so who then?
Comments
-
MrSmith wrote:
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.Post edited by Byrnzie on0 -
MrSmith wrote:
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.Post edited by Byrnzie on0 -
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.Byrnzie wrote:MrSmith wrote:
i'm sure they would have been happy to settle for just half of Europe without US/British involvement. :roll:Byrnzie wrote:
What's your point?
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.
yeah we were just like the Soviets. just like em.Post edited by LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun on0 -
mikepegg44 wrote: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?
O.k, Jimmy Carter.0 -
why are you changing the subject, btw?
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!0 -
-
MrSmith wrote:why are you changing the subject, btw?
How did I change the subject?MrSmith wrote: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.MrSmith wrote: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.Post edited by Byrnzie on0 -
which is exactly why many European countries allied to the US can get away with such small ones.Byrnzie wrote:MrSmith wrote:why are you changing the subject, btw?
How did I change the subject?MrSmith wrote: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.0 -
MrSmith wrote: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.0 -
Byrnzie wrote:rebornFixer wrote: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.'rebornFixer wrote: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.0 -
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!Byrnzie wrote:MrSmith wrote: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.0 -
rebornFixer wrote:How did the US prevent African nations from taking action, exactly?
Many African nations supported the Hutu's.rebornFixer wrote:One other thing ... Its a little hard to take your view of Chavez seriously. You were probably joking, albeit it wasn't funny.
Why do you presume I was joking?0 -
MrSmith wrote: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.Post edited by Byrnzie on0 -
for agreeing with you? asolutely i need medication.Byrnzie wrote:MrSmith wrote: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.Post edited by LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun on0 -
Byrnzie wrote:rebornFixer wrote: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.0 -
rebornFixer wrote:Byrnzie wrote:rebornFixer wrote: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.rwanda0 -
as usual. you ignore the question.Byrnzie wrote:rebornFixer wrote:rebornFixer wrote: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
and did you actually read the article?0 -
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.Byrnzie wrote:
Still, nice use of the word 'whatever'. Clearly all those hours spent watching Riki Lake and Jerry Springer have finally paid off.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 149K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 278 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help