maintained some stability was from despotic ruthless leaders.

Yes, despotic leader that used one ethnic group to control two others. When you remove that leader… guess what happens.. This would not happen if the despotic ruler would not be there in the first place, but you can’t change the history. What everyone was trying to do was to prevent things from getting worse. Yet, US had to go in. Only after they invaded Iraq the US figured out that this was not the smartest idea. Not only that, they had basically no plan for “after we win”, and the things just got out of hand.. now it’s a mess and it could get even uglier.

But even more worrying is all that US talk about Iran..

 

[Merkinball]

I'm sorry, but there are about a billion points up there that need addressing, and I can't hit them all...if I ignore or don't respond to some of them, oh well, think what you will.

But the neoliberal elites want that -- which is why for example Bush wanted to subsidize illegal immigration. They want to lower the wages (even more than they already have) of the working people and use illegal working practices to destroy such things as the pesky unions. - princeps

No. I'm pretty sure it's more about votes than anything else. Although, I'm sure having a permenant slave class in America has a little something to do with it. But on either side of the aisle, it's about VOTES. Illegal immigrants and hispanics represent a voting block which will ultimately turn the next batch of elections. Democrats want them because they're uneducated, poor, in need of social services, and easy to control. Republican's want them just so that Democrats don't have them. Either way, the Democrats will end up having them.

Answering the needs of the poor is a genuine political ambition, not just populist drivel... something which the ultra right-wing American political spectrum has entirely forgotten. In a place like South America, where there is such a longstanding and wide gap between traditional poor and traditional rich, the rich minority being mostly white, and the underlying poor something more local, a genuienly populist democracy (which US has vehemently opposed in the region, with outright aggression and more subtle violence and economic strangulation) would undoubetly result in left-wing policies and that's only obvious. People are just tired of the neoliberal policies which have torn the place apart. - princeps

Do you actually think that the motives of people like Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, and the Sandinista's are rooted in assuaging the ailing poor? The only thing regimes like this end up doing, is fattening up their regime, their power, their wealth. Increasing the very poor to poor, making the middle class poor, by generall killing their economy in the process. Again, look at Chile. Contrast what Chile did to become the most well off country in South America with other socialist models adopted across central and south America.

But take for example, Bolivia, Argentina, Brazil, and so on, all have suffered as a result of following Washington and its IMF --- same is often true with sub-saharan Africa, Russia, but is not true with many massive Asian economies, which have refused to follow Washington's economic framework. - princeps

See folks. This is what I'm talking about. Blatant ignorance. International Monetary Fund, turns into "The Washington DC fund." Where's that rolly eye emoticon again?

Before 1979, IIRC, US supported the extremist Muslim militias in Afghanistan to provoke Russia into a "another vietnam". - princeps

I got news for you, Russia INVADED Afghanistan. Just like every other part of the world that Russia felt like invading, they would have done it anyway.

El-salvador, Nicaragua, Haiti - princeps

And ya know, like I said, the people that actually colonized these places? Free pass right? It's allllllllllllllllll America's fault. And I'm sure you can somehow fit the Jews into your schemes as well.

What is there to be jealous about? - neviden

Power, wealth, prosperity, opportunity.

It should never have happened - neviden

Yeah, I agree. Damn all those yellow democratic capitalist pigs! They all deserved to be purged for their neo-conservative ideologies. I take Frances stance. Doing nothing in the land of yellow people is much more politically friendly in the future than actually standing up for them. Why have a war? Just let them all die.

Vietnam was their colony. Nationalist kicked them out, not to mention that the French were broke (WW 2) and had no choice. Times changed and it was (looking back) the right thing to do. - neviden

Let me get this straight. The right thing to do, is to abandon a group of people that will be subject to genocidal tendencies...if you leave. Got it.

See, this is why nobody takes Slovenia seriously. Because you'd let 5 million people die because nationalists wanted their colonizers out so they could kill 5 million people.

You have to look at it through history. Back then everybody had colonies. And since they weren’t exactly happy with them, they kicked them out. It is relevant NOW only in the context of “is it still the same?”. It is not. Back then it was perfectly natural for big states to invade smaller.. but, now.. is it still? - neviden

I'm just quoting this because it is so pointlessly laughable. What a vain attempt at washing away the blood on Europes hands.

The nerve of you guys to sit here and point fingers at America for getting involved in Nicaragua and Haiti, but saying that it was okay for European nations to meddle in their colonies. I mean, it really is quite unbelievable.

Rwanda was a bad situation. US was criticized for not doing anything, because they are invading and interfering in countries left and right for “protection of civil rights”, but when an actual genocide is taking place they are like “Genocide? What genocide? There are only bunch of people killing themselves. Why should we get involved?”. - neviden

Explain to me why America shouldered the majority of the blame? It wasn't because we "were here and there and everywhere else." It was because it was EXPECTED of us. Make no mistake about it, the people with the most responsibility for the Rwandan genocide were the Europeans. Particularly Belguim, who at the first sign of distress, pulled up ship, and let the entire genocide go down. But it's AMERICA'S fault.

I guess you are talking about Africa.. well.. they have their own problems that has hardly anything to do with the French bombing them or imposing sanctions... - neviden

What does it matter? Through their various wars of indepence, France and nationalists in their respective countries killed more people than America could ever dream of in Iraq. France's colonial policies, and post colonial policies, have literally starved to death millions of people. France's colonies are unconditionally the poorest places on the face of the earth.

You do realize that the WW2 ended in 1945? And you do realize that the people that call attention to what you do aren’t the same people that killed those people? Does that mean that you can always blame them for genocide? Would this be the same as me blaming US for exterminating the Indians? How about the slave trade? Who is to blame when US invades other countries

So what. You guys are pointing out meddling before 1945. Where do you guys draw the line? "Oh wait, uhhhh, we need to ignore all the horrible crap that came out of Europe BEFORE 1945. Can't talk about that stuff." I forget, Europe gets a free pass. Hey, since all the bad in the world that Europe caused pre- 1945 gets a free pass. Why don't you go country by country in Africa, and tally up all the people that died because of Europes colonial meddling AFTER 1945. A million in Somalia for Italy, a couple million in Rwanda for Belguim. Lord God knows how many people were killed in France's colonies... And I got knews for you, the ideologies that killed native American's and brought slavery to this land, THOSE PEOPLE WERE EUROPEANS! Those are European superiority complexes...not American.

Why do you think Europe is not so gun ho about wars and invasions anymore? - neviden

Because it's cheaper to have America do it. Because it's more politically friendly to have the American's in your own backyard, than your own troops. Because it's more politically friendly to blame America when your African colonies are falling apart and deteriorating because of your colonial meddling, than it is to say, "my bad guys, sorry. We'll take care of our own mess."

Seriously, when Europe refused to do anything about the situation in the Balkans, but DEMANDED that America get involved...that's really telling.

So long as America is the most powerful nation on earth, we will be the scapegoat for EVERYTHING that could possibly be percieved as wrong in the world.

Actually, US is not expected to pick up anything. - neviden

What are you talking about? We were expected to take out Saddam. It's our fault he remains. We were expected to fix Somalia. We were expected to clean up the Balkans. We were expected to save Rwanda. We're expected to end famine. Our military is expected to help in any major humanitarian disaster.

Don't kid yourself, we're expected to shoulder the majority of the burden. Europe is expected...to shoulder basically nothing, commit nothing, do nothing, and support nothing. A do nothing attitude leaves them looking high and dry. And anything goes wrong in Europe in the future? Well, not only will it be America's fault, but it will be expected of America to fix it.

As for whose incompetence is: most of the colonies have achieved independence quite a long time ago. It is important in what state they left their colonies, but it is more a question of what culture/work ethics are there. Compare how Africa with Asia have fared. - neviden

Can you possibly wrap your mind around the fact that Europe left Africa with nothing. I mean...nothing. No resources, no infrastructure, no education system. They invested NOTHING into the education systems of Africa. And when they left? They took everything, and pretty much left the place to crumble. The way Europe left Africa, was how they left countries in Southeast Asia that are NOT progressing. Countries like Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam. Places that had nothing invested, and that were completely abandoned. It's entirely European of you to say, "look at culture and work ethic." I got news for you, the people in Africa are more driven, more culturally oriented than Europe or America. All these people want are jobs. But there's nothing there, nothing invested... You walk through slums, find people that speak five languages and can do integral calculus, but they can't find a job.

Gimme a break.

The reasons that Africa remain in poverty extend beyond Europes gross meddling, but Europes gross meddling is easily the number one factor in it today.

Go to Africa before you criticize it.

then the whole Indian subcontinent would be burning in wars right now. But it isn’t... - neviden

Oh, hey, look, another free pass! Funny how more people have died in violence since 1942 on the Indian subcontinent than in ANY of America's percieved "meddling." Nevermind the tens of thousands that have been killed in Kashmir. Where's the rolly eyed emoticon again? Sikh violence? Never. Free pass.

And actually, the places where this shredding was the most effective are quite good right now (South Africa for example). - neviden

SA is successful because it had a REAL economy to be built. The Brittains invested, and didn't completely abandon South Africa when they left it because they had something to gain from it. The British invested into the education system of South Africa, and most importantly, the left a system of government that could be built upon, and helped form the first SA government. The same footprint can be seen in British Somaliland vs French Somaliland (Djibouti), and Italian Somalia.

I really don't know the entire history of how the UK's colonies were managed, but some turned out better than others.

Iraq was not in a civil war before, but the things sure changed with US arrival.. I don’t know if I could blame UK for that..

Real easy. The Kurds weren't given a country. This conjures up violence in Turkey and Iraq. They left the minority party in power in Iraq. I don't see how you can really say that Iraq wasn't at a civil war when Saddam murdered about a quarter of a million people in the post GWI uprising. The reason there was no overt civil war, was because it would have resulted in genocide. But hey, that's the reason you think having Saddam in power was a good thing. And that's why you give the colonial meddling of Iraq a free pass as well.

But the world has changed. EU has emerged as a peaceful and stabilizing force and a model how things can get fixed with tons of regulations, papers, treaties, agreements, trades - neviden

Oh please, what matter of substance has the EU fixed? That list is about as long as the UN's. Hey!!! Look at the EU at work in Darfur, fixing the genocide with regulations, papers, treaties, and agreements.

 

[classical_hero]

This is a complete mess because we did not finish the job when we had the chance in the first one. We ar paying for their mistakes.

 

[bathsheba666]

This is a complete mess because we did not finish the job when we had the chance in the first one. We ar paying for their mistakes.

When we had the chance in the first one, there were more intelligent people in charge who did not 'finish the job' precisely because they knew it would cause this mess.

We are paying for the mistakes of the idiots currently in charge.

 

[neviden]

Let me get this straight. The right thing to do, is to abandon a group of people that will be subject to genocidal tendencies...if you leave. Got it.

Nope. The right thing to do is to prevent this kind of situation from happening in the first place. And if it does, try not to make things worse.. That does not mean we would not use force if there was no other way to resolve things.

Because you'd let 5 million people die because nationalists wanted their colonizers out so they could kill 5 million people.

Let me guess.. this is a replacement for a “domino theory”. Nationalist wanted to kick outsiders out of their country. First the French, then the US, then the Chinese, and along the way they went and kicked the Khmer Rouge who did commit genocide.

How many people did they kill once they did finally kick everybody out? Well.. they rounded all the collaborators and “traitors” and.. put them in jails (well.. concentration camps.. there were many of them..). Was that ok? No it wasn’t, but after what has happened to their country it was not too surprising. Interestingly, they did not kill them all.. If they wanted they could. So, why didn’t they if they had those plans from the beginning? It’s not like anybody would be able to stop them..

Nationalists wanted only one thing: To stop the Outsiders from exploiting them and get to run their own country.

I'm just quoting this because it is so pointlessly laughable. What a vain attempt at washing away the blood on Europes hands.

This wasn’t an attempt to wash away the blood on “Europes” hands. I have no intention of minimizing the damage various countries did. That’s why I said EVERYBODY screwed up. Or more to the point, they did what they thought was “the right thing to do”. White mans burden and all that. Looking at the history it goes on the same page alongside slavery, crusades, inquisition and the things like that. They looked fine to those guys, but those guys are long dead.

Make no mistake about it, the people with the most responsibility for the Rwandan genocide were the Europeans. Particularly Belguim, who at the first sign of distress, pulled up ship, and let the entire genocide go down. But it's AMERICA'S fault.

The thing about Europeans is, that this is a new concept. 50 years ago there was no such thing as an European. There was a German, French, British,.. So when Belgians screw up, the British can’t/won’t help out. This situation is changing, but the change will take a lot of time.

So what. You guys are pointing out meddling before 1945. Where do you guys draw the line? "Oh wait, uhhhh, we need to ignore all the horrible crap that came out of Europe BEFORE 1945. Can't talk about that stuff." I forget, Europe gets a free pass. Hey, since all the bad in the world that Europe caused pre- 1945 gets a free pass.

Why 1945? Because it was an end of an order that lasted for centuries. Europe’s powers were exhausted after two world wars and more importantly, nationalism meant that they had no hopes in keeping the colonies even if you wanted to. Some tried with many millions killed and still failed. The system that worked for running the colonies failed apart when the “masters” left. And “masters” had no choice.. they had to leave..

The thing about fighting a nationalistic “insurgency” is that you can’t change the system to enable them to prosper after they leave. This is something that US is discovering in Iraq.

African colonies are falling apart and deteriorating because of your colonial meddling, than it is to say, "my bad guys, sorry. We'll take care of our own mess."

This reminds me of African claims that US must pay Africans a lot of money since they took those slaves from Africa couple of centuries ago, therefore this must be the reason why they are poor..

Seriously, when Europe refused to do anything about the situation in the Balkans, but DEMANDED that America get involved...that's really telling.

who demanded that US gets involved?

So long as America is the most powerful nation on earth, we will be the scapegoat for EVERYTHING that could possibly be percieved as wrong in the world.

Don’t you think you are being a little dramatic?

Don't kid yourself, we're expected to shoulder the majority of the burden. Europe is expected...to shoulder basically nothing, commit nothing, do nothing, and support nothing. A do nothing attitude leaves them looking high and dry. And anything goes wrong in Europe in the future? Well, not only will it be America's fault, but it will be expected of America to fix it.

If this is such a big burden to carry, why does US actively work to reduce power of the other nations and institutions? Remember “old” and “new” Europe?

Can you possibly wrap your mind around the fact that Europe left Africa with nothing. I mean...nothing. No resources, no infrastructure, no education system.

And this is different from when they arrived.. how?

Oh I see.. they invaded stone age peoples (bows and arrows), and when they left they should have left the industrialized cities. I think you missed the point of the colonies. The colonies were something to exploit. That is the reason why they had to use guns and why the locals kicked them out. The whole concept of a colony is economically flawed. They cost more money to run then they are worth. You can’t invest something if there is nothing that can be invested (no profit).

They invested NOTHING into the education systems of Africa. And when they left? They took everything, and pretty much left the place to crumble.

No, they did not took everything.. they only took the most important thing: Themselves. And, most of them had no intention of leaving in the first place. If they did, they would do it differently. Look at what happened at Hong Kong.

You walk through slums, find people that speak five languages and can do integral calculus, but they can't find a job.

Sure.. and this is Europes fault.. That’s like me saying, I am educated but I can’t find the job because the Germans burned my grandfathers house in the WW2.

SA is successful because it had a REAL economy to be built.

They are successful because the white people stayed in power. And this is not meant as a racial thing. The system didn’t broke down since there were enough of them there to keep everything going. Remember the Apartheid. It was run by the whites. Look at what happened in Zimbabwe to see what happened when they did “the smart thing” (let unqualified blacks run the country without experience)..

The white people brought and implemented a system. Unless there was an organized transfer of power and know-how everything broke down when they left. Nationalistic movements kind of made this transfer impossible, even though the fight was right and ethical and just. Where the white people stayed, it was ok.

Another thing was who the “white masters” were.. Some were more successful then the others. Not for the lack of trying..

They left the minority party in power in Iraq. I don't see how you can really say that Iraq wasn't at a civil war when Saddam murdered about a quarter of a million people in the post GWI uprising.

It was a power struggle between those in power and those that rebelled against the dictator. It’s a slight distinction, gut very important one. You can blame “the regime”, hang them and then it’s kind of settled. “We would never kill our fellow Iraqis, but they were threatening the security of our country. I was only doing my job”

Now, it is a civil war, where nobody can be blamed..

Oh please, what matter of substance has the EU fixed?

Basically: no more wars between EU member states. To do anything outside of EU it would need to become something different..

That list is about as long as the UN's. Hey!!! Look at the EU at work in Darfur, fixing the genocide with regulations, papers, treaties, and agreements.

You can use those before.. after that you need guns. Europe has lots of guns, what it does not have is “Europe”.. It’s still bunch of countries that have problems to agree to anything..

 

[CartesianFart]

I know almost everyone here is to FAR left, so this is kind of pointless, I guess, but do you think that the continued occupation of Iraq is justified?

I say yes. We got in there, and it is our duty to finish what we started. We should stay there and reduce the terrorist thread as much as possible. When the government WE put there is stable, we should leave.

PLEASE READ:But in the mean time, if we leave, another dictatoship will take power (openly terrorist supporting) and we will have another war that will cause the 3000 dead in Iraq to be wasted lives, and will cause another 3000 dead in the next war, not counting those dead in terrorist attacks founded by the new regime.

So what do you think on my arguments?

What do I think of your arguments?
Well, I think it is short-sighted to say the least since you are only asking questions in such a way as an ultimatum of two proposition that we can choose.

The war is far more complex with thousands of contingencies that can happen if one of the two conditions that you have constructed is made.

 

[Merkinball]

Nope. The right thing to do is to prevent this kind of situation from happening in the first place. And if it does, try not to make things worse.. That does not mean we would not use force if there was no other way to resolve things. - neviden

That's what we did in Vietnam...

Let me guess.. this is a replacement for a “domino theory”. Nationalist wanted to kick outsiders out of their country. First the French, then the US, then the Chinese, and along the way they went and kicked the Khmer Rouge who did commit genocide. - neviden

No, it's not a replacement for the domino theory. They were making overt attacks on French forces as it was, to get the French to leave. They waged war on America, to get us to leave. They wanted a playground. Why would they ask the Chinese to leave? The Chinese were helping, aiding, funding and throwing thousands of troops into their communist effort? The Chinese were an allie in what they were trying to accomplish.

Was that ok? No it wasn’t, but after what has happened to their country it was not too surprising. Interestingly, they did not kill them all.. If they wanted they could. So, why didn’t they if they had those plans from the beginning? It’s not like anybody would be able to stop them..

Nationalists wanted only one thing: To stop the Outsiders from exploiting them and get to run their own country.

Do you think it stopped at "get the outsiders out so we can run our country."

No, of course not. It was get the outsiders out and set up another brutal communist dictatorship. Similar to the model that was already in place in North Vietnam, that had already killed who knows how many thousands of people, and sent nearly a MILLION political refugees seeking safety into South Vietnam. Wiki it.

They looked fine to those guys, but those guys are long dead. - neviden

Which is why American slavery has been brought up in this thread...

The thing about Europeans is, that this is a new concept. 50 years ago there was no such thing as an European. There was a German, French, British,.. So when Belgians screw up, the British can’t/won’t help out. This situation is changing, but the change will take a lot of time. - neviden

Oh, you mean the EU hasn't fixed all that? Thanks for pointing out or admitting to...I don't know what this is in this context, one of the arrogant flaws of Europe right now.

Why 1945? Because it was an end of an order that lasted for centuries. Europe’s powers were exhausted after two world wars and more importantly, nationalism meant that they had no hopes in keeping the colonies even if you wanted to. Some tried with many millions killed and still failed. The system that worked for running the colonies failed apart when the “masters” left. And “masters” had no choice.. they had to leave..

The thing about fighting a nationalistic “insurgency” is that you can’t change the system to enable them to prosper after they leave. This is something that US is discovering in Iraq. - neviden

You didn't answser my question. Why does Europe get a free pass? I don't even see it as an end of an era either. Europe was still meddling all over the place, still maintained control over Africa and the middle east, and still maintains an ever present...presence there. Tell me. What were troops from Belguim still doing in Rwanda anyway? How does your response justify the absolute lack of moral rectitude that European nations exhibited in how they treated the colonies and in particular Africa? Europe is more interested in their own self interests and in how they will be percieved by the world, than they are in doing what is right. As is evident in Rwanda, Somalia, Darfur, and Zimbabwe.

This reminds me of African claims that US must pay Africans a lot of money since they took those slaves from Africa couple of centuries ago, therefore this must be the reason why they are poor... - neviden

What does this have to do with Europe owning up to their own personal wrongs of Africa. If you think what Europe did in Africa is even close to American importation of slaves, you're crazy.

who demanded that US gets involved? - neviden

NATO, the UN, all kinds of European leaders at the time. Not Bill Clinton or the American public for whatever bankrupt reasons they had. The fact of the matter is that Europe had tried for a while to take care of Milosevic, and failed miserably at controlling a hostile situation in their own backyard. America was need to bail them out.

If this is such a big burden to carry, why does US actively work to reduce power of the other nations and institutions? Remember “old” and “new” Europe? - neviden

We don't. If you guys want to be strong, go for it. We're gonna one up you though. America doesn't see Europe as a military threat at all. There's no reason for us not to support you guys being strong entities in the world.

Oh I see.. they invaded stone age peoples (bows and arrows), and when they left they should have left the industrialized cities. I think you missed the point of the colonies. The colonies were something to exploit. - neviden

What a great sobering admission. So Europe was their to exploit. They did their exploiting, and left. Even after the liberalism of Europe at the turn of the 20th century, Europe still felt that they had absolutely no moral obligation to do anything for African nations. To not build education systems, to not build transportation networks, to leave their people with foundations on which to build stable, effective, and fair governments. They did nothing to assuage the colonial meddling they played in to. Nope, they were there to exploit, and even in the fifties, sixties, seventies, and eighties, they had no obligation whatsoever to leave something that could stand on its own two feet. Nope. Just leave. See ya guys, peace! I'm not saying they needed to leave the entire continent looking like Europe, but they should have at LEAST left these countries so that they could stand on their own two feet. They left the place in turmoil, have preserved the colonial borders, and done nothing change things as a result of the wars, genocide, and famine that have occured there primarily because of what European nations did there during their profitable exploitation phase.

Exploit. Profit. Leave. Free pass. No debt whatsoever to those you exploited.

Sure.. and this is Europes fault.. That’s like me saying, I am educated but I can’t find the job because the Germans burned my grandfathers house in the WW2. - neviden

Absolutely. There's a big difference between post WWII Europe and post colonial Africa. There was a concerted effort to rebuild your grandfathers house. There was a concerted effort to build stable governments. There was a concerted effort to rebuild the economy there. There was a concerted effort to ensure that ethnic divides were lessoned. There was real, massive investment, and the resources to do it with.

Africa was utterly abandoned with a broad base of the population earning less than a dollar a day. Nobody sought to build their governments, they let the tribes duke it out. Nobody has sought to build their economies, they let them fight over the resources. Hell, the west can't even keep African's from starving to death for Christ's sake.

The simple fact of the matter is that you absolutely cannot build a nation state if you do not have financing and investment. A great portion of Africa doesn't have that.

They are successful because the white people stayed in power. And this is not meant as a racial thing. The system didn’t broke down since there were enough of them there to keep everything going. - neviden

You're right, I won't call it racist at all. It's quite true. And make no mistake about it, those that stayed and continued to invest were British. They had continued investment in the economy, they invested in education, they built transportation networks. They assuaged ethnic tensions. They did all the things that should have been done everywhere else across the continent. The left the country as though they had some sense of moral obligation to the people there. Your contrasting view of Zimbabwe and South Africa is exactly what I'm talking about. The British just up and left Zimbabwe. And even in recent times, when things got even worse, they up and left all together, and will never go back. It'll be someone else's debt to repay.

Basically: no more wars between EU member states. To do anything outside of EU it would need to become something different... - neviden

The EU is an economic block and nothing more. End wars between EU states? No EU states have been at war when they've been admitted into it. Aside from the Balkans, there hasn't been unrest in Europe anyway for a...a long time. Since WWII unless there's something I'm missing. Revolutions in Czeck republic and your old Yugoslavia...but I can't think of much else.