i was wondering. is it possible to be in such a powerful position and not make a decision that kills people? i bet its incredibly difficult to make any decision, even minor ones, that doesnt cause at least a few deaths. Even Ghandi killed people with his decisions who would have lived had he made a different one.
maybe the only true sign of a good president is one who kills the fewest amount of people.
but fuck, there are nearly 9 billion of us. its kinda hard not to kill someone.
When was the last time Sweden waged a war on anyone? Or Spain, or Italy, or Finland, or Norway, or China, or Japan?
My guess is your favorite leader is not American at all....
Does he pray East 5 times a day?
I don't have a favourite American President.
Who's my favourite leader today? I quite like Hugo Chavez. He seems to be about the most honest and charismatic leader I can think of.
How can you not have a favorite US president? You seem to be an expert in the US government and all its dealings, how can you not, at the very least, have one you don't dislike as much as the others?
The U.S. refused to jam extremist radio broadcasts inciting the killing, citing costs and concern with international law;
do the hutus have any responsibility in what happened or should we just blame britian, france, and the US?
infringing on another country is ok with you now, I thought meddling in other country's affairs was wrong...Do you have any idea what the shit storm would happen if we were in other countries right now blocking radio broadcasts we deem extreme?
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
i was wondering. is it possible to be in such a powerful position and not make a decision that kills people? i bet its incredibly difficult to make any decision, even minor ones, that doesnt cause at least a few deaths. Even Ghandi killed people with his decisions who would have lived had he made a different one.
maybe the only true sign of a good president is one who kills the fewest amount of people.
but fuck, there are nearly 9 billion of us. its kinda hard not to kill someone.
When was the last time Sweden waged a war on anyone? Or Spain, or Italy, or Finland, or Norway, or China, or Japan?
most of those countries are allied to us and rely on our military. the Bosnia thing is a prime example. do you think Sweden or Norway could get away with a tiny military without the US? not a chance.
i was wondering. is it possible to be in such a powerful position and not make a decision that kills people? i bet its incredibly difficult to make any decision, even minor ones, that doesnt cause at least a few deaths. Even Ghandi killed people with his decisions who would have lived had he made a different one.
maybe the only true sign of a good president is one who kills the fewest amount of people.
but fuck, there are nearly 9 billion of us. its kinda hard not to kill someone.
When was the last time Sweden waged a war on anyone? Or Spain, or Italy, or Finland, or Norway, or China, or Japan?
most of those countries are allied to us and rely on our military. the Bosnia thing is a prime example. do you think Sweden or Norway could get away with a tiny military without the US? not a chance.
Team America, right? The saviours of the world?
You don't think European nations have strong armies?
When was the last time Sweden waged a war on anyone? Or Spain, or Italy, or Finland, or Norway, or China, or Japan?
most of those countries are allied to us and rely on our military. the Bosnia thing is a prime example. do you think Sweden or Norway could get away with a tiny military without the US? not a chance.
Team America, right? The saviours of the world?
You don't think European nations have strong armies?
no it just is what it is. the US benefits from it as much as anyone. if the US remained isolationist, Europe, especially central Europe would be far more militaristic than it is today. or they would be speaking Russian.
infringing on another country is ok with you now, I thought meddling in other country's affairs was wrong...Do you have any idea what the shit storm would happen if we were in other countries right now blocking radio broadcasts we deem extreme?
Because the Wests role in the Rwandan genocide all boils to the issue of not blocking the radio broadcasts, right?
As for Bosnia, the U.S ordered that the Bosnian Muslims not be allowed to arm themselves. They were then left to be slaughtered. The U.S assisted in the Bosnian genocide.
As for Rwanda, the U.N troops there could have intervened but were ordered not to. Although that's o.k with you because meddling in other countries is deemed extreme, right? Except when it comes to Iraq, or Afghanistan, or the Occupiued Palestinian territories, e.t.c.
most of those countries are allied to us and rely on our military. the Bosnia thing is a prime example.
How is the Bosnia thing a prime example? The West, including the U.S, left them to be slaughtered. You tied the U.N's hands behind their backs just as you, and Britain, did in the case of Rwanda.
U.S intereference in post WWII world affairs has been nothing but self-serving and detrimental to those countries involved.
no it just is what it is. the US benefits from it as much as anyone. if the US remained isolationist, Europe, especially central Europe would be far more militaristic than it is today. or they would be speaking Russian.
I think you're confusing the standard, blinkered view of the U.S's role in WWII with post war Europe.
Europeans would be much better off on their own, free of U.S interefernce and militirism. I'd prefer to see a united Europe - or European Federation. I think it would put an end to U.S unilaterilism and untamed U.S aggression in the world.
no it just is what it is. the US benefits from it as much as anyone. if the US remained isolationist, Europe, especially central Europe would be far more militaristic than it is today. or they would be speaking Russian.
I think you're confusing the standard, blinkered view of the U.S's role in WWII with post war Europe.
Europeans would be much better off on their own, free of U.S interefernce and militirism. I'd prefer to see a united Europe - or European Federation. I think it would put an end to U.S unilaterilism and untamed U.S aggression in the world.
i'm sure they would have been happy to settle for just half of Europe without US/British involvement. :roll:
Says someone living in the most imperialist country in the world today, who, without Russian and Chinese efforts, would have Central and South America, and most of Asia under it's boot heel.
Not that this has anything to do with why Bill Clinton deserves no accolades. He chose to allow both Bosnia and Rwanda to go to hell. He also oversaw 8 years of blockades against Iraq that directly caused the deaths of over half a million children. And your pathetic attempts to change the subject and talk about Russia change nothing.
i'm sure they would have been happy to settle for just half of Europe without US/British involvement. :roll:
Says someone living in the most imperialist country in the world today, who, without Russian and Chinese efforts, would have Central and South America, and most of Asia under it's boot heel.
oh im sorry, which countries did we force into NATO? i guess i could give you West Germany (but in our defense it was run by nazis before hand), though from our evil US history books i read people liked living in West Germany quite a bit more than East.
How can you not have a favorite US president? You seem to be an expert in the US government and all its dealings, how can you not, at the very least, have one you don't dislike as much as the others?
the argument was why do many countries like Norway have rather small militaries (compared to the big boys) and the answer is because they had the full might of the US military as their protection against a far more aggressive USSR (which also admittedly was nice for US, France and Britain).
btw, did you forget about who invaded Afghanistan before us? who was it? rhymed with Russia, i think.
and Tibet with China?
no but you're right, Russia and China are just looking out for the little guy, protecting them from them mean old AMerican sweat shops! Chinese sweat shops are so much better!
the argument was why do many countries like Norway have rather small militaries (compared to the big boys) and the answer is because they had the full might of the US military as their protection against a far more aggressive USSR (which also admittedly was nice for US, France and Britain).
Did you learn this from the back of a box of cereal, or can you support this statement with some proof? Sounds to me like you're just making up at as you go along.
Maybe when you're busy Googling a suitable response you'll stumble across the inconvenient fact that the U.S has the biggest military budget of any country in the world, more than 6 times that of China, and more than ten times that of Russia, France, and the U.K.
btw, did you forget about who invaded Afghanistan before us? who was it? rhymed with Russia, i think.
and Tibet with China?
no but you're right, Russia and China are just looking out for the little guy, protecting them from them mean old AMerican sweat shops! Chinese sweat shops are so much better!
I didn't say that Russia and China were looking out for the little guy. I said that the influence of Russia and China prevented much of the world from becoming a U.S sweat shop.
the argument was why do many countries like Norway have rather small militaries (compared to the big boys) and the answer is because they had the full might of the US military as their protection against a far more aggressive USSR (which also admittedly was nice for US, France and Britain).
Maybe when you're busy Googling a suitable response you'll stumble across the inconvenient fact that the U.S has the biggest military budget of any country in the world, more than 6 times that of China, and more than ten times that of Russia, France, and the U.K.
which is exactly why many European countries allied to the US can get away with such small ones.
which is exactly why many European countries allied to the US can get away with such small ones.
You're just making it up as you go along. European countries aren't 'getting away with' anything. No European country is under any threat, and still wouldn't be if the U.S closed their bases and fucked off, as many Europeans want. In fact one of the U.S's biggest fears is a European Federation with it's own military and unified economy, which is why it's doing everything it can to prevent it.
I never said he was a hero. Its all relative. And as you are so fond of evoking the concept of international law, let's also note that the sanctions on Iraq were UN-imposed, not the unilateral product of American decision-making, and that the entire world stood by while genocide occured in Rwanda, even though there were UN officials on the ground there. This isn't all on Willy. People are always going on about how terrible colonialism was and African self-determination, but they want to have their cake and eat it too by arguing that its up to the US and other Western powers to prevent those people from slaughtering each other. Why didn't the African decision-makers and UN peacekeepers do something about Rwanda?
It's not relative at all.
As for the sanctions on Iraq being U.N imposed, do you also think that both Iraq wars were waged by the U.N, or were they sought and waged primarily by the U.S?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sanctions 'A non-express goal of the sanctions held by some was the removal of Saddam Hussein. It was openly stated in the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, expressing a sense of the U.S. Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton,[12] that U.S. policy was to "replace that regime" in Iraq,[13] to force Hussein from power, an outcome not referenced in the resolutions. And in 1991, Paul Lewis wrote in the New York Times: "Ever since the trade embargo was imposed on Aug. 6, after the invasion of Kuwait, the United States has argued against any premature relaxation in the belief that by making life uncomfortable for the Iraqi people it will eventually encourage them to remove President Saddam Hussein from power."[14] The economic sanctions failed to topple Saddam, and may have helped further entrench his rule.'
Why didn't the African decision-makers and UN peacekeepers do something about Rwanda?
The African decision makers appealed to the U.N to intervene but the U.N - hindered by the U.S, France, and Britain - hand their hands tied.
The U.N peacekeepers wanted to do something about it but were ordered not to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_th ... ted_States 'In the US, President Bill Clinton and US Ambassador to the UN Madeleine Albright repeatedly refused to take action.[11] US government documents declassfied in 2004 indicate the Clinton administration knew Rwanda was being engulfed by genocide in April 1994, but buried the information to justify its inaction. Senior US officials privately used the word genocide within 16 days of the start of the killings, but chose not to do so publicly because Clinton had already decided not to intervene. Intelligence reports obtained using the US Freedom of Information Act show the cabinet and almost certainly the president had been told of a planned "final solution to eliminate all Tutsis" before the slaughter reached its peak.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Ge ... rican_role
A National Security Archive report points out five ways in which decisions made by the U.S. government contributed to the slow U.S. and worldwide response to the genocide:
1. The U.S. lobbied the U.N. for a total withdrawal of U.N. (UNAMIR) forces in Rwanda in April 1994;
2. Secretary of State Warren Christopher did not authorize officials to use the term "genocide" until May 21, and even then, U.S. officials waited another three weeks before using the term in public;
3. Bureaucratic infighting slowed the U.S. response to the genocide in general;
4. The U.S. refused to jam extremist radio broadcasts inciting the killing, citing costs and concern with international law;
5. U.S. officials knew exactly who was leading the genocide, and actually spoke with those leaders to urge an end to the violence but did not follow up with concrete action.
Well, putting aside the whole issue of nothing ever seeming relative to you under any circumstances (its all either good or bad), I am unclear on how American and European inaction somehow prevented African nations from intervening. Your links point towards US inaction but I was not arguing against that view. Other nations have admittedly to not doing enough in Rwanda as well. How did the US prevent African nations from taking action, exactly?
One other thing ... Its a little hard to take your view of Chavez seriously. You were probably joking, albeit it wasn't funny.
which is exactly why many European countries allied to the US can get away with such small ones.
You're just making it up as you go along. European countries aren't 'getting away with' anything. No European country is under any threat, and still wouldn't be if the U.S closed their bases and fucked off, as many Europeans want. In fact one of the U.S's biggest fears is a European Federation with it's own military and unified economy, which is why it's doing everything it can to prevent it.
whatever you say. i'm sure European militaries would be the same size if the US didnt exist. :roll: it was a peaceful place before we came along. FUCKING GREAT SATAN!
whatever you say. i'm sure European militaries would be the same size if the US didnt exist. :roll: it was a peaceful place before we came along. FUCKING GREAT SATAN!
I think you need to take your medicine.
Still, nice use of the word 'whatever'. Clearly all those hours spent watching Riki Lake and Jerry Springer have finally paid off.
whatever you say. i'm sure European militaries would be the same size if the US didnt exist. :roll: it was a peaceful place before we came along. FUCKING GREAT SATAN!
I think you need to take your medicine.
for agreeing with you? asolutely i need medication.
How did the US prevent African nations from taking action, exactly?
Many African nations supported the Hutu's.
Exactly, and that's my issue ... Was the onus on the West to intervene, because Africa wasn't willing to do so? I am not accusing you personally, but people seem to want the West to play world cop after all. If they fail to do so in Africa, they are guilty of turning a blind eye to genocide. But if they do so in the Middle East, they are oil-grubbing imperialists. I can see the argument that the US intervenes in a very selective fashion, largely when economic interests happen to coincide with humanitarian ones, but the black-and-white view that the US needs to butt out completely might be hold up after all.
How did the US prevent African nations from taking action, exactly?
Many African nations supported the Hutu's.
Exactly, and that's my issue ... Was the onus on the West to intervene, because Africa wasn't willing to do so? I am not accusing you personally, but people seem to want the West to play world cop after all. If they fail to do so in Africa, they are guilty of turning a blind eye to genocide. But if they do so in the Middle East, they are oil-grubbing imperialists. I can see the argument that the US intervenes in a very selective fashion, largely when economic interests happen to coincide with humanitarian ones, but the black-and-white view that the US needs to butt out completely might be hold up after all.
Maybe you forget the huge role that Belgium and France had in that region? When the killing began - in fact, long before the killing began - the world looked to the U.N to intervene, but the U.S prevented anything happening, and they continued to tie the U.N's hands once the genocide had begun - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/mar/31/usa.rwanda
How did the US prevent African nations from taking action, exactly?
Exactly, and that's my issue ... Was the onus on the West to intervene, because Africa wasn't willing to do so? I am not accusing you personally, but people seem to want the West to play world cop after all. If they fail to do so in Africa, they are guilty of turning a blind eye to genocide. But if they do so in the Middle East, they are oil-grubbing imperialists. I can see the argument that the US intervenes in a very selective fashion, largely when economic interests happen to coincide with humanitarian ones, but the black-and-white view that the US needs to butt out completely might be hold up after all.
Maybe you forget the huge role that Belgium and France had in that region? When the killing began - in fact, long before the killing began - the world looked to the U.N to intervene, but the U.S prevented anything happening, and they continued to tie the U.N's hands once the genocide had begun - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/mar/31/usa.rwanda
Still, nice use of the word 'whatever'. Clearly all those hours spent watching Riki Lake and Jerry Springer have finally paid off.
wha????? is this some sort of attack on word usage? surely you wouldnt stoop to the most deperate defense of the guy on the losing side of the argument? grammar correction? you're better than that byMzie.
Comments
When was the last time Sweden waged a war on anyone? Or Spain, or Italy, or Finland, or Norway, or China, or Japan?
I don't have a favourite American President.
Who's my favourite leader today? I quite like Hugo Chavez. He seems to be about the most honest and charismatic leader I can think of.
How can you not have a favorite US president? You seem to be an expert in the US government and all its dealings, how can you not, at the very least, have one you don't dislike as much as the others? do the hutus have any responsibility in what happened or should we just blame britian, france, and the US?
infringing on another country is ok with you now, I thought meddling in other country's affairs was wrong...Do you have any idea what the shit storm would happen if we were in other countries right now blocking radio broadcasts we deem extreme?
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Team America, right? The saviours of the world?
You don't think European nations have strong armies?
Because the Wests role in the Rwandan genocide all boils to the issue of not blocking the radio broadcasts, right?
As for Bosnia, the U.S ordered that the Bosnian Muslims not be allowed to arm themselves. They were then left to be slaughtered. The U.S assisted in the Bosnian genocide.
As for Rwanda, the U.N troops there could have intervened but were ordered not to. Although that's o.k with you because meddling in other countries is deemed extreme, right? Except when it comes to Iraq, or Afghanistan, or the Occupiued Palestinian territories, e.t.c.
How is the Bosnia thing a prime example? The West, including the U.S, left them to be slaughtered. You tied the U.N's hands behind their backs just as you, and Britain, did in the case of Rwanda.
U.S intereference in post WWII world affairs has been nothing but self-serving and detrimental to those countries involved.
I think you're confusing the standard, blinkered view of the U.S's role in WWII with post war Europe.
Europeans would be much better off on their own, free of U.S interefernce and militirism. I'd prefer to see a united Europe - or European Federation. I think it would put an end to U.S unilaterilism and untamed U.S aggression in the world.
What's your point?
Russia = bad, U.S.A = good?
If it wasn't for Russia most of Central and South America would be nothing but a giant U.S sweat shop today.
Says someone living in the most imperialist country in the world today, who, without Russian and Chinese efforts, would have Central and South America, and most of Asia under it's boot heel.
Not that this has anything to do with why Bill Clinton deserves no accolades. He chose to allow both Bosnia and Rwanda to go to hell. He also oversaw 8 years of blockades against Iraq that directly caused the deaths of over half a million children. And your pathetic attempts to change the subject and talk about Russia change nothing.
yeah we were just like the Soviets. just like em.
Why don't you ask a Nicaraguan, or an El Salvadorean, or a Guatemalan, or a Vietnamese what they think?
O.k, Jimmy Carter.
the argument was why do many countries like Norway have rather small militaries (compared to the big boys) and the answer is because they had the full might of the US military as their protection against a far more aggressive USSR (which also admittedly was nice for US, France and Britain).
btw, did you forget about who invaded Afghanistan before us? who was it? rhymed with Russia, i think.
and Tibet with China?
no but you're right, Russia and China are just looking out for the little guy, protecting them from them mean old AMerican sweat shops! Chinese sweat shops are so much better!
How did I change the subject?
Did you learn this from the back of a box of cereal, or can you support this statement with some proof? Sounds to me like you're just making up at as you go along.
Maybe when you're busy Googling a suitable response you'll stumble across the inconvenient fact that the U.S has the biggest military budget of any country in the world, more than 6 times that of China, and more than ten times that of Russia, France, and the U.K.
I didn't say that Russia and China were looking out for the little guy. I said that the influence of Russia and China prevented much of the world from becoming a U.S sweat shop.
You're just making it up as you go along. European countries aren't 'getting away with' anything. No European country is under any threat, and still wouldn't be if the U.S closed their bases and fucked off, as many Europeans want. In fact one of the U.S's biggest fears is a European Federation with it's own military and unified economy, which is why it's doing everything it can to prevent it.
Well, putting aside the whole issue of nothing ever seeming relative to you under any circumstances (its all either good or bad), I am unclear on how American and European inaction somehow prevented African nations from intervening. Your links point towards US inaction but I was not arguing against that view. Other nations have admittedly to not doing enough in Rwanda as well. How did the US prevent African nations from taking action, exactly?
One other thing ... Its a little hard to take your view of Chavez seriously. You were probably joking, albeit it wasn't funny.
Many African nations supported the Hutu's.
Why do you presume I was joking?
I think you need to take your medicine.
Still, nice use of the word 'whatever'. Clearly all those hours spent watching Riki Lake and Jerry Springer have finally paid off.
Exactly, and that's my issue ... Was the onus on the West to intervene, because Africa wasn't willing to do so? I am not accusing you personally, but people seem to want the West to play world cop after all. If they fail to do so in Africa, they are guilty of turning a blind eye to genocide. But if they do so in the Middle East, they are oil-grubbing imperialists. I can see the argument that the US intervenes in a very selective fashion, largely when economic interests happen to coincide with humanitarian ones, but the black-and-white view that the US needs to butt out completely might be hold up after all.
Maybe you forget the huge role that Belgium and France had in that region? When the killing began - in fact, long before the killing began - the world looked to the U.N to intervene, but the U.S prevented anything happening, and they continued to tie the U.N's hands once the genocide had begun - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/mar/31/usa.rwanda
and did you actually read the article?