Artful Dodger: nice post ad

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

History records the birth of the US in 1776 not1864

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):  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. 

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.

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

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): Embarrassing sword facts. At least there are some places who try to reach their goals with intelligence. Like Canada, or Norway, or the US courently. Or less intelligence, like Island, but at least! GB's representatives are still a manslaughter to me. I'm very sorry. Or why sorry? You probably know the degenerated British uperclass.

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

(V): None of the above.

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

(V):

(V): I wasn't discussing the history of the world. That has nothing to do with the thesis of my post. If you want to discuss another topic, then don't refer back to my original post because honestly I don't know what you're talking about with respect to my original comments.

Artful Dodger: You were talking about the USA being dammed either way, it isn't.

And world history, especially over the last 60 years is significant. We got caught in a spiral of fear, mistakes were made. Paranoia ruled.

Fact.... not blame.

(V): We got caught in a spiral of fear,

Really???? I believe that fits right in to what AD is trying to point out..... there are groups of people out there who exist only to ruin freedom and democracy, and they employ terrorist tactics to achieve that goal, and yet all you can see is how WE got caught in a spiral of fear, blame us, we are the aholes for being afraid of people who want to kill us??? We are paranoid?!?!?!?

Czuch: Czuch.. I was speaking globally, not just the USA. The Cold War was 'fought' by many nations. Nuclear weapons stockpile war, biological weapons "we'd better have them" stockpile war.. Us in the UK still have an island off Scotland that is a no go due to an experiment with Anthrax.

(V): More to the point. I was saying that no matter the scenerio, critics of the US would find something to blame on the US. Not all critics, but many.

Facts are often in the eye of the beholder. Much of what you state as a fact is really opinion. To prove it, name three "facts" regarding the US and see how they stand.

Artful Dodger: Nagasaki was not the planned target of the second A bomb.

Over the Cuban missile crises, much secret talking was going on, which resulted in a compromise involving Turkey and what was placed there strategically.

Racial segregation was still widely practised in parts of the USA even in the mid 20th century

(V): And world history, especially over the last 60 years is significant. We got caught in a spiral of fear, mistakes were made. Paranoia ruled.

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..

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.

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.

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 on and on and on. these are ALL opinions. They are not arguments. They are assertions on your part. You could be right or you could be wrong. They are all debatable points. Like many here, including myself, your posts contain mostly opinion. And most of the time you offer no formal argument to support your assertions. That's fine with me. To be expected in a forum such as this. But I know the difference between fact and opinion and much of what you say is simply your opinion. Not fact.

Oh yeah, that's a fact.

(V): What's that to do with the 3 facts you asked me to produce?? Now you are changing the subject!!

(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!

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.

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


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

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

Czuch:

(V):

Czuch:

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

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!

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?

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.