Do they have a right to Hate America? [Archive]

meanlittlechimp

03-10-2008, 03:04 PM

Cuban government hates America on principle or at least the longest grudge one can thing of.

Islam on the other hand, depending on who their Iman is, are taught to hate anyone who is not Muslim, and that can go for those who do not believe like them.

I have studied Islamic History and the idea of Islam loving something other than Islam have been few if any. That can also be said of Latin and Greek Christianity. The difference is, for the most part, Christianity has given that up. Whereas, Islam still teaches that.

So for the Iranian Governmen to hate America based on "something it may have done" is a stretch. They hate us because we are the Worlds Power, Islam teaches there is no god but Allah, and yet an infeldel power holds sway over Islamic lands is nothing but a slap to them and to their god.

So Iran hates us on religious principle, Cuba hates us on governerning principle.

Cuba: you don't think they might hate us because of the 50 year embargo or our numerous attempts to overthrow Castro. How would America feel if another foreign power was constantly trying to assassinate Bush? I hate Bush but would still hate the foreign power who tried to assassinate our leaders, and I think most would too, and furthermore, they would have a right too.

The former regime under Battista allowed a small corrupt minority to prosper during the heyday of mob run casinos and hotels in Cuba; while the majority of Cuban populace was illiterate and the only jobs available were low wage service industry employment catering to American tourists. Many women turned to prostitution under the Battista regime, while elite upper classes hung out with Mobsters and wealthy foreign nationals trying to rape the place for natural resources and resorts.

Most Cubans love the American Dream and the principles we stand for, theoretically. What they hate is all the coup and assassination attempts and economic blackmail that strangled their populace, because we don't approve of their leaders.

Iran: religious principle? I don't think so. They used to have a constitutional democracy until we overthrew (Mossadegh). After we ousted him we replaced him with the Shah (a monarchy). When the SECULAR intellectuals complained or protested, we jailed or executed them via CIA trained death squads. The religious right were the only ones ballsy enough to overthrow this puppet government, which forced droves of secular people to convert because they owed a great debt to the right, who expelled their country from the yoke of foreign domination.

They don't have to read books on this stuff, the Iranians lived through it. Before the Shah, they were by far the most secular and west leaning state in the middle east, but we had to out Mossadegh because he had the audacity to nationalize the oil industry. Anyone who would think the oil on their land shouldn't be owned outright by BP and Texaco is obviously a dangerous nutjob that should be replaced with a monarchy right?

After they finally oust the Shah, what do we do but arm their next door neighbor (Saddam-Iraq) to the teeth and help instigate the Iran-Iraq war. Who we turn around and attack later anyways (Iraq), after his use to us has run out. We've been killling Iranians for over 50 years now. How many Americans died to Iranians? Wonder why they don't adore us as a shining light of democracy and good will?

thod

03-10-2008, 03:28 PM

The US teaches their children in school that they are the good guys and the greatest.

The reality is that the US is not the good guys they are self serving pragmatists. They are happy to perform horrible acts if it will benefit the US even slightly. This may be water boarding people in Cuba or overthrowing democratically elected governments. All that matters is if their is gain to the US. They are of course held in check by world opinion etc but that is once again self serving in that all those countries feeling bad about the US is not in their interest. They have this notion of US v everyone else. What is fair and reasonable within the US is different to what is fair to non US. This is akin to saying its not moral to torture your own children but its OK to torture the children of other men.

The greatest country in the world attitude is bound to grate on everyone else. Nobody likes someone that is so full of themselves. That they are entitled to get what they want and everyone that disagrees with them is to be suppressed, smashed, or otherwise destroyed.

Its hardly surprising that Cuba doesn't like the US. How could you like someone that has blockaded your ports forcing you to live in poverty. That has set up teams to assassinate your leader. And why is the US acting like the big kid bullying the little kid? because their whole country was owned by Americans. They took back the country to feed their people leading to financial loss to some rich guys. A whole countries policy is being dictated by the wallets of a few rich men not America's interest.

The Muslims hate America because of its cultural impact. They need to control the populace, what it can see, what it can think. The greatest threat to Islam is not guns and missiles but the thoughts of its people. If they can be shown another way they may cease to be Muslim.

stasis

03-10-2008, 03:42 PM

Do you think the Iranians, the Cubans etc have any right to hate the American Government?
I don't think people need a right to feel something. That they exist to feel is manifest. Whether or not their hatred is oriented to something just or rational is another issue, and I'm going to presume that's what you're attempting to ask here.

I would first want to point out that the international socio-political system is an anarchic one at present. Individual states are largely considered sovereign unto themselves, and states in conflict tend to act in what they perceive as being their self-interest to the active detriment of an antagonist. States such as that of Cuba, who've been sanctioned (or otherwise threatened) by the United States, are engaged in political conflict of this kind. It would be in keeping with self-sovereign state-based antagonism to react negatively, regardless of what prompted it.

thod

03-10-2008, 04:09 PM

States such as that of Cuba, who've been sanctioned (or otherwise threatened) by the United States, are engaged in political conflict of this kind. It would be in keeping with self-sovereign state-based antagonism to react negatively, regardless of what prompted it.

In what way is Cuba a threat to the US. Maybe they will cut of supplies of Havana cigars or rum, all of which can be bought elsewhere. If the argument is that they shouldn't criticize the US administration then I am opposed, any opinion is worth listening to if it gives new insight. I see it like the US shouting about the threat from Bermuda, they may invade, we got get them first. Lets get real, Cuba isn't a threat to anyone its pure vindictiveness on the part of the US these days.

stasis

03-10-2008, 04:24 PM

Lets get real, Cuba isn't a threat to anyone its pure vindictiveness on the part of the US these days.
I believe Cuba has been alternatively considered an ideological threat and a strategic threat to the United States in the past, which is what prompted the sanctions and invasions and so on. Whether they realistically are or are not does not much matter given the anarchic manner in which modern nation-states arrange themselves. This type of conflict is endemic to the system itself. Rather, the point I was speaking to was that of Cuba having a prompt within the context of this sort of international system to "hate" the American government.

Homini Lupus

03-10-2008, 04:58 PM

Hatred is just a tool in the hands of leaders wich can be used to fuel a policy (included war).
Did Germany have the right to hate the victors of WWI? After all, that country was blamed for beginning the war, something wich is tought as very partial by most historians.

Most people doesn't care about past historical grudges. Of course, some do, but most of the hatred comes because of an actual problem and is used by politicians to their advantage.

If cuban leaders had the possibility and an advantage in better relations with the US I think they would follow that path and suppress any residual hatred. The same would probably go with Iran.

About americans relating with foreign hatred, I'm not american so I'm not sure how it goes the other side of the hill. Some people in Italy thinks american government is too boastful and all, but I think of it as another country's government pursuing its interest; when it seems boisterous, we must understand that the target of their assertions is american public, not foreign. Yes, our governments clash on some issues but in our history we have learnt to deal with those situations without resorting to brute force if we need.

About rights, people have (or should) the right to feel and think whatever they want. About nations there are (mostly) unwritten (but binding) rules wich state how they (should) deal with their problems. War is one of them (some authors would argue this point), often not the most effective.

Yes, the system of states is anarchic but it's still a sistem and most of the times it works because is based on self interest and so it tends to find a balance. Obviously, it's hard to notice when it works.

meanlittlechimp

03-11-2008, 01:10 PM

I don't think people need a right to feel something. That they exist to feel is manifest. Whether or not their hatred is oriented to something just or rational is another issue, and I'm going to presume that's what you're attempting to ask here.

That is exactly what I'm asking. So do you think they are being just and rational? or do you think it's driven by some idealogical premise that they just hate democracy and apple pie opposed to specific unjustifiable actions towards them.

Most people doesn't care about past historical grudges. Of course, some do, but most of the hatred comes because of an actual problem and is used by politicians to their advantage.

If cuban leaders had the possibility and an advantage in better relations with the US I think they would follow that path and suppress any residual hatred. The same would probably go with Iran.

I agree with the better relations argument. They were somewhat forced into their position because they refused to be completely subservient puppets to US Will. But they always, INITIALLY, wanted good relations until we proved to them, it would never be the case. You can't do much worse than overthrowing their governments to show diplomacy is not an option for them.

I disagree re: historical grudges. It's an issue of who was the victim as well as how recent and severe the victimization was. When the Iranians were under the tyranny of the Shah, after we ousted their rightful and progressive government. They did indeed hold a grudge - they became the most rapid anti-West, anti-US state in the region; when they were the most progressive and west leaning just a few decades before.

If your living relatives have missing limbs they do indeed hold that grudge. We don't hold grudges in the West, because 95% of the population isn't usually even aware we're doing these things to third world countries in the first place; so what is there to hold a grudge about?

How many Americans were aware there were 2 million Filipinos slaughtered in the early 1900's. How many were aware we invaded East Timor (via proxy-Suharto) when we discovered oil there in the 70's. We slaughtered half the entire population and put the rest in concentration camps and tell people we're prancing around the world spreading democracy.

Since WWII, we have overthrown dozens of democracies or legitimate governments! Furthermore, we have NEVER installed a democracy in place of the gov't me just overthrew, since WWII (Japan, Germany). It would have been impossible to set up a puppet government in countries that large or technological sophisticated. And the allies learned their lesson from too heavily penalizing the Germans for losing WWI.

What baffles me is how the majority of the US population thinks we're running around spreading democracy in places like Iraq, when the track record is overwhelmingly the opposite and is a matter of public record! It's disturbingly Orwellian. The US changed the name from Department of WAR (up until WWII) to the Department of DEFENSE (exactly when we became the aggressors in places like Dominican Republic, Panama, Guyana, Peru, Chile, Honduras, Vietnam, etc.)

A friend of mine was in Mexico and their tour bus got hijacked (by Central Americans, not Mexicans). They made everyone show their passports and let all the Europeans and other foreigners go and robbed only the Americans. I think they held a grudge.

Octavianus Caesar

03-11-2008, 11:12 PM

Cuba: you don't think they might hate us because of the 50 year embargo or our numerous attempts to overthrow Castro. How would America feel if another foreign power was constantly trying to assassinate Bush? I hate Bush but would still hate the foreign power who tried to assassinate our leaders, and I think most would too, and furthermore, they would have a right too.

The former regime under Battista allowed a small corrupt minority to prosper during the heyday of mob run casinos and hotels in Cuba; while the majority of Cuban populace was illiterate and the only jobs available were low wage service industry employment catering to American tourists. Many women turned to prostitution under the Battista regime, while elite upper classes hung out with Mobsters and wealthy foreign nationals trying to rape the place for natural resources and resorts.

Most Cubans love the American Dream and the principles we stand for, theoretically. What they hate is all the coup and assassination attempts and economic blackmail that strangled their populace, because we don't approve of their leaders.

Iran: religious principle? I don't think so. They used to have a constitutional democracy until we overthrew (Mossadegh). After we ousted him we replaced him with the Shah (a monarchy). When the SECULAR intellectuals complained or protested, we jailed or executed them via CIA trained death squads. The religious right were the only ones ballsy enough to overthrow this puppet government, which forced droves of secular people to convert because they owed a great debt to the right, who expelled their country from the yoke of foreign domination.

They don't have to read books on this stuff, the Iranians lived through it. Before the Shah, they were by far the most secular and west leaning state in the middle east, but we had to out Mossadegh because he had the audacity to nationalize the oil industry. Anyone who would think the oil on their land shouldn't be owned outright by BP and Texaco is obviously a dangerous nutjob that should be replaced with a monarchy right?

After they finally oust the Shah, what do we do but arm their next door neighbor (Saddam-Iraq) to the teeth and help instigate the Iran-Iraq war. Who we turn around and attack later anyways (Iraq), after his use to us has run out. We've been killling Iranians for over 50 years now. How many Americans died to Iranians? Wonder why they don't adore us as a shining light of democracy and good will?

In the Muslim World Religion and Politics are synonymous with each other. The youth of Iran like America, I had a professor who had a friend who was a reporter and she said that the demonstrations by the youth are "set up" and when it is over they would ask her to help them come to America or they would tell her they have relatives in America.

America has done some stupid things, like arming our future enemies, so you will get no argument from me. But I think with Iran you miss the point, you think they hate us because we tinker with them, well the youth want to be free. The older people realize the revolution was a mistake and now both sides suffer under the Mullahs. But the Mullahs do not hate us for what we did, they hate us purely on religious motive, simple we are infidel and they are Muslim, and because of the that determines their political outlook with the US, thus "The Great Satan".

Dreamer

03-11-2008, 11:28 PM

They have every right to hate the American government & the American people for reasons ranging from embargoing socialist utopias, having created Mcdonalds to producing crappy music(one russian I have spoken to puts it this way :"When I hear Yankee music now, I wish the communists were back").

Of course, they should fully expect an American response to the actions that this hatred might motivate.

Not the people or the culture, but the government, because of what we've done to the Middle East or Latin America in the last 50 years or so.

They have every right to hate the government,which has been elected by the American people, whose taxes are paid by the American people, and who protects American culture.

Nothing says "I want peace " than by hating the government and loving the people.

"I love your big macs & Britney spears however I like to bomb your financial institutions and your folks in MARPAT". Hey,the guy likes Britney Spears, what more can be said about him?

Antares

03-12-2008, 09:03 AM

Do you think the Iranians, the Cubans etc have any right to hate the American Government?

Focusing on this statement, I'd say they have every right to hate America. Do I have the right to hate my teacher? Yes, I think I do. They certainly have the right to this emotion, no? I cannot think to deny them the right to feel hate. However, should they act on this hate and cause turmoil in the world? Do they have the right to affect others because of this hate? Isn't hate, like love, largely irrational? Then should they act upon it? Absolutely not.

Homini Lupus

03-12-2008, 01:26 PM

Their right to take violent measures is counterbalanced by ours to defend ourselves. Question is that finding a better way would probably benefit both. But finding alternatives way is much more difficult than just using base irrational feelings like hate.

deepFlow

03-12-2008, 01:47 PM

Do we "have a right" to treat "them" like bugs which we can step on and grind up whenever it's convenient for us?

Homini Lupus

03-12-2008, 03:09 PM

In terms of international right the short answer is yes. This doesn't mean it's the best policy.

futureperfect5

03-15-2008, 10:10 PM

Do you think the Iranians, the Cubans etc have any right to hate the American Government? Do you think they're mostly terrorists and communists who hate democracy and capitalism and not because of unjust actions against their civilians?

Not the people or the culture, but the government, because of what we've done to the Middle East or Latin America in the last 50 years or so.
Freedom of expression ... anyone could "hate" whatever they want ...
So what?

The United States government represents the the state, not the people -- usually.
People confused the state with the country:

Are you referring to:
citizens
national identity
culture

Many countries, have a very homogeneous population ...
the United States does not.

Many countries do not have internal states (or, provinces) with the level of freedom and autonomy which exists in Canada and the United States.

Thinking from a foreign perspective, it is difficult for many people to appreciate the disparate actions among US States.

I was overseas when (remember the Hugh ... Grant I think is his name), Hugh was arrested from his car fling? One of my co-workers asked me would Grant be in trouble if it were his wife with him in the car ...
my reply was, :undecided: "It depends." Every state has specific laws at the state level. He :stunned: really didn't understand.

Looking at the government as an outsider, especially from countries with state religious and religious bodies who have direct input into state affairs, to recognize that just because the U.S. government makes a statement not enough is involved or approving, or even aware. [Remember: Many countries only have state-run news ... So, how are they to know what to think beyond what they are told?]

Blaze2000

03-16-2008, 11:13 AM

Like most things there are a number of reasons that the world has a dim opinion of the U.S. Probably, the leading reason would be our arrogance in dictated to others how they should live.

The shenanigan's that the CIA has been involved in over the last 50 years are reasons enough to dislike us. This combined with the inconsistency of having our foreign policy change every 4-8 years compounds the problem.

Lastly, I think the general ignorance and lack of interest on the part of the American people enables all of this to happen. Americans, IMO, generally don't want to bully people around, but when the govt. makes it's case to do something, folks don't usually make the effort on their own to figure out if it's a good idea or not.

Sylvanus

03-18-2008, 03:21 AM

I suspect that those people know even more about the wrongdoings of the American government than we do in this country. Why would our government allow us an unbiased understanding of recent history?

Because of the first amendment.

Theodoric

03-18-2008, 03:49 PM

A rather ambiguous statement. Are you asking if they have a right to hate, or if their hatred is unfounded? There is also the question of who is advocating this hatred. Is it the government, the citizenry, fringe groups (either religious, political, or secular)? Granted, it would be extremely difficult to find this type of information out due to the fact that both Iran and Cuba are extremely closed societies. From what little leaks out of the countries and makes its way into the news it seems that the majority of the citizenry does not hate America but is more concerned with internal problems such as poverty and unemployment which their governments fail to address. The bulk of this 'hatred' usually comes from highly prolific individuals such as government and religious leaders that garner more attention than the regular citizenry.

Quite Robert

03-19-2008, 10:13 AM

meanlittlechimp

03-19-2008, 02:09 PM

Less America than American foriegn policy. You can't blame 300 million people for the actions of politicians. It's not like we have any impact on what they do (not when elections are determined by who raises the most money for campaign ads)

True enough.

But you can blame the dumb asses who voted in the government who determines foreign policy. You can also say you can't blame the Germans during WWII for Hitler; since not all of them run the government, and just voted Hitler in and supported his policies. But... I kind of blame them.

You can also say you can't blame the entire nations of Iraq or Afghanistan because a handful of Saudis blew up the Trade Center, which makes a lot more sense.

America has done some stupid things, like arming our future enemies, so you will get no argument from me. But I think with Iran you miss the point, you think they hate us because we tinker with them, well the youth want to be free. The older people realize the revolution was a mistake and now both sides suffer under the Mullahs. But the Mullahs do not hate us for what we did, they hate us purely on religious motive, simple we are infidel and they are Muslim, and because of the that determines their political outlook with the US, thus "The Great Satan".

Sorry I missed this earlier. I don't agree the Mullahs just hate us for purely religious motive. Why don't they hate the other non Muslim countries as much?

You're saying the Mullahs didn't care about the fact we overthrew their elected government and helped violently suppress all protest or disagreement with it after installing a repressive monarchy? You're saying they're not mad we put the Baa'thists in power and armed Saddam and supplied him with the weapons he used for the Iran-Iraq war, in which millions of their people were killed or wounded? You don't think they're mad that the US supports Israel and annexation of Palestinian land? You're wrong.

Besides the mullahs wouldn't have nearly as much power if the average Iranian didn't have the hate start swelling up from these actions in the first place. The Mullahs had almost no power over the Mossadegh regime we overthrew. They only rose in response to the fervor and hatred caused by direct foreign action (US and British) against their state.

SeaCzar

03-19-2008, 07:28 PM

ShaiGar

03-19-2008, 07:50 PM

Some people in Italy thinks american government is too boastful and all
Hahaha, when Italians think you're too boastful, you've gone way way way way way beyond the joke.

America has done some stupid things, like arming our future enemies, so you will get no argument from me. But I think with Iran you miss the point, you think they hate us because we tinker with them, well the youth want to be free. The older people realize the revolution was a mistake and now both sides suffer under the Mullahs. But the Mullahs do not hate us for what we did, they hate us purely on religious motive, simple we are infidel and they are Muslim, and because of the that determines their political outlook with the US, thus "The Great Satan".
You've never read the book "My Life as A Traitor" have you?

"I love your big macs & Britney spears however I like to bomb your financial institutions and your folks in MARPAT". Hey,the guy likes Britney Spears, what more can be said about him?
He likes Britney? Quick bomb him before he finds YouTube.

Americans, IMO, generally don't want to bully people around, but when the govt. makes it's case to do something, folks don't usually make the effort on their own to figure out if it's a good idea or not.
Which is a perfect reason to hate the USA. It is supposed to be a Democracy. Therefore any actions taken by the government are taken on behalf of the people of the USA. Think they're Tyrants? Welll, here's the wording of the second amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Think it isn't a free state? Well that's why you're allowed guns. Solve it the way the founding fathers did.

meanlittlechimp

03-19-2008, 07:52 PM

Most of what I have read in this thread is mis-guided and naive at best (sorry, my opinion). Castro, Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong-il, et al, misguide their people into thinking that their societies' problems are the result of the United States, and not their own (political and economic) shortcomings. They are very successful at doing this.

Sorry? Don't apologize for having an opinion. I started this thread to illicit opinion. What you should apologize for, is not having more of an argument to back up your examples.

Castro: has provided a better life for his citizens that any of the governments we've propped up in Latin America IN SPITE OF, invasions, coup and assassination attempts and a 50 year trade embargo! Why is it that all our allies in the region live worse WITH the benefit of our economic and military aid and WITHOUT a trade embargo? Tell me you know something about Cuba or the region, before using Castro as an example.

Ahmadinejad: is a jerkoff and deserves his problems. Iran, however, does NOT deserve Ahmadinejad. They have him BECAUSE we indirectly forced him on them, by destroying the secular democratic state before him.

Kim John Il: Another nut job, and probably the nuttiest one of the bunch. This is not the US's fault but don't recall anyone claiming this.

et al: you have to be more specific

Regardless of past injustices, can anyone here seriously argue that we would not be better off without these a$$holes?

Can YOU seriously argue why Castro can't blame any of Cuba's problems on American interference?

ShaiGar

03-19-2008, 08:03 PM

Less America than American foriegn policy. You can't blame 300 million people for the actions of politicians. It's not like we have any impact on what they do (not when elections are determined by who raises the most money for campaign ads)

Vote for Nader. When you choose to vote for a warmonger, you make your nation into a warmongering nation. Then the actions of the person you voted for become your responsibility.

The only reason yours is a two-party state is because you accept that.

ShaiGar added to this post, 10 minutes and 9 seconds later...

Kim John Il: Another nut job, and probably the nuttiest one of the bunch. This is not the US's fault but don't recall anyone claiming this.

I do not believe that North Korea would have gone the way it has, if it did not have economic sanctions placed on it. The main nations involved in those sanctions are The United States, South Korea, Japan. This is my unsubstantiated opinion.

meanlittlechimp

03-20-2008, 02:26 PM

I do not believe that North Korea would have gone the way it has, if it did not have economic sanctions placed on it. The main nations involved in those sanctions are The United States, South Korea, Japan. This is my unsubstantiated opinion.

I don't know about that. He tortures and brutalizes his people to a level that has rarely been seen. He forces the view that he is actually quasi-divine on his people - and everyone has to call him the Great Leader. The few people that escaped his regime tell horror stories that are almost unbelievable.

He rose to power by murdering many of his own family members and other party officials. He's as nasty or nastier than Stalin but with less resources. He actually kidnapped a noted South Korean film director to make movies for him at gunpoint (because apparently he's a big film buff). He's the epitome of meglomanical dictator.

Bluestocking

03-20-2008, 06:59 PM

From their perspective, I suppose so. The United States has apparently funded foreign wars, propped up dictators, practiced economic policies that aren't beneficial to developing countries, supported Israel, etc. On the other hand, as an American, I don't think we can allow the perspectives of other countries from doing what is in the best interest of the United States. That may involve rethinking foreign policy in some instances.

meanlittlechimp

03-21-2008, 11:48 AM

"Admittedly, Cuba was a backward state prior to Castro. However, behind Haiti, its the poorest country in the Western hemisphere now. This is a direct result of Castro's economic policies to create his vision the Revolucion. While I would agree that the US economic blockade has had a downside effect on Cuba's economy, if Castro embraced even the smallest amount of economic liberalism, his country would be better off.

I denounce any violence directed against a country's people, from the Left or the Right. Castro is certainly guilty of this, as is Augusto Pinochet. However, Chile's economy is a model in Latin America due to the capitalist policies instituted by Pinochet, and left basically untouched by his (democratically elected) successors."

First, Cuba is not the second poorest nation in the western hemisphere. Get your facts straight. Secondly, if you look at life expectancy, literacy rate, health care, education (almost every factor societal measurement) and compare that to our Latin American "allies" over the last 50 years it's not even close. If you take the time to pull any real numbers to support your argument (I'll take the time to prove you wrong).

It was a backwards state prior to Castro BECAUSE we supported the Battista Regime which repressed a democracy in the region! You say it's backwards without saying why. No action by Castro would have lifted the trade embargo. I don't think you understand US-Cuba relations at all. We had close to 100 assassination attempts on the guy - be fucking real. I love this understatement "that the blockcade had a downside effect" - that made me laugh.

Ok how about you list all the atrocities committed by Castro and I do the same for the US in the same period (do you think it's even comparable?). Pinochet was put into power by us, after we overthrew Allende so his atrocities belong to us.

Chile isn't exactly a model. They have the luck of having vast natural resources. We overthrew the county at the behest of ITT. Do you find it interesting that the US controls 90% of the worlds aluminium supply yet we have no bauxite? We've been taking it from South America (along with other important raw materials) for quite some time. Allende, wanted to nationalize his industries (in other words they wanted to own the minerals on their own land rather than have foreign nationals own it - ie the US), so we call him a communist, so we have a pretense to invade, assassinate or destablize. Same way the Iranians wanted to own the oil on their land when we overthrew Mossadegh. Same reason we went into Guatemaula at the behest of United Fruit Company.

If Allende wasn't overthrown, who knows - they might have reached relative prosperity even sooner. Giving Pinochet credit is unfounded. Would you want Pinochet running your country?

There will need to be another uprising in Iran to throw off the current Theocracy. They support terrorist organizations world wide out of shear petulance. Certainly, the US has made mistakes concerning Iran; however, the Iranian people deserve better.

I love how overthrowing a legitimate democracy and propping up a repressive monarchy is a "mistake". That's mighty white of you. The current state of affairs is a direct result of our imperialism and murder. Nice euphemism - "mistake". Why do conservatives always use smug latin phrases and euphemisms? Probably because they dream of Rome, the first western Imperialist power.

Dreamer

03-24-2008, 03:19 PM

I find that most liberals are less about promoting democracy than attacking their own country.

Ironically, while liberals dismiss the excesses of Red cuba they forget that Pinochet voluntarly stepped down from the head office and that today Chile is a democracy, and that it took them less time to get to that state than to the US to draft and agree upon their constitution.

They also tend to forget the triple digit inflation underneath the Allende regime,the vast natural ressources of the Soviet Union and their subsequent collapse thanks to their centrally-planned economy. And the successes of capitalist countries despite their having virtually no natural ressources.

Legitimate 3rd world country claim: The US have been interfering against democratic reforms in the country. We are for democracy & freedom, therefore we are against the USA.

Logical answer to USA problem:Move toward a communist dictatorship?

meanlittlechimp

03-25-2008, 01:58 PM

I stand corrected (thank The Christ that this is not often). Cuba is the 4th poorest country in the Western hemisphere, behind Haiti, Bolivia & Nicaragua (albeit not by much).
GDP or GDP per capita, is often simplistic and somewhat arbitrary way to assess how well a society is doing.

When one props up a corrupt dictactorship, they usually get sweetheart deals that enrich a small segment of the population while the majority is destitute, illiterate and have no social mobility whatsover. So one nation might have a higher GDP, but 90% of the population is living FAR worse than another country with lower GDP.

For instance Guyana is far poorer than Cuba, but the difference is the US propped up up the Burnham administration for decades after they assassinated Chedi Jhaggan. Guyanese in New York (there are more of them here, then in Guyana; because many fled after the CIA assassinated Chedi, and are still angry to this day.)

Hence GDP per capita is not always relevant without considering infrastructure, education, health care, income distribution, murder rate, infant mortality etc etc. In most of these measures Cuba has lead almost all of our allies in Latin America WITH the aid of the richest country on earth (the US). You ever wonder why that is? If you're interested I'll tell ya.

I find that most liberals are less about promoting democracy than attacking their own country.

If you mean I'm attacking my own country by discussing historical facts, that most conservatives are ignorant of, then ok, I'm guilty. Conservative are just going to just keep their head buried in the sand, anyways. What I find offensive is that most conservatives are so little aware of our own government actions now or historically, and then this ignorance is used against them, when neo-cons use this ignorance, against the very same people who support them.

They rely on their ignorance of history to achieve these policy aims.

-They lie to the public and talk about weapons of mass destruction (assuming most of the ignorant conservative jack-offs forgot they we put Saddam and the baa'thists in power in the first place and armed them with chemical and traditional weapons)

-They use the Trade Center as an emotional foil to increase the drumbeat of war, riightfully assuming the same ignorant conservative jackoffs, don't realize or care, that Al Qaeda hates Saddam (and vice versa). Al Qaeda is now all up in Iraq, but they weren't there before we went in, and their numbers and support for their cause grow every day. Those people are all the same aren't they? Well to a redneck in Texas, they are. The terrorists are Saudi but let's invade Afghanistan and Iraq, that makes sense; amazingly we haven't caught bin Laden, but we conveniently have bases there to control the oil in the region (hmm.. I wonder if that was intentional?). The reason the Soviets invaded Afghanistan btw, was the oil pipeline is HUGELY important strategically which the Soviets tried to take for quite some time. Luckily we showed up to give em some ole democracy that you conservatives love to talk about.

- talking about things like the "evil empire" or the "axis of evil" only work when your audience is ignorant about history and has a child like view of the world. Things that are so simplistically black and white, we're good guys and they're bad guys etc, only works with 8 year olds, and ignorant conservatives who have no conception what their government has been up to now, or in the past (except what their fed on Fox News and their crappy high school text books).

- When conservatives talk about spreading democracy and I challenge them to name ONE single democracy we've ever installed, but I can name dozens we overthrew and replaced with dictatorships, which are verifiable by the Freedom of Information Act - they just give me this dumbfounded look like so... whatever dude (as if they were already aware of it or ever even considered the question). Close minded servitude and unflapping resolve in light of all evidence or logic, is what makes them so lovable. But then again, I'm just a liberal who likes to attack his own country, it has nothing to do with the truth, or history, why would I care about that. Oh yeah, liberals just go to school to because they can't compete in the real world.

Castro is uber-guilty of dereliction in economic matters. Frankly, that old bastard is in serious need of a dirt nap.

Yeah, I'm sure you want him dead, so you can help the Cuban people and their economy. Gimme a break. But typical conservative reasoning, let's kill foreign leaders we don't like. But if someone retaliates, you'll call them a terrorist. At least you guys are all consistent.

You'll not like this, but Rome is being re-created by the European Union. Free movement of capital and goods (EU '92) and labour (Schengen) and, for the most part, a single currency. This has been the most successful and awe inspiring experiment in economics in human history.

I have no problem with this at all. I think a unified Europe is a good thing (for them and for the world), for several reasons. And I think they would be a more responsible superpower, than the US, because they tend to have a bit more cultured and less ignorant a populace. Their governments don't try to gag scientists for admitting global warming exists. Germany is running on 20% solar power due to their innovate incentive based energy system. They are nothing like Rome. The US is far closer to Rome than a unified Europe is.

Also the creation of large efficient and growing market raises real wealth globally (if you believe Adam Smith and the concept of comparative advantage); since they can afford to buy more products from everyone (including American goods).

ShaiGar

03-26-2008, 05:29 AM

Theodoric

03-26-2008, 10:58 AM

Sorry I missed this earlier. I don't agree the Mullahs just hate us for purely religious motive. Why don't they hate the other non Muslim countries as much?

Try reading one of Al-Quaeda's manifestos. It pretty much states that ALL Western societies (Europe, Canada, and yes, the USA) are to be hated and destroyed.

Then there is the fact that protests against Denmark, Britain, and France have been escalating. Basically any country that might be even somewhat critical of their government or religion are automatically signaled out for violent protests.

Even the Pope's speech's and attempts at making reconciliation have been grossly exaggerated and blown out of proportion by Muslims sparking violent protests, calls for his death, and exasperating the peace process.

Granted, these outbursts could be merely linked to the very radical fringe groups and the majority does not care. Its just very easy to focus on the extreme rather than the norm.

Theodoric added to this post, 16 minutes and 54 seconds later...

- talking about things like the "evil empire" or the "axis of evil" only work when your audience is ignorant about history and has a child like view of the world. Things that are so simplistically black and white, we're good guys and they're bad guys etc, only works with 8 year olds, and ignorant conservatives who have no conception what their government has been up to now, or in the past (except what their fed on Fox News and their crappy high school text books).

You mean like how most Middle Eastern countries operate where illiteracy, unemployment, and poverty are some of the highest in the world even though their countries are incredibly resource rich? Where education, tolerance, and multiculturalism are shunned in favor of ultra conservative religious practices?

Just replace "evil empire" with "great satan", "Fox News" with "Government Propaganda", and "crappy high school textbooks" with "whatever crap the local cleric is yelling about now."

* Note, this post does not refute the fact that most Americans (actually most people) have childlike views of the world, high school textbooks (well, all textbooks) are just a bunch of crass generalizations and are in fact, crappy, and that Fox News (hell, the entire Fox Network) is populated by idiots.

meanlittlechimp

03-26-2008, 12:03 PM

Actually Rome was as good as Modern Europe... For it's time.

The USA is nothing like Rome. Sure the US invades everywhere, but rome tried to bring its advancements to them... The US just tries to enslave.

I wouldn't go that far. I think the US is much more humane than Rome in absolute terms. I think the US still treats it's citizens as well or better than the overwhelming majority of nations on earth (what it does to others is a different matter).

The difference is when the Romans slaughter the Gauls or feed people to the Lions for entertainment, they weren't hypocrites. They admitted their imperialism, there wasn't any pretension of spreading democracy. So I would say they were more honest, but much more imperialist. Though is more a function of technology. They can't just do coup d'etats or use the CIA; they have to send troops and subjugate a population through infantry which by nature is more brutal.

Try reading one of Al-Quaeda's manifestos. It pretty much states that ALL Western societies (Europe, Canada, and yes, the USA) are to be hated and destroyed.

Even the Pope's speech's and attempts at making reconciliation have been grossly exaggerated and blown out of proportion by Muslims sparking violent protests, calls for his death, and exasperating the peace process.

Granted, these outbursts could be merely linked to the very radical fringe groups and the majority does not care. Its just very easy to focus on the extreme rather than the norm.

I see your point, but one of the reasons Al Qaeda is growing in power is they did kick out the Soviets from invading Afghanistan. As a Muslim bystander who just had their home destroyed, and you see these freedom fighters expelling the Russians from an unjust war to steal your oil pipeline - you can see why the ignorant, illiterate displaced people are falling for extremism.

Then when you finally get the Soviets out you have more attacks on Muslim soil for no justifiable reason (by a former ally), it feeds to the insanity and extremism. When bin Laden speaks about US imperialism an spouts off his rhetoric there is SOME truth to his words, which is the reason he has such a following. The events I list as US actions are just partial, when he spouts off the long and mostly true laundry list of details, you can begin to understand his popularity in the Muslim world.

My main point is that there is SOME real justification to their claims. They're actions, however, are idiotic and self defeating, but so are ours! We call them terrorists and the axis of evil while we steal their oil and land, and they call us imperialist scum and what have you. Which claim do you believe has a bit more truth to it?

When all is said and done, I tend not to blame the guy getting his ass kicked as much - the side doing most of the dying (take all US deaths and compare that to all Arab/muslim deaths - caused by the other side). They're also the side getting occupied, assassinated, overthrown, annexed etc.

You mean like how most Middle Eastern countries operate where illiteracy, unemployment, and poverty are some of the highest in the world even though their countries are incredibly resource rich? Where education, tolerance, and multiculturalism are shunned in favor of ultra conservative religious practices?

Just replace "evil empire" with "great satan", "Fox News" with "Government Propaganda", and "crappy high school textbooks" with "whatever crap the local cleric is yelling about now."

Again, the difference is WE are one of the main causes of their backward state. We overthrew their progressive, secular and modern government and replaced them with repressive monarchies or dictatorships (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq). How can you blame them for being backward when we got rid of their legitimate progressive governments because they wanted to nationalize their oil industry?

It's true, they do the same thing when they call us the great satan and the evil empire but...... we should be above that since our population isn't supposed to be made up of religious illiterate zealots. Furthermore, in their eyes we HAVE been acting very imperialist and we have been killing them and overthrowing their governments! Before 9/11. How many Americans have died to them and how many died to us? This simple fact is what they're ALL aware of and we always seem to forget.

Theodoric

03-27-2008, 01:32 PM

I see your point, but one of the reasons Al Qaeda is growing in power is they did kick out the Soviets from invading Afghanistan. As a Muslim bystander who just had their home destroyed, and you see these freedom fighters expelling the Russians from an unjust war to steal your oil pipeline - you can see why the ignorant, illiterate displaced people are falling for extremism.

Brief history lesson. Al Quaeda didn't do a thing to the Soviets. The (former) USSR withdrew in 1989 due to increased international pressure from the US, NATO, and the UN and also in part to the weakening power of the Soviets due to the decades of economic stagnation which led to the eventual collapse of the USSR two years later in 1991. Before then many other countries were already breaking off and forming their own governments.

After the Soviet withdrawal, the US and its allies lost interest in Afghanistan and did nothing to repair the war torn country's infrastructure. The USSR continued to back the government until 1992, when the new Russian government decided to stop selling oil to the Afghan government, leading to political instability. This then caused fighting between various Mujahdeen factions. It was not until 1996, seven years after the initial Soviet withdrawal, that the Taliban took power.

In late 2001 the US invaded Afghanistan with the intent of destroying Al Quaeda terrorist camps. There was no intent originally of overthrowing the Taliban, however the campaign quickly turned to it when the Taliban refused to cooperate and started fighting US forces. Once the US routed the Taliban government it turned over control to the former Afghan government (pre Taliban). At first the US was seen as a liberator, ending the brutal reign of the Taliban which restricted freedom and consistently violated human rights, especially for women and minorities. Al Quaeda and the Taliban subsequently gained influence again however when the US started to withdraw forces and yet again, neglected rebuilding the infrastructure. I guess the old lessons are the hardest to learn.

I would have forgotten about Iraq, rebuilt Afghanistan's infrastructure which would have helped legitimize the government, and promoted an open and tolerant government which could have the potential of being an ally (think Turkey). This would have been a much smarter use of our resources than attacking another country and leaving the job half finished. With an ally we could have used this as a leverage point to change policy and regimes throughout the Middle East. Rather, we have traded this potential diplomatic advantage for increased hostility, instability, and fractious violence.

When all is said and done, I tend not to blame the guy getting his ass kicked as much - the side doing most of the dying (take all US deaths and compare that to all Arab/muslim deaths - caused by the other side). They're also the side getting occupied, assassinated, overthrown, annexed etc.

Right, because being belligerent and attacking someone bigger than you when they have done nothing to provoke is a smart idea. The guy that does this is basically asking for getting smacked upside the head (Japan, I'm looking at you. Remember Pearl Harbor?) The very first time that the US got involved with the Middle East is way back in the early 1800s, when pirates decided to start raiding US merchant vessels. This was happening years before to the Europeans who merely tried to placate the North African nations by paying bribes. This really did not work because the sultans just kept asking for more and more and kept attacking the merchant vessels and taking slaves anyways. When the sultans started to do the same with the US, Jefferson reasoned that the sultans could not be reasoned with and found it more prudent to build a navy rather than give into their ever increasing demands and treaty violations. Long story short, the increasingly antagonistic actions of Middle Eastern countries precipitated the Barbary Wars. The US marine invasion of major ports including Tripoli along with naval blockades undermined the sultans' authority which resulted in new treaties being written that did not require tribute payments.

And really, a large portion of the Mideast troubles can be directly linked to Britain (creating the current mess in Israel, supporting rebels to overthrow the established governments, ie, the Arab Revolt that spurned the fall of the Ottoman Empire) and the former USSR (see the above chronicling the mess in Afghanistan) The US has mostly been stepping in when there are UN resolutions (creation of Israel) governments have been antagonistic (Iran capturing hostages which sparked the Iran - Iraq conflict) and damage control (pushing Iraq out of Kuwait which they were trying to annex in a resource grab) ie, the US has done more to try and ensure the sovereignty of nations and trying to lessen destabilizing conflicts such as civil wars. If they really were like the Roman Empire, they would have actually claimed the territory for themselves and dissolved the governments and militaries of the nations while taxing the population that could not represent themselves in any capacity. So no, the US has not been annexing any Middle Eastern countries like Rome was.

It's true, they do the same thing when they call us the great satan and the evil empire but...... we should be above that since our population isn't supposed to be made up of religious illiterate zealots. Furthermore, in their eyes we HAVE been acting very imperialist and we have been killing them and overthrowing their governments! Before 9/11. How many Americans have died to them and how many died to us? This simple fact is what they're ALL aware of and we always seem to forget.

The crux of your argument is that "in their eyes we have been acting very imperialist", rather than what has truly occurred historically. We cannot be blamed if their prejudices and beliefs run contrary. Its been really less of the US causing problems in their countries and more so others that have been. The US has just been more prominent because their actions are more recent. That, and the US currently dominates world culture, which is one of the biggest threats to Islam, hence the continual attacks on the US by religious clerics. The problems in the middle east transcend mere political affiliation and actions in the past. If this were true, resolutions could easily be reconciled. However, it is a combination of this along with the economic problems that many Middle East countries are experiencing along with the great cultural differences.

In all actuality, the Middle East did not progress much beyond that of a 14th century culture after the Crusades.

*side note, The Crusades were more of a retaliatory practice against the Saracens who for centuries attacked Europe after the fall of Rome. Maybe Europeans should ask for recompense for all the looting, raiding, and murder that resulted from these Jihads?

Europe moved into the renaissance, the age of reason, and the age of exploration while the Middle East kept slipping further into the dark ages. It was not until European exploration, mostly by the British and Germans, that the Middle East started to modernize and become part of the rest of the world.

In retrospect, the US has done a lot of really idiotic things in the past in regards to the Middle East. However, most of these policies / actions were created when we were unsure of the outcome or what may happen. At the time, we had no idea what could happen. Everything was pure speculation, such as Iraq having WMDs. All intelligence pointed to this and even the Iraqi government believed that they had or were near to acquiring them. The US went purely on what was thought best at the time. However, the actions and policies by Middle Eastern countries seem to do nothing to promote peace and everything to promote violence and goad the US into action. Unless drastic policy changes on BOTH sides are implemented, there seems like there will be no resolution.

* disclaimer, I do not support the current occupation and mismanagement of Iraq. What needs to be done is once the country is stabilized all power needs to be placed in the hands of the Iraqi government and they need to take responsibility for their country.

meanlittlechimp

03-27-2008, 03:43 PM

Brief history lesson. Al Quaeda didn't do a thing to the Soviets.

I would argue they did. If it wasn't for the long and protracted war, they would have been overrun BEFORE the int'l pressure and weakening economy forced them to give up. Their chief reason for invading was to bolster their economy via controlling the valuable pipeline that runs through their country.

the US has done more to try and ensure the sovereignty of nations and trying to lessen destabilizing conflicts such as civil wars. If they really were like the Roman Empire, they would have actually claimed the territory for themselves and dissolved the governments and militaries of the nations while taxing the population that could not represent themselves in any capacity. So no, the US has not been annexing any Middle Eastern countries like Rome was.

How have we done more to ensure the sovereignty of nations and lessen destabilizing conflicts exactly? I gave numerous counter-examples to this. I haven't seen you give any for your case.

Warfare has changed, we don't need to annex countries outright anymore to receive the economic rewards of imperialism. No one is like Rome anymore, but I would say the US is the closest (though I know even that's a stretch)

The crux of your argument is that "in their eyes we have been acting very imperialist", rather than what has truly occurred historically. We cannot be blamed if their prejudices and beliefs run contrary. Its been really less of the US causing problems in their countries and more so others that have been. The US has just been more prominent because their actions are more recent.

In all actuality, the Middle East did not progress much beyond that of a 14th century culture after the Crusades.

It's true we're getting more blame because US actions are more recent. I would not say however it's all prejudice since we've overthrown governments in Iraq twice (Abdel-Karim Kassem and Saddam), Mossadegh in Iran and attempted assassination of Nasser. Our arming or Iraq and instigation of the Iraq-Iran war. Support for the policies of Israel (though the British are more responsible technically). Bombing of Libya, invasion of Afghanistan etc. etc.

Yes, the Middle East's progress stopped completely because their culture (which was significantly more advanced than Europe's at that time) was destroyed by the Mongol invasions. I would say Islam's backwardness is more due to that fact than something inherent in their religion or culture (as many Christians believe). As the Christians were no more humane (and probably less so) than the Muslim world during that period. Modern Christianity has evolved from the more primitive "dark" ages because of wealth, prosperity and modernism. Which the Muslims were actually more likely to reach more quickly if it wasn't for Ghenghis Khan and his well oiled military machine that captured more land mass than even the British Empire did at it's peak.

Sylvanus

03-27-2008, 04:23 PM

... However, the actions and policies by Middle Eastern countries seem to do nothing to promote violence and goad the US into action. Unless drastic policy changes on BOTH sides are implemented, there seems like there will be no resolution.

Did you mean to say their actions do nothing to promote violence or they do nothing but promote violence?

Dreamer

03-27-2008, 04:29 PM

:thinking:
If you mean I'm attacking my own country by discussing historical facts, that most conservatives are ignorant of, then ok, I'm guilty.Liberals are extremly one-sided in analyzing their country's wrongdoing. Their views are less patriotic than ideological.

You like to say that things aren't black and white but liberals are biased to see far more 'black' in the US than 'white',regardless of the actual amount of 'white'.

And guess whose Public relations campaign this benefis.

Conservative are just going to just keep their head buried in the sand, anyways. What I find offensive is that most conservatives are so little aware of our own government actions now or historically, and then this ignorance is used against them, when neo-cons use this ignorance, against the very same people who support them. History is history, and the majority of conservatives are well aware of it. Simply knowing that Allende got overthrown in Chile or that the US supported Saddam Hussein does not make one a liberal if one understands the context of the times. There is quite a difference between having a realistic view of foreign policy(which in certain conservative circles, is quite isolationist, see Republican party opposition to the military adventures of Clinton. Clearly 'immoral' in face of the various human rights abuses but realistic and based on rational cost/benefits analysis) and having one that is based on a Jimmy Carter-esque naivete(which led to double digit inflation,among other things).

Ask yourself this question:instead of flogging policymakers from your moral high horse,can I try and understand the rationale behind a certain policy?

They rely on their ignorance of history to achieve these policy aims. I find that most conservatives are motivated by love of country and this nasty little thing called 'nescessity'. They aren't "ignoring" history. They recognize that alliances shift all the time and that maintaining alliances exclusively with regimes that maintain 100% ideological purity with us is lunacy at best.

-They lie to the public and talk about weapons of mass destruction (assuming most of the ignorant conservative jack-offs forgot they we put Saddam and the baa'thists in power in the first place and armed them with chemical and traditional weapons) The threat was quite credible. Just ask the Kurds & the iranians what they taught about the possibility that Hussein had chemical weapons.

The liberal "argument" that the US is evil by citing the US supplying weapons to Saddam Hussein serves absolutly no purpose other than eliciting an emotional response against the US in the populace. In all honesty, what does it change? Now is now, if the Ottoman empire killed a couple gazillion armenians 100 years ago,it doesn't mean NATO should invade turkey.

And chemical weapons? I doubt you can produce any proof of your allegations except for the vague reference to some double-edged equipment which "could" be used to produce chemical weapons. But then several such "double-edged" equipment have been found in Iraq, and liberals refuse to see this as efforts to pursue a WMD program. So what is it gonna be? Can't have it both ways big boy.

-They use the Trade Center as an emotional foil to increase the drumbeat of war, riightfully assuming the same ignorant conservative jackoffs, Ironically, liberals are known for using extremly gruesome pictures while conservatives have been known for actually respecting the dead in the US' past few conflicts.I guess that is not an emotional foil in a liberal's mind. The war after all should after all elicit strong responses.

They tend to highlight and highly publicize individual cases of atrocities in order to promote the image of widespread misconduct in their armed forces with no or very flimsy statistical evidence. In wartime, as have been seen in Vietnam. They have been known to bring up phony veterans(see the "Winter soldier investigation") to equally phony trials.

don't realize or care, that Al Qaeda hates Saddam (and vice versa). They do,but then if you have the historical knowledge you boast about,you most likely know that a common enemy is mankind's greatest unifier.

Al Qaeda is now all up in Iraq, but they weren't there before we went in, and their numbers and support for their cause grow every day. Those people are all the same aren't they? Well to a redneck in Texas, they are. The terrorists are Saudi but let's invade Afghanistan and Iraq, that makes sense; amazingly we haven't caught bin Laden, but we conveniently have bases there to control the oil in the region (hmm.. I wonder if that was intentional?). Yeah,sure,let's invade Saudi Arabia. The holy land of Islam. That is such a wonderful idea.

You make the mistake of thinking in terms of national entities.

And since when is controlling ressources that are essential to your economy a bad thing?

Luckily we showed up to give em some ole democracy that you conservatives love to talk about. Sarcasm eh?

An empty bucket sure makes a lot of noise.

- When conservatives talk about spreading democracy and I challenge them to name ONE single democracy we've ever installed, Germany, Japan, France, Belgium, Italy... And a whole host of right-wing dictatorships propper up by the US who developped into democracy afterward.

But I guess they are not democracies because they do not fit the socialist definition of it.

but I can name dozens we overthrew and replaced with dictatorships, which are verifiable by the Freedom of Information Act - they just give me this dumbfounded look like so... whatever dude (as if they were already aware of it or ever even considered the question).

Close minded servitude and unflapping resolve in light of all evidence or logic, is what makes them so lovable. But then again,I'm just a liberal who likes to attack his own country, Well,that's what you've been doing so far.

I'm not criticiscizing liberals for going against the interests of their own country,but at least they should be honest about it.

it has nothing to do with the truth, or history, why would I care about that. The liberals/socialists' version of the "facts" seems to be intentionally distorted to feed a negative image of the US.

For some reason, the US gets a lot of flak from liberals for its support of regimes like Somoza's,Batista's, insurgent groups like the Mujahideen, etc.But no flak whatsoever for supporting left-wing like Stalin during WWII, Tito during the Cold war

Is it telling of liberal culture as a whole?

Oh yeah, liberals just go to school to because they can't compete in the real world. FInally,something that makes sense in your rambles.

Yeah, I'm sure you want him dead, so you can help the Cuban people and their economy. Gimme a break. But typical conservative reasoning, let's kill foreign leaders we don't like. And what would you do ? Sit around, do nothing? Cross your fingers? Let your country slide into economic depravity?Hope they don't pop one or two of your citizens or some of your merchant ships?

Theodoric

03-27-2008, 04:43 PM

Did you mean to say their actions do nothing to promote violence or they do nothing but promote violence?

Thank you Sylvanus for pointing out that error. Fixed it in my post. What I meant to say is "they do nothing but promote violence."

ShaiGar

03-27-2008, 04:56 PM

Right, because being belligerent and attacking someone bigger than you when they have done nothing to provoke is a smart idea. The guy that does this is basically asking for getting smacked upside the head (Japan, I'm looking at you. Remember Pearl Harbor?)

You're a fool.

The USA did NOTHING? How about create incindiary bombs and state publicly, in newspapers of the time (BEFORE Pearl Harbour got Bombed) that they'd be able to burn down the paper cities of Japan. The USA did a lot of very arrogant things back then designed to pick a fight with Japan. Add that to the knowledge that the US rarely declares war when it chooses to attack a nation, and you have a damn good reason for Japan to strike out at the USA.

But nothing to provoke? You're getting your history lessons from Hollywood and High School Propaganda books.

ShaiGar added to this post, 11 minutes and 38 seconds later...

I wouldn't go that far. I think the US is much more humane than Rome in absolute terms.
If you spoke in specific, rather than absolute terms you could certainly have a point. You did not so you are wrong. Rome had a meritocracy, as well as aristocracy and democracy. A person from anywhere in the Roman Empire could easily become a Roman Citizen, not so a US one.

The US prefers to destabilise in order to drive down wages so that US Investors can set up shop. This occurs through igniting civil war, and government oppression. The Roman Empire preferred stability.

I think the US still treats it's citizens as well or better than the overwhelming majority of nations on earth (what it does to others is a different matter).
That's only accurate because most of the World are third world nations who are US Satellites. They tend to be very very violent.

The difference is when the Romans slaughter the Gauls or feed people to the Lions for entertainment, they weren't hypocrites. They admitted their imperialism, there wasn't any pretension of spreading democracy. So I would say they were more honest, but much more imperialist. Though is more a function of technology. They can't just do coup d'etats or use the CIA; they have to send troops and subjugate a population through infantry which by nature is more brutal.
The Honesty of the Roman Empire was certainly one of their more attractive features. While the infantry was initially brutal, it was far less brutal over time than installing a despotic murderer and imposing international sanctions.

Theodoric

03-27-2008, 09:00 PM

I would argue they did. If it wasn't for the long and protracted war, they would have been overrun BEFORE the int'l pressure and weakening economy forced them to give up. Their chief reason for invading was to bolster their economy via controlling the valuable pipeline that runs through their country.

And I would argue the did not. It was the native Afghan Mujahdeen tribes that fought the Soviets. Some foreign Mujahdeen also got into the mix as well. These people were more interested in getting their land back from the Soviets rather than a worldwide Jihad. That, and AL Quaeda was not formed until AFTER the Soviet war in Afghanistan in 1988.

How have we done more to ensure the sovereignty of nations and destabilize exactly? I gave numerous counter-examples to this. I haven't seen you give any for your case.

I did, but I guess you weren't paying attention.

First Iraq war, Kuwait was saved by the US from Iraq when Saddam attempted to annex Kuwait. This ensured that Kuwait's sovereignty was preserved.

From Wiki:

Iran - Iraq War. The war began when Iraq invaded Iran on 22 September 1980 following a long history of border disputes and fears of Shia insurgency among Iraq's long suppressed Shia majority influenced by Iran's Islamic revolution. Although Saddam's Iraq hoped to take advantage of revolutionary chaos in Iran and attacked without formal warning, they made only limited progress into Iran and within several months were repelled by the Iranians who regained virtually all lost territory by June 1982. For the next six years Iran was on the offensive. The United States supported Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War as a counterbalance to post-revolutionary Iran. The support took the form of technological aid, intelligence, the sale of dual-use and military equipment, and direct involvement and warfare against Iran.

Other countries that supported Iraq during the war included Britain, France, the Soviet Union, and West Germany.

The U.S. and Iran had clashed before the war with the Iran Hostage Crisis and verbal attacks on the "Great Satan," as Iran's leader the Ayatollah Khomeini called the U.S.

Fighting was incredibly severe in this war, much likened to that of WW1. The US involvement and backing of Iraq helped to ensure that the entire region was not involved and that increasingly antagonistic Iran was held in check.

During the 1950s the US opposed the European's neo imperialism that threatened to either destroy the Saudi Government or throw the region into backing the Soviets. In the 1960s the US again helped Saudi Arabia out, this time when Egypt become aggressive and started attacking Saudi territory. It was only until 1978 that US dropped support for the Saudis and more importantly, the Shah in Iran, sue to Carter's poor foreign policy. This helped bring about the Islamic Revolution in Iran.

Yes, the Middle East's progress stopped completely because their culture (which was significantly more advanced than Europe's at that time) was destroyed by the Mongol invasions. I would say Islam's backwardness is more due to that fact than something inherent in their religion or culture (as many Christians believe). As the Christians were no more humane (and probably less so) than the Muslim world during that period. Modern Christianity has evolved from the more primitive "dark" ages because of wealth, prosperity and modernism. Which the Muslims were actually more likely to reach more quickly if it wasn't for Ghenghis Khan and his well oiled military machine that captured more land mass than even the British Empire did at it's peak.

Actually, it was the aforementioned Ottoman Empire that repressed advancements in culture and society by adopting Islam as a national religion which dictated every aspect of society as well as preventing any actual change from occurring. This completely shut off the Middle East from outside influence other than when the Ottomans conducted raids on European settlements to capture slaves.

While Genghis Khan might have been incredibly brutal, the Mongol Empire prized advancements as well as having modern (for the time) trade networks and mail systems. Their entire system was set up as a meritocracy in both governance and military as well as promoting religious tolerance.

The empire was governed by a non-democratic parliamentary-style central assembly, called Kurultai, in which the Mongol chiefs met with the Great Khan to discuss domestic and foreign policies.

Genghis also demonstrated a rather liberal and tolerant attitude to the beliefs of others, and never persecuted people on religious grounds. This proved to be good military strategy, as when he was at war with Sultan Muhammad of Khwarezm, other Islamic leaders did not join the fight against Genghis — it was instead seen as a non-holy war between two individuals.

Throughout the empire, trade routes and an extensive postal system (yam) were created. Many merchants, messengers and travelers from China, the Middle East and Europe used the system. Genghis Khan also created a national seal, encouraged the use of a written alphabet in Mongolia, and exempted teachers, lawyers, and artists from taxes, although taxes were heavy on all other subjects of the empire.

The Middle East probably would have developed as rapidly as Europe if the Mongol Empire did not collapse due to the petty squabbling that occurred after the death of Genghis Khan.

So the only people to be blamed for the current backwardness of the Middle East are the Arabs themselves.

meanlittlechimp

03-28-2008, 12:20 AM

History is history, and the majority of conservatives are well aware of it.
Are you serious here? The majority of the conservatives can't find France on a map, let alone know anything about Middle Eastern History. The only reason we could invade Iraq after 9/11 was the neo-cons KNEW the rednecks who voted for them wouldn't know the difference between a Saudi or an Iraqi, or that Bin Laden hated the secular Iraqi government and vice versa. People at the meetings immediately after 9/11 have leaked publicly, that as soon as 9/11 happened, they had behind closed door conversations that should use this as a pretense to invade (Powell didn't understand why it was happening among others, but they obviously never read the Wolfowitz papers explicitly stating this as their strategy, more than a decade earlier. This was also publicly admitted by the speech writer of the famous axis of evil speech (David Frum), among others there.

Ask yourself this question:instead of flogging policymakers from your moral high horse,can I try and understand the rationale behind a certain policy?

You call criticism of unjustified invasions, and assassinations of foreign leaders getting on a moral high horse? What is YOUR rationale for these invasions? WMD, 9/11, spreading democracy? or.... don't YOU have one?

The people doing the invading should have the rationalization don't you think? I have to provide a rationale NOT to invade? I'm finally starting to understand the complex machinations of the conservative mind.

Yeah,sure,let's invade Saudi Arabia. The holy land of Islam. That is such a wonderful idea.
When did I say we should invade Saudi Arabia? How do you infer from my statements we should invade Saudi Arabia? My point was that terrorists who blew up the trade center were Saudi. It's like invading Canada because a handful of criminal Australians blew up the trade center. No!!!, I'm not saying we should invade Australia!!!

Analogies don't have to be literal, that's the beauty of analogies.

You should have also inferred from my other posts that I'm probably not, the kind of guy, who would support the invasion of Saudi Arabia. Here is another ANALOGY... If 10 criminal right wing evangelical Christians blew up the Taj Mahal, I don't think they should have the right to invade us, because of 10 fucktards (over 30 without government sanction, all bets are off, I'll join you guys with those numbers.. My bleeding heart does have limits, after all). Contrary to popular belief, I don't love Arabs. I love some of them, that deserve it. Conservative Bible/Koran thumping hawks, on both sides, should be dropped off on some island, where they can execute their brilliant foreign policies without, hurting the rest of us. Let THEM, stab each other in the face, ad infinitum, for eternity, until they get bored. Ok, I'm being dramatic, got back from an open bar (sometimes I hurt myself); where my liberal tears streamed down my face, straight into my martinis, ranting about clubbed baby seals... to anyone who listen.

On second thought, I wish there was a hell. I know who I would choose to go there, if I was God.... You heard me right, I'm one of the "liberals" who believe in capital punishment, even ETERNAL capital punishment........ Now I know what it must feel like, to be so sure about who goes where, in the afterlife....... Hmm....why.... are my nipples getting hard...... I'm starting to see the allure of FAITH..... It does feel refreshingly good.

Germany, Japan, France, Belgium, Italy... And a whole host of right-wing dictatorships propper up by the US who developped into democracy afterward.
I've already mentioned democracies after WWII. The reason we instituted democracies there was that we learned our lesson from too harshly penalizing the Germans from losing WWI. Read the Marshall Plan, not just the cliff notes. You cannot set up a puppet regime in a nation as large and technological sophisticated as Germany and Japan. If you think it was done out of good will and the concept of spreading democracy around the world, you're wrong. We really started to open a can of whoop ass (as they say in Texas), exactly when we changed the name from the "Department of War" to the "Department of Defense" (1949). Somebody in the Truman administration must have read up on their Orwell. You could see how it would be bad PR when your bombing civilians in Panama, right?

So why don't you take another shot and name a democracy after WWII. Since conservatives are so aware of history, it should be a fairly easy question. I won't give you the harder question of naming the democracies we've overthrown; you might have to go beyond your shitty local newspaper and wikipedia to look it up. Since most conservatives buy the line that we go around spreading democracy like little flowers - you think I would have had some responses to that by now. "Spreading democracy" was not a common argument in foreign policy circles before WWII. Considering our military strength relative to the Japanese, Germans, British, Russians etc., before the outbreak of the war, we didn't need this false argument to justify our actions as much. Could you imagine Congress agreeing to invade Vietnam halfway around the world before 1941???

For some reason, the US gets a lot of flak from liberals for its support of regimes like Somoza's,Batista's, insurgent groups like the Mujahideen, etc.But no flak whatsoever for supporting left-wing like Stalin during WWII, Tito during the Cold war
For some reason??? We didn't support Stalin, we needed him to win the war. They defeated the German Army. Besides providing munitions, we rode their coat tails and jumped into the fray when the real fighting was over. We did not "install" him like the puppet regimes in Latin America. If you can't understand the difference; I don't think me explaining it will help.

And I would argue the did not. It was the native Afghan Mujahdeen tribes that fought the Soviets. Some foreign Mujahdeen also got into the mix as well. These people were more interested in getting their land back from the Soviets rather than a worldwide Jihad. That, and AL Quaeda was not formed until AFTER the Soviet war in Afghanistan in 1988.

I misspoke but the argument remains the same, but many of the people who formed Al Qaeda were former Mujahdeen. I even considered correcting it to when I first re-read the post; but got distracted at work.

First Iraq war, Kuwait was saved by the US from Iraq when Saddam attempted to annex Kuwait. This ensured that Kuwait's sovereignty was preserved.

Do you honestly think that's why we invaded? That the US goes around defending Arab MONARCHIES from invasion? Kuwait was slant drilling into the Iraqi border and dumping oil on the market drastically below market rates. This was a direct provocation to the Iraqis. The US encouraged the Kuwaitis so we had a pretense to invade. It makes no sense that Kuwait would dump oil in this manner since it reduced THEIR long term wealth as well. It also makes no sense that they would provoke a much bigger and well armed neighbor, without US assurances that we would invade as soon as Saddam reacted.

The Iraqis tried repeatedly to negotiate, once they realized the US would attack. They even asked in a roundabout way, if it was ok to take this action before they moved into Kuwait. The Bush administration went radio silent, which the Iraqis assumed meant approval. If Saddam thought, we would actually attack, do you think he would have made that move? He is NOT stupid. He NEVER thought he could beat us in a war. That's why he persecuted the religious zealots, who are most likely to be terrorist, in his country.

It was an orchestrated back room deal with the Neocons. There were generals and admirals who went on record saying this was the case (no you find it on CNN or National Review); senior decision makers present have leaked the information through various sources, that most serious foreign policy analysts are aware of. I would take time to dig up the sources but you would probably call those generals and admirals, liberal hippies who were brainwashed by the left.

I have to agree with everything you said about the Mongols. Only 30% of the army was even Mongolian. They had the first international meritocracy on that scale. I've always been fascinated by Mongol military and organizational practices. They invented up the platoon structures that Napoleon always gets credit for. Their compound bow was devastating and had far more range, fire rate and power then the English longbow and even most early firearms (before they invented rifling and spin rather than round musket balls). and could be fired accurately from horseback.

They invented the Pony Express. They could get messages from Korea to Iran in an incredibly short time. Their communication system was unsurpassed (in speed) until the telegraph. Most of their cavalry, and archers, had 3 horses. Many thought they were superhuman, because of how quickly they could outflank you. They would ride the first two to exhaustion/death, and be 15 miles behind you, when you thought you were facing them. These two extra horses also served another function, they would also have two extra suits of armor, which they would stuff with straw, on there spare horses so they would look much larger, from a distance. They won the majority of their battles without shedding blood, though they'll smoke yo ass, if they have too.. They were the first army to use chemical warfare, hurling plague ridden bodies over castle walls with trebuchets, that could throw a volkswagon bettle over a mile. They had flame throwers, and laser guns... West Point still teaches some of their feint and circle maneuvers. I'm ranting...Gotta stop, never met anyone that ever knew anything about them.

I was kidding about the lasers, btw.

Theodoric

03-28-2008, 08:30 AM

Do you honestly think that's why we invaded? That the US goes around defending Arab MONARCHIES from invasion? Kuwait was slant drilling into the Iraqi border and dumping oil on the market drastically below market rates. This was a direct provocation to the Iraqis. The US encouraged the Kuwaitis so we had a pretense to invade. It makes no sense that Kuwait would dump oil in this manner since it reduced THEIR long term wealth as well. It also makes no sense that they would provoke a much bigger and well armed neighbor, without US assurances that we would invade as soon as Saddam reacted.

The Iraqis tried repeatedly to negotiate, once they realized the US would attack. They even asked in a roundabout way, if it was ok to take this action before they moved into Kuwait. The Bush administration went radio silent, which the Iraqis assumed meant approval. If Saddam thought, we would actually attack, do you think he would have made that move? He is NOT stupid. He NEVER thought he could beat us in a war. That's why he persecuted the religious zealots, who are most likely to be terrorist, in his country.

That is grossly dependent upon who you speak to. Iraq did cite the slant drilling measures by Kuwait, but they have not been proven or disproven as of yet. However, the real reason was because of the Iran - Iraq conflict. By the time the ceasefire with Iran was signed in August 1988, Iraq was virtually bankrupt and heavily indebted to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Its vulnerability was made worse because the following year, in open defiance of OPEC quotas, Kuwait had increased its oil production by 40 percent. The collapse in oil prices had a catastrophic impact on the Iraqi economy. The Iraqi government described it as a form of economic warfare. Saddam urged the Kuwaitis to forgive the Iraqi debt accumulated in the war, some $30 billion, but the Kuwaitis refused. On another compelling level, Saddam Hussein and many Iraqis considered the boundary line between Iraq and Kuwait, cutting Iraq off from the sea, a historical wrong imposed by British imperial officials in 1922. Just because a country defies an economic collective and does not toe the line is not justification to invade a country nor is their reluctance to forgive the debts of an aggressor country nor is the perceived notion that a boundary is "just not fair."

U.S. officials attempted to maintain a conciliatory line with Iraq, indicating that while George H. W. Bush and James Baker did not want force used, they would not take any position on the Iraq–Kuwait boundary dispute and did not want to become involved. This was in line with the US official stance of neutrality on Iraqi - Kuwaiti relations and Arab - Arab conflicts in general. Some say that this was a green light for Saddam to attack Kuwait. Others would say that Saddam underestimated the extent of outside intervention. This was also exasperated due to the fact that the Iraqis assumed that the United States had invested too much in building relations with Iraq over the 1980s to sacrifice them for Kuwait.

Having removed the threat of Iranian fundamentalism Saddam invaded Kuwait in the name of "Arab Nationalism and Islam." The rest of the world took action. The Gulf War was actually a UN sanctioned military conflict that comprised a coalition of 34 nations, including the US. This action only occurred however after Saddam repeatedly ignored the timetables set forth by United Nations Security Council giving Iraq a deadline to leave Kuwait. U.S. officials feared Iraqi retaliation against oil-rich Saudi Arabia, since the 1940s a close ally of Washington, for the Saudis' opposition to the invasion of Kuwait. If this happened and Saddam was not put in check the potential for the entire region to be destabilized could cause the subsequent spike in the price of oil to disrupt economies worldwide.

Prior to this, Saddam persecuted the Kurds, who were a religious and ethnic minority on the basis that they were separatists and did not support his Baathist party. Once the Shah of Iran withdrew his support of the Kurds in a treaty signed with Iraq in 1975 Saddam was able to attack the Kurds without fear of reprisal. Saddam always had visions of conquest in the Arab world, wanting to control all of the Middle East under Iraqi rule. Saddam justified Iraqi nationalism by claiming a unique role of Iraq in the history of the Arab world. As president, Saddam made frequent references to the Abbasid period, when Baghdad was the political, cultural, and economic capital of the Arab world. He also promoted Iraq's pre-Islamic role as Mesopotamia, the ancient cradle of civilization, alluding to such historical figures as Nebuchadrezzar II and Hammurabi. He devoted resources to archaeological explorations. In effect, Saddam sought to combine pan-Arabism and Iraqi nationalism, by promoting the vision of an Arab world united and led by Iraq.

meanlittlechimp

03-31-2008, 03:22 PM

And chemical weapons? I doubt you can produce any proof of your allegations except for the vague reference to some double-edged equipment which "could" be used to produce chemical weapons.

"(CBS) Newly released documents show that U.S. officials, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, played a leading role in building up Iraq's military in the 1980s when Iraq was using chemical weapons, a newspaper reports.

It was Rumsfeld, now defense secretary and then a special presidential envoy, whose December 1983 meeting with Saddam Hussein led to the normalization of ties between Washington and Baghdad, according to the Washington Post.

The newspaper says a review of a large tranche of government documents reveals that the administrations of President Reagan and the first President Bush both authorized providing Iraq with intelligence and logistical support, and okayed the sale of dual use items — those with military and civilian applications — that included chemicals and germs, even anthrax and bubonic plague."

Yeah, there is a lot of dual use for anthrax and bubonic plague. The reason, we knew they didn't have them anymore, is because we knew they were destroyed. Intelligence agencies around the world, knew this was the case from the first Gulf War.

Is this even surprising? When we were also selling arms to Iran (the supposed enemy), to finance death squads in Nicaragua (without Congressional approval). We also sold a bunch of cocaine (during Reagan's hypocritical drug war) to help finance the same death squads. Funny how the Christian Right support the same hawks selling coke to our own populace and arms to fundamentalists to kill other people halfway around the world (so we could install another brutally repressive regime - The Contras). This would all get laughed off as conspiracy theory until they get caught! Even then, Oliver North become a hero to these same ignorant bible thumpers.

These same delusional folks then swallow whatever the republicans throw next at em, in other administrations. WMDs, let's go spread more democracy! See how great is to have most of your support coming from people who make decisions based on "faith", instead of logic.

That is grossly dependent upon who you speak to.
Yeah the habitually lying neo-cons or... intelligence agencies around the world, our own CIA, the Department of Defense, the Israelis and the UN inspectors that were sent there.

There was a documentary that came out not too long ago about the first Gulf War, name escapes me now, where US Army Generals, Navy Admirals and senior CIA officials went on record stating the slant drilling, oil dumping and everything else I mentioned was cooked up and forced on the Kuwaitis to entice the Iraqis to invade. These military personnel were not partisan democrats either.

Dreamer

03-31-2008, 07:23 PM

Are you serious here? The majority of the conservatives can't find France on a map, let alone know anything about Middle Eastern History. That the liberals have to fall back to such base personal attacks instead of attacking basis for ideals is proof that they have no basis for their ideology.

The only reason we could invade Iraq after 9/11 was the neo-cons KNEW the rednecks who voted for them wouldn't know the difference between a Saudi or an Iraqi,

[quote]or that Bin Laden hated the secular Iraqi government and vice versa. Unlike the liberals who sees everything in ideological black and white, with clear delimited party lines, the real world is open to compromise.

As such,extremists often gang up together against a common enemy. There have been instance where Hamas and the neonazis have collaborated despite the obvious differences in ideology. Saddam have given a 2000$ reward to any palestinian suicide bombers,regardless of affiliation to Islamist affiliation.

Same with communism(which liberals seems to be very much in bed with).
There is more than one communist government who have collaborated with the West or worse, western corporations(gulf oil anyone). There have been more than one instance where communist leaders collaborated with fascists in order to further their causes(Ho chi minh comes to mind).

You call criticism of unjustified invasions, and assassinations of foreign leaders getting on a moral high horse? Yes,international politics should be forget out of the question "what is more effective?" instead of the emotional "what is most moral?"

Else you're just going to be eatan by those who do not have a moral high horse to climb.

What is YOUR rationale for these invasions?
WMD, 9/11, spreading democracy? or.... don't YOU have one? I think that the reasons of the Iraq war had been debated ad nauseum, but if you ABSOLUTLY want to go down that path then yes, I think that with all Saddam was actively pursuing a WMD program and that the various efforts he did to put sticks in the wheels of the UN instructors have been forgotten by the very internationalists who criticize the US for not paying its due to the UN, that the chemical bombings of the Kurds have been blatantly ignored by those who claim that the US have provided Saddam with WMDs,
that he was supporting terrorism(but no he was not the architect of 9/11) and that democracy is a worthy cause(but that a nation should support it only when it is in its interest). I also think that oil IS a rationale for the war that have not been put forth by the politicians.

The people doing the invading should have the rationalization don't you think? I don't think that the current American leaders have been the most open. However I do think that the effects of a SUCCESSFUL outcome in the war in Iraq are worth it.

I have to provide a rationale NOT to invade? Well, if you have to criticisze a decision put forth by someone, you have to have a viable alternative(Liberals don't, they merely want to roll up in a ball and die. As in Iraq, they wish to pullout, and let the islamists/shi'as win).

If not,than all you do is contributing to the cause of whoever the criticism benefits (like for example Islamists in Iraq).

I'm finally starting to understand the complex machinations of the conservative mind. Great, more personal attacks.

My point was that terrorists who blew up the trade center were Saudi. It's like invading Canada because a handful of criminal Australians blew up the trade center. No!!!, I'm not saying we should invade Australia!!! I was being sarcastic about yours suggesting invading Saudi Arabia. I think it is particularly stupid to think that because all hijackers were saudis that we should blame the Saudi government and that the argument against the war "we invaded Afghanistan/Iraq despite the facts that all hijackers were saudis" is equally stupid.

I've already mentioned democracies after WWII. The reason we instituted democracies there was that we learned our lesson from too harshly penalizing the Germans from losing WWI. Read the Marshall Plan, not just the cliff notes. You cannot set up a puppet regime in a nation as large and technological sophisticated as Germany and Japan. You asked me a democracy, not its rationale.

And yes you CAN install puppet regimes in Germany and probably Japan. But then since you are more than willing to excuse the excesses of left-wing dictatorships, you conveniently forget that the Soviet Union did just that in Eastern Germany just after world war II.

Somebody in the Truman administration must have read up on their Orwell. You could see how it would be bad PR when your bombing civilians in Panama, right? Politics as usual. 'Liberals' prefer that term despite them being socialist. And conservatives are Hillary Clinton and Obama both parade with American flags.

So why don't you take another shot and name a democracy after WWII. South Korea, Chile among others were orignally dictatorships supported by the US who turned out to be very respectable democracies and the envy of the region,all that thanks to US involvement. Nicaragua is a democracy thanks to the United States,despite liberal blasting of the contras & its former support of Somoza.

Yes it is truth that the United States have supported "bad" regimes.
Only liberals have no claim criticiszing the United States for it, for they have supported many murderous regimes(North Vietnam, Cuba...)or conveniently forgot them altogether(as can be clearly shown in your case). Or they are criticizing(unilateral pullout from Iraq) and not offering a viable alternative(Sh'ia dominance), which in turn usually benefits an enemy of the US(Islamic fundamentalists).

I think that there is only one thing that explain this hypocrisy, and it is that they are less worried about the well-being of their own country and that they are ideologically driven by international socialism. Not that I see anything wrong with wishing to support enemies of the United States,but they should be forward with it.

"Spreading democracy" was not a common argument in foreign policy circles before WWII.I certainly wish that it was the case today.

For some reason??? We didn't support Stalin, we needed him to win the war. They defeated the German Army. Besides providing munitions, we rode their coat tails and jumped into the fray when the real fighting was over. It does not make it morally sound(despite what liberals claim) even if it is "NESCESSARY". Even if you are not the source of an evil, it doesn't make supporting this evil any less immoral.

Allied support for Soviet actions in WWII lead to communist dictatorships in Eastern Europe.

Yet as you pointed out, Soviet support was enviable for winning the war.
A moral compass leads to a defunct foreign policy(us losing WWII), and liberals simply cannot figure this one out.

If you can't understand the difference; I don't think me explaining it will help.Oh,there is a difference.It is your warped sense of reality fails to see how support to Stalin is immoral.

meanlittlechimp

03-31-2008, 09:43 PM

That the liberals have to fall back to such base personal attacks instead of attacking basis for ideals is proof that they have no basis for their ideology.
Oh Please, do you honestly think, the majority of republicans who voted for Bush ever heard of Mossadegh, or are aware we ousted him and installed the Shah? What % do you think were aware of this. Do you think it's even above 5%?

Only 13% of Americans can find Iraq on a map according to CNN
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Oh,there is a difference.It is your warped sense of reality fails to see how support to Stalin is immoral.
Again, we didn't support him. He beat the Germans. They lost 20 million people to the Germans, we lost 400,000, mostly fighting the Japanese.

What don't you get about this? Are you saying we should have attacked them while they were fighting the Germans? How did we support him? Because we wanted to win WWII? Did you notice a little thing called the Cold War after the end of the war. I don't have any idea of what you are suggesting we should have done instead?
And yes you CAN install puppet regimes in Germany and probably Japan. But then since you are more than willing to excuse the excesses of left-wing dictatorships, you conveniently forget that the Soviet Union did just that in Eastern Germany just after world war II.
Ummm every political analyst during that time disagreed with you. We can't even hold Vietnam, but you think we can hold Japan or Germany? You are insane.

East Germany was not a puppet. East Germany had roughly the equivalent standard of living as the citizens of Russia. Compare that to how the US treated it's satelites. If East Germany was treated the way we would treated real puppet governments like Panama, or El Salvador, do you think the Russians would be able to hold it without starting another world war? The Russian treatment of East Germany vs our treatment of our Latin American client states is not comparable. The Russians gave the East Germans aid, while we stole money (in the form of natural resources) from our client states.

The South Korean dictactorship was not installed by us. The US treats Korea very differently than it does it's weaker Latin American client states. No more than the Russian can control Kim Il Sung. You have to have ground troops and put a gun to their heads and declare martial law. A puppet government there would not be tolerated. They are too big. They had 1/4 the US population at the time. There would be wall to wall violence if someone like Pinochet was installed after a foreign government assassinated one of it's leaders. They have fought Japan and China for thousands of years and are fervently nationalistic, much bigger than a country like Iraq, and more importantly, Japan and China would never allow a puppet government controlled by the US, in Korea. If they can't pull it off, they certainly aren't going to allow the Americans too.

It's not like overthrowing Lumumba and setting up Mobotu in the Congo. Or even the Shah in Iran. Africa, the Middle East and Latin America has no regional protection. There is no Japan, China or Russia to stop you. That's where we set up puppets. Have you ever heard of the "School of the Americas." It's a training institute we set up specifically to overthrow elected governments, and assassinate foreign leaders.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I certainly wish that it was the case today.
What do you mean, that we should drop the democracy spreading pretense? or that we stop overthrowing governments? or something else altogether?

Dreamer

03-31-2008, 10:52 PM

Oh Please, do you honestly think, the majority of republicans who voted for Bush ever heard of Mossadegh, or are aware we ousted him and installed the Shah? If you want to go in knowledge of specific historical facts, you'll find that there are many that liberals completely ignore since they are good party members and that good party members ignore historical facts that are outside the mainstream liberal party line.

Such as the fact that the majority of Saddam Hussein's weapons came from the Soviet Union(and NOT the United States).

Do you honestly think that liberals know what kind of ideology Al-qaeda is preaching and who were the "founding fathers" of said ideology? Of Sayyiid Qtb?

How about their own founding fathers? Do they know about the federalist papers?

(Pardon me if I sound patronizing, I actually met an american liberal who didn't know what the federalist papers were.It may be a very unrepresentative of the average american liberal,but I highly doubt it).

Only 13% of Americans can find Iraq on a map according to CNN
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Aaaah,but that you have a stupid country, I totally agree with you.

Any populace who is willing to consider Hillary Clinton as their next commander in chief certainly merits the wrath of Allah.

He beat the Germans. They lost 20 million people to the Germans, we lost 400,000, mostly fighting the Japanese. So...We should probably feel gratitude for Stalin? Simply because two dogs with equally repulsive ideologies felt like eating each other's hearts out?

Are you saying we should have attacked them while they were fighting the Germans? Ask yourself this question instead:

What could we have done in order to wreck havoc on both the Soviet Union(which would later clash with us anyway during the Cold war) and the Nazis?

...And I don't have an answer to that question, to be honest. I don't have enough knowledge on military matters to judge to which point we needed the Soviets in the fight against the Germans.

We could probably have stopped from complimenting the Soviet Union in our internal propaganda and other small things like that however.

How did we support him? For one,the allies stopped criticizing him in our propaganda(thus giving a certain amount of legitimacy to various left-wing groups for having fought the Nazis... even if said groups had equally repulsive ideas).

Also,ever heard of Lend-Lease?

Because we wanted to win WWII? As I said, nescissity does not make an action moral. We do need to turn a blind eye on morality if we are to make a foreign policy that makes any sense at all.

Ummm every political analyst during that time disagreed with you. I taught that reference to autorithy were anathema to NTJ people.

We can't even hold Vietnam, North Vietnamese leaders aknoledged that they were losing the war on the ground. The war was won politically by the use of liberals, who liked taking jabs at their own troops and putting murderers like Ho chi minh in a glamorous light.

but you think we can hold Japan? Japan was actually run for some time as a puppet by McCarthur after VJ-day.

Considering the political culture of Pre-war Japan and today's Japan,
I think that it was quite a feat of social engineering(McCarthur actually suceeded in introducing a clause in their constitution interdicting the use of their armed forces outside japanese territory).

Also,maybe "technological and industrialized" nations are actually at a disadvantage while fighting a guerilla war.Name me one industrial nation who sucessfully defeated an invading army using guerilla warfare. They are far more centralized than their third world counterparts.
There was little resistance to Soviet dictatorship in Eastern Europe, where the standards of living before the war were not always 1st world standards but could arguably be said to be higher than in Afghanistan and Vietnam.

You are insane. Coming from you,I will take that as a compliment.

East Germany was not a puppet. How can you say that? Their security apparatus were licking the boots of the Soviet government. Was there even one instance where the East German government disagreed with their Soviet masters?

Oh,wait I can see your point.Maybe they weren't a puppet, they were maybe merely victims of Soviet imperialism and therefore a colony.

East Germany had roughly the equivalent standard of living as the citizens of Russia. Doesn't matter. When you do not have political control over your own affairs you are a "puppet".

Compare that to how the US treated it's satelites

I think that a lot of US third world "satellites" did fairly well compared to their regionnal counterparts (Chile again). I don't think that they were puppets either, they received help but many did not behave exactly like the US would have liked (President Diem in Vietnam comes to mind).

If East Germany was treated the way we would treated Panama, or El Salvador, do you think the Russians would be able to hold it without starting another world war?

meanlittlechimp

03-31-2008, 11:43 PM

So...We should probably feel gratitude for Stalin? Simply because two dogs with equally repulsive ideologies felt like eating each other's hearts out?

Gratitude? When did I ask for that. This whole thing started because you didn't seem to understand the difference between our support of Stalin during WWII and one of the puppet governments we INSTALLED in Latin America.

Now you are saying I am demanding you feel gratitude? Let me say this again, you are insane.
Aaaah,but that you have a stupid country, I totally agree with you.
What country are you from? I thought you were American.

Oh,wait I can see your point.Maybe they weren't a puppet, they were maybe merely victims of Soviet imperialism and therefore a colony.

Victims? hardly. They just spent the last few years prior to the Soviets, murdering the largest amount of people in Human History. Even the word Nazi became synonymous with evil. If the Russians ran a puppet regime the way the US ran real puppet regimes like in Latin America, and Africa then there would have been a rebellion they couldn't have handled. If I recall correctly, they actually lived better than the majority of Russians.

Again, the South Korean dictactor, Park was not like Marcos, Mobutu, the Shah, Somoza etc. If they repressed their populations, they could not have stayed in power. Park, the East Germans etc, actually gained from the relationship. They didn't have their resources stolen like true puppet governments. I guess, you could call East Germany a puppet the way you define it, but there is a big difference between E. Germany and the way the US treated it's Latin American satelite states.

Dreamer

04-01-2008, 12:45 AM

Gratitude? When did I ask for that.
I was being sarcastic again. You seemed to think that it was bad,maybe immoral policy to hurt the Soviet Union because they happened to kill a lot of nazis.

I apologize if this is not so,

But then its the liberals' nature not to clarify their position, leaving big ? as to what they actually support(since they are uncritical of actions from left-wing superpowers against their own),

This whole thing started because you didn't seem to understand the difference between our support of Stalin during WWII and one of the puppet governments we INSTALLED in Latin America. Both supported US interests at the time. It was a nescessity, and I understand that we need to get off our moral high horse in order to have a sensible foreign policy.

The allies didn't install them of course, they simply watched while the Soviets took over Eastern Europe... with American equipment from the Lend-Lease act.

It is YOU that seems not to understand that supporting a murderer may not be as bad as CREATING such murderers but SUPPORTING him is certainly immoral. STANDING BY THE SIDE, arms crossed, eyes looking at the sky, while a crime is being commited is not a sign of moral superiority either.

The liberal ideology is inconsistent in that regard.The American left is strangely uncritical of American actions which support the expansion of left-wing dictatorships at best, slavishly supportive at best but is ferociously opposed to right-wing dictatorships of any kinds, no matter how favourable said support might be to the US or to democracy(in the long term).

The only logical explanation is that they aren't patriotic for two cents,and that they follow a socialist ideology that prones internationalism. I don't blame them for it, I only wish they be forward about it.

And and I am Canadian by the way.

Let me say this again, you are insane.And again,let me reinstate that I take that as a compliment.

What country are you from? I thought you were American.

Victims? hardly. They just spent the last few years prior to the Soviets, murdering the largest amount of people in Human History. Wow, murdering the largest amount of people in human history? How about Stalin? He actually murdered more than Hitler(about 6 times more, according to some estimates). If Nazism is the peak of evil,what is Communism?

And how about Mao and his great leap forward?

Does Nazism justify the mass rapes in Berlin? The mistreatments of prisoners of war? The installation of a communist dictatorship submissive to Moscow? Did US GI mass rape german or french women? Did the US install a dictatorship submissive to Washington in Western Germany?

Victims,they were.

Even the word Nazi became synonymous with evil. Well good for them! If the libs think that nothing equals Nazism in term of evil, then they are putting their finger in their eye up to their anus.

If the Russians ran a puppet regime the way the US ran real puppet regimes like in Latin America, and Africa then there would have been a rebellion they couldn't have handled. Suppositions. The living conditions were very much substandard to pre-war germany but they could nonetheless keep control of it.

There was armed unrest in Eastern Europe(Budapest anybody?), and in Russia itself after the 1917 revolution. There are still nationalist movements in Russia that survived the Soviet era. The Soviets were NOT popularly supported.

If I recall correctly, they actually lived better than the majority of Russians. Perception is more important than reality when shaping popular opinion. Do you think the average german knew or cared that he lived better than his russian counterparts? He was certainly living a lot worse than in pre-war Germany. That and the mass rapes that occured when the invading Red army advanced.

A highly-diciplined military and well-organized security apparatus kept Eastern europeans in check, NOT standards of living.

If they repressed their populations, they could not have stayed in power. Park, the East Germans etc, actually gained from the relationship. Of course they could. The madmen dynasty in North Korea proves otherwise. It's more of a matter of the organization of the military and the security apparatus than popular support.

They didn't have their resources stolen like true puppet governments. If you are talking about the US government's involvement in Latin America because of the various nationalizations,then you are wrong. They are not having their land stolen because the US corporations are the legitimate owners of said land.

We should stop thinking in purely nationalistic terms, but rather in terms of individuals. If I buy a house in Haiti at market value, and the US government forces me to abandon it,it's theft and my government would be rightfully to invade to reclaim what is mine.

The US did not control every aspects of its latin allies' life, unlike the Soviet control of its puppet states,whose control included not only the army and security apparatus but the economy as well.

meanlittlechimp

04-01-2008, 02:05 AM

Crazy link, a friend sent me, I had no idea any government official ever admitted publicly what we did in Iran. I mean, I always knew, but I never imagined a senior official admitting it to the press, especially on camera.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Theodoric

04-01-2008, 08:15 AM

Yeah the habitually lying neo-cons or... intelligence agencies around the world, our own CIA, the Department of Defense, the Israelis and the UN inspectors that were sent there.

There was a documentary that came out not too long ago about the first Gulf War, name escapes me now, where US Army Generals, Navy Admirals and senior CIA officials went on record stating the slant drilling, oil dumping and everything else I mentioned was cooked up and forced on the Kuwaitis to entice the Iraqis to invade. These military personnel were not partisan democrats either.

I would like to see this documentary and do further research on it. It would certainly be useful to get a better understanding of the Persian Gulf War. It would be very beneficial to know of these individuals had any real input or knowledge of what was going on behind the scenes or if they are merely speculating or if they retracted their statements later.

So I am to believe that the Persian Gulf War was all because of Kuwait slant drilling into Iraqi territory which is still yet to be proven (and also quite difficult to prove anyways since the border was always being disputed. Maybe the Brits should have painted a big red line there so the Iraqis knew where the border was to stop their crying), and had nothing to do with the fact that Iraq was bankrupt due to the Iran - Iraq War, Kuwait held most of Iraq's debt ($30 Billion USD) which they refused to write off, the fact that Saddam and Iraqi nationals already considered Kuwait to be part of Iraq, and Saddam's bizarre ideal of Pan - Arabism, a united Middle East that was headed by Iraq and subsequently Saddam himself (sounds a lot like imperialism there)? Yes, I am sure that these were not factors in Saddam's aggression in any way.

I guess I am also supposed to believe that it was all due to the neo-cons in the US forcing the Kuwaitis to do all this and making Iraq invade, and nothing to do with the fact that the UN itself sanctioning the attack nor the fact that Iraq controlling the majority of Middle Eastern oil interests would have a huge detrimental effect on the economies of Britain, Germany, and France who, by the way, also supplied Saddam with both biological and chemical weapons along with the Soviets. Seems as if the US is not the only one that arms other countries to fight its wars.

This would require a huge amount of suspension of disbelief on my part. Not everything is so black and white as you are putting it, ie "the US did bad stuff in the past and its all our fault, especially those mean old conservatives." For the past 50+ years the US has been playing policeman to the world, mostly trying to clean up or contain the mess of post European imperialism. This is due mostly to the US being concerned that their previous strategies of non involvement in foreign wars could lead to another drawn out, protracted conflict such as WWI or WWII. The issue this time is that weapons and technology are so far advanced that another war like this could be drawn out and the after effects of it felt for decades, not merely years.

I also ask this. What is your take on the Bosnian War that was supported by American liberals such as Bill Clinton? Would you suggest that it was a "just" war that needed US involvement due to the genocide perpetuated by Serbian forces upon Muslim Bosniaks? Or would you be as critical of it, citing reasons that the US got involved due to Russian involvement supporting Serbian forces and concerns that oil production could be disrupted due to destruction or acquisition of integral pipelines to Europe? Or perhaps the Vietnam war, which was started by our good friend Lyndon Johnson, a democrat and successor to JFK after his assassination, in the pretense to aid and assist the Republic of Vietnam. Or was US involvement only to help prevent the spread of Soviet influence in Asia and was actually yet another manufactured war, citing the Gulf of Tonkin incident as just cause to attack which was completely fabricated by the US navy?

Seems to me that American Liberals are just as to blame as the conservatives.

meanlittlechimp

04-02-2008, 02:06 PM

I would like to see this documentary and do further research on it. It would certainly be useful to get a better understanding of the Persian Gulf War. It would be very beneficial to know of these individuals had any real input or knowledge of what was going on behind the scenes or if they are merely speculating or if they retracted their statements later.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I am 70% sure this documentary was the one I was thinking of. Even if it isn't, this one also has senior military and state dept officials being candid and is worth the watch (including Stormin Norman). I saw these years ago when they came out. An Australian friend would get me stuff, that I couldn't get in the US. Now you can get everything online.

I initially thought a lot of this stuff was conspiracy theory bullshit when I first got into foreign policy. I was trying to prove someone wrong in an argument and it led me to a serious obsession back then. I learned that under the Freedom of Information Act, you can find all this stuff on public record (which was a pain in the ass before the web). I asked myself the exact same question, how many democracies did we start? I almost couldn't believe what I was finding. Up until this point, I didn't have strong opinions either way. After I discovered we don't go around the world spreading democracy - I really thought this my entire life, and felt angry and embarrassed for being duped this entire time.

My view of the world changed, as well as my understanding of recent history. The thing that made me even more fervent, was finding various military and intelligence officials saying it on camera. You know they aren't some snot nosed, hippie liberal talking out of their asses. I knew these things were true from reading; but there is something about video, that makes it seem more real and not just an abstract debate.

There was this incredible documentary on the "School of the Americas" that I couldn't find the name of, came out early 90's. They actually interviewed the US military commanders (I think they had Alexander Haig too) that trained the death squads and assassins we send into Latin America. It's fascinating... an assassination and coup d'etat school with all these advanced non detection techniques. I think it's still running.

meanlittlechimp added to this post, 1 minutes and 31 seconds later...

Couldn't find the one I was looking for, but here is a clip from a different documentary:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.