(V):

(V):

Artful Dodger: So when discussing the history of the world, it's ok to state facts and opinions about roles?

Czuch:

gogul: Embarrassing or just facts? Most countries, if not all have some incident in their past.

I mean... our ancestors were not exactly saints when it came to politics and the sword!!

(V): None of the above.

Czuch: ROFL.........

(V): You missed the context of my post Czuch.


Thats a first... it usually the other way around!

(V): Of course America is entirely innocent. That was all these Spanish aliens!

(V): Well, the British history is pretty embarrassing.

Artful Dodger: what that this is getting back to party politics... or evil is still evil, or the wars... And that America is entirely innocent? Or Americans can't take criticism of an idol of theirs??

Which?

(V): You've still missed the point of my post. Not that it matters. I wasn't talking about Iraq specifically. You brought that into it. Mine was simply an observation. I wasn't speaking specifics, but in general terms. You either agree with my thesis or you don't.

Artful Dodger: It's not a case of blame.... fact is not blame, it's facing the reality of the situation. The aftermath of the invasion of Iraq was not planned, end of. Bad mistake... people are allowed to make mistakes and as such governments are made of people.

Sorry, I try and follow the Eastern style of problem solving and statement.

Western is to blame. you can state a fact without blaming, it's just a fact.

Czuch: Yes, it is a common recruitment call. I believe factions in the USA use this method.... and?

You missed the context of my post Czuch.

Übergeek 바둑이:   Great post.  I only take small issue with a few things.  I think it may amount to perspective.  Truth gets muddled in opinions and bias.  I admit a bias toward the US and consider its intentions in the world noble.  Not always, but more often than not.

"We get to the heart of the matter. We MUST do something. What if we
didn't? The thugs would run over things. Yet to stop the thugs we must
become thugs ourselves."

Thugs or knights in shining armor?  Here it's a matter of perspective.  If we oppressed the people or ran over them to get to the thugs, then I'd fully agree.  But generally speaking, the US does not act in this way.  The US policy is to go after the thugs and kill them.  When we vacate Iraq we will leave it with better hopes for the future and freedom from the trannical dictator that murdered his own people.  That's called liberation.  Yet the events in Iraq are often characterized as an invasion.  Again, it's perspective. 

The US is often like the guy in the store who witnesses a robbery.  A man in a mask points a gun a the clerk, pistol whips a customer and threatens everyone.  The "US guy (well call him gUS) sees an opportunity to deal with the thug and jumps him.  There's a fight.  gUS gets away the gun and shoots the guy (who was still fighting) five times - point blank.  gUS wanted to fully end the threat.  gUS was just in the store to buy some gum.  He likely saved the lives of people in the store.  But the press (the world) reports the story, not as gUS being a hero, but as gUS being a thug.  The world complains that gUS acted reclessly putting everyone at risk.  And gUS, while in possession of the only weapon, fired point blank into a "defensless" man, killing him.  gUS is now a villan.  The hero is the thug (this is exactly what is happening with captured terrorists). 

" We want to save the world, and use force to do
it."

Because that's often the only way to do it.  

"We want to have it both ways. Go to war and impose our system on
others, but we want to be called lovers of peace and democracy at the
same time. Our politicians know this and they try their best to
convince us that the idelogical justifications are what matter. The
ulterior motives (like oil and power) should be ignored."

or

We don't want to have it both way.  We go to war, sacrifice our lives to give other nations the opportunity to develop a system of freedom.  We are loves of peace and often the road to true peace is at the end of a gun (can you name any long lasting peace that hasn't required a threat of some kind?). 

As for the comment on politicians:  I don't trust most of them. 

On oil:  I'm not convinced that it's all about oil.  But I'm also not convinced that oil isn't on the table.  But it's not the only thing.   World conflicts are often far too complicated to boil down to any one thing.  There are many factors and suggesting it's this thing or that thing is mostly guess work. 

(V):  The point I was making wasn't about the US's internal policies but the perception many in the world often have of the US.   If you disagree with that point, say so and give some evidence  as to where I'm going wrong.  I don't suggest it's always the case, but generally speaking, yes.  Even some nuts on the far left blame the US for everything.  And of course when Bush was in office, they salivated at the prospect of discrediting his administration.  But even now with Obama in office, their true colors show.  It's blame the US first, ask questions later. 

Übergeek 바둑이: I think you have it wrong... we are not lovers of peace and democracy, we are lovers of hope and prosperity, its just that peace and democracy are a good means to that end!

To me, the biggest evil in the world is denying people a legitimate atmosphere where they can feel a sense of hope for their future and that of their children!

When a dictator spends all his countries riches on a new palace for himself, while the rest of the world feeds all of his people.... dont we, as the ones feeding them, have a right to do something to effect a change that will allow them to one day feed themselves?

(V): They made it so Iraq's borders were weak and anyone can just walk in.


This soooooo infuriates me to no end!!!!!!

Why do we even need to protect our borders like this in the first place!!!????!!!

It is eveil people with evil intentions that are the scourge of this world... people that would sneak into Iraq just to blow up women and children with the intent to keep Iraqi people from having a prosperous life!!!!!!!!!

Those are the people and the intentions that need to be eliminated!

But those people are not born, they are made, and it is hopeless desperation that makes them!

When people are born into poverty and hopelessness, and their government does nothing to improve this situation, these are the people who end up resenting and hating and who get recruited into blowing themselves up to get back at the evil USA or whatever.....

It is in our national interest to help these people, and not just by giving them food and other aid, but by sowing the seeds that will allow them to feed themselves, and to have hope for a prosperous future, only then will we never have to blame the US for leaving a border unsecured, so some *people* could come in and *mess* everything up!!!!!


I will never apologize for the US, the rest of the world can talk and negotiate and hope and keep their heads in the sand, but the US will take the bull by the horns, yes, we will always have our national interest at heart, but we are noble, and forget anyone who believes otherwise!

Artful Dodger:
> The US can't win:

This is true in the sense that our western governments have played a political game in which they want to prove to their voting puublics that they are acting with the best intentions. I call this the "Peace Keeping Syndrome". Being a Canadian I blame Canada to a great extent for this because the "Peace Keeping Movement" at the UN was spear-headed by Canada.

Our governments used military force to bring about relative peace to certain parts of the world. In particular Lebanon, Cyprus and others. The UN was successful in stopping some military conflicts, but the UN charter forbid a foreign power from coming in and changing the internal political system. That meant letting dictators (or any government) do as they pleased inside their country. Peace keeping was not an option unless the conflict spread outside of a countries borders.

Things did change with Iraq. Saddam Hussain invaded Kuwait and the UN Charter allowed military action against him, but it forbid removing him from power. It is why George Bush (Sr.) did not order the army to enter Bagdad.

George W. Bush and his administration did try to get backing from the UN. They engaged all possible diplomatic channels and in the end convinced 49 countries to form a coalition. The big problem was that the intellegence (or lack of it) was bad. The threat that Saddam posed externally turned out not to exist. If the had found WMDs things would be different now. The actions would have been militarily justified.

In all of this you will notice the great effort spent in justifying military action, both at home and abroad. That is the "Peace Keeper Syndrome". We want to enforce peace. We want to enforce democracy, rule of law, freedom, etc. We want to enforce things that are abstract ideological constructs.


> It's a small world after all. And it's getting smaller. The US must do something,
> along with the international community, to stop the thugs of the world.

We get to the heart of the matter. We MUST do something. What if we didn't? The thugs would run over things. Yet to stop the thugs we must become thugs ourselves. We want to save the world, and use force to do it. We want to have it both ways. Go to war and impose our system on others, but we want to be called lovers of peace and democracy at the same time. Our politicians know this and they try their best to convince us that the idelogical justifications are what matter. The ulterior motives (like oil and power) should be ignored.


> N. Korea is a good case in point. You people feel safe with these thugs having
> nuclear arms?

Perhaps at this point we get to a case of hypocrisy and double standards. It is OK for countries that already have nuclear weapons to keep them for "national protection and defense". The assumption is that we are sane, rational, peace-loving nuclear powers. The other guys are dangerous thugs. The truth is that nuclear powers have a monopoly of military might and they want to keep it.

If Iraq had truly had WMDs, would the US have truly gone to war?

Our excuse is simple:
"We have WMDs, but the thugs should not get their hands on them because then the thugs can attack us."

We want to keep our deterrent we don't want others to have it. I guess our presidents will always be sane, and our failsafe systems will always be there. North Koreans really want to use nuclear bombs against us. They are all insane and they have a death wish!

> Czuch: I guess it depends somewhat on how you define 'imperialism'....

Perhaps what I was trying to get at in my post is that empires have acted in a similar ways through history. The only big difference now is that empires no longer want to be called empires. We want to justify our actions based on some nobler, greater ideals.

Since the creation of the United Nations the way empires behave has changed. In the past if the British or the French or other western empires wanted to do something, they did and the consequences both at home and abroad were not scrutinized so much in the communications media.

Today we want oil, minerals, food and all the other commodities we need. Our governments and private corporations go out and get them the old fashioned way, through war and imperialist methods. However, the voting public wants good justifications for those actions.

As the voting public we want to go to war based on some high ideal and not just securing the supply of commodities. Consider the following two statements:

"We are going to war to protect our country from terrorism and from an evil dictator that threatens us with weapons of mass destruction. The protection of our democracy and our way of life depend in taking decisive action."

"We are going to war because there happens to be a dictator that is hostile to us and he controls the third largest oil reserves in the world. Several large, powerful oil monopolies will make billions while we control the supply and distribution of oil in the world."

The voting public would refuse to go war if the justification is imperialism, but the voting public will go to war if they feel their freedom and democracy threatened.

Our politicians have become pragmatic and cynical. That goes for both left and right wing parties. Conservatives, liberals, democrats, republicans, etc., they all now stand for the same thing, which is to convince the public that their actions are right no matter what.

We as the voting public have given them that power. I think the big problem now is that we do not want to be called imperialists because since WW II empires are "bad". There was a time when people were proud to be part of big empires. If we go back 100 years, many western nations saw imperialism as more desirable than democracy. That ideological change came about with WW II.

Artful Dodger: And when would you say the USA enjoyed full democracy for all it's population? Equal rights for all it's population? And as such.. a united USA???

History records that the UK became a democratic country centuries ago, but after recent events... were we? Or did we just replace a king with politicians?

(V):  Like I said, you've proven my point. 

History records the birth of the US in 1776 not1864

Artful Dodger: No, Iraq became a calling point as the USA put it's soldiers in a position where they destabilised the region and had no plan for the aftermath of the invasion. They made it so Iraq's borders were weak and anyone can just walk in.. Plus, putting back in authority those who were not to be trusted.. eg.. I wonder how a US soldier feels that the arms he's being fired on with are those supplied by the US to such as the Iraqi police force?

As for the birth of the USA as we know it today.. yes it was the civil war, otherwise your country would be split in two. Independence is just a conception point, as many have found, not the birth.

(V):  and it was not a civil war that birthed the US.

(V):You're proving my point.  Blaming the US seems to be the answer to everything.  Terrorists and suicide bombers kill innocents in a market place and the US is blamed because they "invaded" Iraq.  Odd.   That's like blaming the bank for the robbery simply because they had lots of money on the premises.  ;)

Artful Dodger: No it doesn't. We are all supposed to be for democracy regardless of the political orientation of the government.

No outside power has the right to interfere with a democratic process within a country, unless called in to make sure (as per UN observers) that the election is fair.

Over the last 50 years or so, the USA and USSR have interfered so much that the world is mixed up, all over power games and a believe that their is no room for the opposite side.

Boys and their playground games!!

Artful Dodger: Easier to deal with for whom? The USA and the thirst for oil, or for the population of those who A, B or C is now been put in power over?

And don't forget civil war can be part of a country's birth, just like yours.

North Korea is a dud, they can't do anything without it being spotted.

I feel more insecure over Israel as they are allowed to do pretty much what they want and no one stops them over their breakage of UN resolutions and that they have not signed the proper nuclear arms treaties.

No-one is denying it is not a complex world, but the reasons behind the decisions of those who say they know best, yet no-one seems to regulate such bodies, except paranoia and fear.

(V):  That rather misses the entire point of the post. 

Artful Dodger: So a democratically elected government is more evil then a bunch of right wing dictators?

I thought democracy was the lessor of the "two evils".

My bad!!

Artful Dodger: nice post ad

In an oil rich middle eastern country, two rivals are waging a civil war in a fight for power.  US officials meet and decide to support tyrant A because they think he will be easier to deal with in the long run and will have a more stabilizing effect on the region.  They supply him with arms.  A defeats B and then goes and kills millions of his supporters.  Many of them women and children.  The US gets blamed for interfering.

 Or

US officials meet and decide to support tyrant B because they think he
will be easier to deal with in the long run and will have a more stabilizing effect on the region.  They supply him with arms.  B defeats
A and then goes and kills millions of his supporters.  Many of them
women and children.  The US gets blamed for interfering.

or

In an oil rich middle eastern country, two rivals are waging a civil
war in a fight for power.  US officials meet and decide to do nothing.  A defeats B and then goes and kills millions of his
supporters.  Many of them women and children.  The US gets blamed for NOT interfering.

or

In an oil rich middle eastern country, two rivals are waging a civil
war in a fight for power.  US officials meet and decide to do nothing.  B defeats A and then goes and kills millions of his
supporters.  Many of them women and children.  The US gets blamed for NOT interfering.

Notice that tyrant A and B rarely get the press for their horrible crimes against humanity.  They fire the guns, blow up the bombs that kill the people, and the US gets to shoulder the blame. 

It's a small world after all.  And it's getting smaller.  The US must do something, along with the international community, to stop the thugs of the world.  N. Korea is a good case in point.  You people feel safe with these thugs having nuclear arms?  Forget who else has them.  You ok with N. Korea getting nuclear bombs and long range missles? 

If you say no to that question, then what's to be done?  Diplomacy has the word "dip" in it.  You'd be a dip if you thought diplomacy would work.  These folks don't think like you think.  

Many of the arguments one here assume a far less complex world than actually exists. 

(V): The point is, it seems to me, that the reasons have been for other than to add more states and increase federal tax revenues.

and like AD said, the world is a very complex place....

(V):  Because the world is complicated and sometimes the choice is for the lesser of two evils.  ;)

Czuch: So why has the USA interfered in so many governments over the years? Including upto the level of arming right ring monsters attempting military take overs, rather then the elected left wing government being in power?

Übergeek 바둑이: I guess it depends somewhat on how you define 'imperialism'....

I dont see the US as trying to gain more land or more authority or to conquer necessarily, which is what I think of when I hear 'imperialism'.

I believe we are simply trying to protect our own interests as a sovereign nation. From that point, we have a vested interest in keeping other countries from becoming dangerous to us.

We are dependent on foreign oil sources, so we have an interest in keeping these sources of oil from becoming unstable to the point where it effects our ability to obtain that oil. To me, that is not imperialism, per se.

Now, if we can figure out how to end this dependence, then I dont give a rats ass what these countries do or how they exist, as long as they leave us alone in the process. But as things stand right now, it can hurt the US if these countries are not stable. It just happens that we also believe the best way to make them more stable is for them to be democratic in nature, and to give their people freedom and rights and hope for a prosperous future.

Again, I dont see this as imperialism.....

Czuch:

I find the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan interesting in the sense that the government has gone to such great lenghts to justify and legitimize the war.

It is very interesting that many Americans dislike being called an empire. That is understandable because the United States was born out of the War of Independence from the British Empire. An anti-imperialist stance was part of the founding of the United States and the ideology that followed was one of expansionism but opposition to imperialism. This was embodied in the Monroe Doctrine. This doctrine was introduced by President James Monroe in response to the expansion fo the British Empire in Latin America. As Latin American countries declared independence from Spain the British Empire attempted to expand and James Monroe took a clear anti-imperialist stance.

In 1836 the Republic of Texas allied itself to the British Empire in the hopes of surviving as an independent republic. The Mexican government was trying to regain control of the territory and alliance with the British empire was an option that Texan pursued. In 1845 President James Polk used the Monroe Doctrine to justify the Mexican-American War. In that was the United States gained a lot of territory and President James Polk had a very difficult time convincing politicians in Washington that expansion into the west was not an imperialist policy. This is where the doctrine of Manifest Destiny was born. The US was destined (even divinely ordained) to expand across North America, and that was used as a way to justify American imperialism in the 19th century and later in the 20th century as the US moved to fight against communism in Latin America.

There are speeches of that era in the White House website. The tone of James Polk's speeches is so similar to the speeches of George W. Bush. Instead of Iraq Americans dealt with Mexico, and instead of Saddam Hussain, Americans demonized Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, the Mexican president of that era.

Considering the historical and ideological nature of American expansionism, I see the United States as a "reluctant empire". The US pursues a clearly imperialist foreign policy, but to satisfy the ideological expectations of the voting public the government has to try its best to justify war before the public.

This is not a new phenomenon. Every empire in history needed to justify its actions.

The Greeks fought against the "barbaric Persians", even though the Persians were one of the great civilizations in history.

The Romans fought against the "barbarian tribes" and tried to "civilize" them. That implied that Celts, Germans, Iberians, Egyptians, etc. had no civilization.

Arabs fought against "infidels" and believed that God had destined Islam to expand across the world. This implied that Christianity was an unacceptable religion.

Likewise the Holy Roman Empire went into the crusades in the name of God, and called Arabs and Turks barbaric, in spite of the strengths and achievements of those cultures.

The Spanish empire killed millions of American natives and justified it in the name of God and civilization.

Napoleon occupied all of continental Europe under the call of "Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite" (freedon, equality, brotherhood).

The Britsh Empire tried to bring the "civilized world" to its imperial acquisitions. I imagine that India and China were not civilized!

Josef Stalin sent millions to their deaths in the name of socialism, equality and the fight against imperialism.

Now we fight our wars in the names of freedom and democracy. That is the essence of ideology. It sells abstract concepts as concrete justifications for war. The US has fallen into that ideological trap too. Imperialism in the name of a higher principle.

Übergeek 바둑이: Terrorism and WMDs were a plausible excuse to go to war.



Thats one I can agree with!

Bwild:

I entirely agree. The war in Iraq, just like the war in Afghanistan, is over oil and who controls the monopoly of production and distribution in the MIddle East and Central Asia. It is no accident that the following oil connections are obvious:

George W. Bush - Arbusto Energy (Arbusto is Spanish for Bush)
Condaleeza Rice - Chevron Texaco, former member of the board of directors
Dick Cheney - Former CEO of Haliburton
Hamid Karzai - current President of Afghanistan, former executive for Unocal, a pipeline company acquired by Chevron-Texaco in 2004

It is also no accident that Lee Raymond, the former chairman of Exxon-Mobil, was also the largest individual contributor to both of George W. Bush's electoral campaigns.

It is also no accident that the people in the list above (together with some of the big players in the war like Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz) also had their money in the Carlisle Group, a private equity firm run by Bob Carlucci, former head of the CIA. Carlisle is also the company that represented the financial interests of the Bin Laden brothers in the US.

Terrorism and WMDs were a plausible excuse to go to war. However, all wars always boil down to who gets rich, and in the case of Iraq it was oil companies.

Some day the truth will come to light because the Freedom of Information Act will at some point force the government to declassify all the documentation that for now remains classified.

Übergeek 바둑이: I think when its all said and done..it'll be over oil and oil prices.

gogul: Allthough, where is the carped for radioactive dust?

Imsoaddicted: It is Nicolas Sarkozy (the French pres) who said that if you brush the dust under the carpet you'll get a problem in the future.

My feeling is that the 2007 London car bombings where an orchestred fake from A to Z. A Browny/Bush booster, laws to control the opposition, to legitimate governmental stress over the people.

Imsoaddicted: It better not, otherwise I feel a revolution will be at hand.

(V): http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8110022.stm

lets hope this isnt brushed under the carpet

Artful Dodger: A mess. But I have to say this is based on limited info as we cannot get good reporting from that country due to the restrictions in place. But it feels like a religion backed dictatorship.. Well, I say religion, but realistically it's a perversion of the Islamic faith.

(V):   What are your thoughts on the current situation in Iran?

Snoopy: Hopefully they will go for the UKIP instead, but unless they change some of the immigration laws I fear it will be the BNP.

(V): they playing straight into the BNP hands
cant they see that

Snoopy: Have you heard about the Iraq Inquiry.. behind closed doors, no under oath, and no power to make people appear.

Such great openness that we are getting

(V): yet another WHITEWASH

i just add words fail me cause if i put what i really feel i be banned from here for good