The world of Fiero, so he has spoken, so it shall be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

Holey crap....Clinton and Bush took HEAT from the chattering classes for NOT doing something in Rwanda and Darfur and took heat from the same people for Iraq. My point is the US is damend if they do, damned if they don't. Now you condemn the US for being in Haiti. I guess you better put Canada and Brazil in there as conquerers too, because we both have troops in there.

My point has been always is the USA is always wrong. If they get involved somewhere, whether they have a noble goal or just a goal, they are wrong, and then they get slammed for helping poor nations with nothing. There were people slagging Clinton moving the Marines into Somaila because it was a failed state and then all over him for pulling them OUT less than a year later.

If you hate the Americans like you and Eki seem to Steve, then nothing they do outside there borders is ever justified now is it?

AS for you Eki, the Soviet Union was tossed out of the League for invading Finland but that happened to be more feckless than the useless UN. THe reason the USA isn't tossed should be obvious. 1/3 of the Budget of the UN comes from the USA. Believe me, there a ton of Americans that would love it shipped to Helsinki or some other "englightened" capital and they could just get out of it. Believe me, Americans on the citizen level probably would vote to get the heck out of the UN. As a Canadian, I would love to see the Americans out and Canada out, but I know the latter would never happen...

---

Most Americans have no clue what the UN is anyway so yeah why pay for something you have no clue about eh? ;) Also the US has a habit of ignoring the UN so why in the hell bother at all????

Hate is a strong word Mark. Im sure you know i dont HATE Americans, i just find alot of them to be VERY ignorant and think they can do as they please. That would be why alot of people (not including myself) HATE them. You have to admit they do poke their noses in where its not wanted...trying to tell others how they should run their country, when their country is in a BIG bag of poo aswell...

charity begins at home does it not?

The main reason why the US and others help these poor countries is because they play the "hearts and minds" game. We will give this and that if you guys do this and that for us...Its NOT to help them its to get what they want out of them...

There is nothing in Haiti to want and it was like that before the earthquake.
The poorest country in the Americas.

The theft of Haiti has been swift and crude. On 22 January, the United States secured “formal approval” from the United Nations to take over all air and sea ports in Haiti, and to “secure” roads. No Haitian signed the agreement, which has no basis in law. Power rules in an American naval blockade and the arrival of 13,000 marines, special forces, spooks and mercenaries, none with humanitarian relief training.

The airport in the capital, Port-au-Prince, is now an American military base and relief flights have been re-routed to the Dominican Republic. All flights stopped for three hours for the arrival of Hillary Clinton. Critically injured Haitians waited unaided as 800 American residents in Haiti were fed, watered and evacuated. Six days passed before the US Air Force dropped bottled water to people suffering thirst and dehydration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Easy Drifter

There is nothing in Haiti to want and it was like that before the earthquake.
The poorest country in the Americas.

---

http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=564

In his latest column for the New Statesman, John Pilger describes the "swift and crude" appropriation of earthquake-ravaged Haiti by the militarised Obama administration. With George W. Bush attending to the "relief effort" and Bill Clinton the UN's man, The Comedians, Graham Greene's dark novel about exploted Haiti comes to mind.



The theft of Haiti has been swift and crude. On 22 January, the United States secured “formal approval” from the United Nations to take over all air and sea ports in Haiti, and to “secure” roads. No Haitian signed the agreement, which has no basis in law. Power rules in an American naval blockade and the arrival of 13,000 marines, special forces, spooks and mercenaries, none with humanitarian relief training.

The airport in the capital, Port-au-Prince, is now an American military base and relief flights have been re-routed to the Dominican Republic. All flights stopped for three hours for the arrival of Hillary Clinton. Critically injured Haitians waited unaided as 800 American residents in Haiti were fed, watered and evacuated. Six days passed before the US Air Force dropped bottled water to people suffering thirst and dehydration.

As I said to Eki: Horsefeathers.
The President of Haiti was at the airport early on. The control tower was demolished and the Haitian Airport staff either killed or looking for family. That is why the US took control. Canada's Dart team arrived there as did other Cdn. aid flights. DART produce large quantities of clean water hourly among other things. The reason some flights were rerouted to the Dominican Republic was that the Haitian Airport was jammed up with too many flights. At the time there literally was no space to land or park and unload planes. Many non military mercy flights have landed there since including Cdn. Flights in and out are now scheduled to avoid backups. That took time to organize and only the US was capable of setting it up. Basically an air traffic control system had to be set up from scratch!
Another problem has been so many destroyed roads or ones totally blocked with rubble it has been difficult to move supplies to where needed. Heavy equipment has to be imported as does fuel. The fuel depots were destroyed or damaged.
Canada has two warships at another area with both soldiers and sailors ashore maintaining order and providing food and water. We have set up portable field hospitals. If there is a naval blockade I guess our warships fought their way through. Sacasm aside the last thing needed are a bunch of private sightseeing boats.
Canada has over 2000 military there. With our troops in Afghanistan and more needed for security at the Oympics we are stretched very thin.
Brazil has troops there.
There are volunteer aid personal from many countries. Israel has a large fully equipped portable medical facility complete with operating rooms.
Before the Quake there were police officers from several countries in Haiti training the Haitian Police. Two of our RCMP officers were killed.
Last weekend the Barrie Police Dept. had a drive to collect donated tents to send. Barrie is a city of about 130,000. They filled a cube van with donated tents. They were shipped out today.
It is only logical for the US to take charge. They are close, relatively speaking, have the personal and equipment and the means to get them there.
I know there were teams from the UK and even Iceland operating shortly after the earthquake.
Sure there are going to be glitches and problems. There is no question there is anarchy in some areas. Remember the main prison was destroyed and all the immates escaped. Yes people are desparate but there basically is no infrastructure left with very few safe buildings. Most water systems destroyed, power plants destroyed. This makes the Tusami look like a minor event.
As also pointed out there is nothing in Haiti anyone wants.
Canada has loosened its immigration laws for Haiti and already many Cdn. families have adopted orphans.
Oh yes our Governor General is originally from Haiti.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steve_spackman

Most Americans have no clue what the UN is anyway so yeah why pay for something you have no clue about eh? ;) Also the US has a habit of ignoring the UN so why in the hell bother at all????

---

They ignore the UN, the Chinese ignore the UN, Britain has at times ignored the UN, the French ignore anyone who they feel like ignoring, ...you see a trend here of course? The USSR and later Russia? God knows they used to ignore the UN, and I am pretty sure the UN didn't approve of that little adventure in Ossetia/Georgia.

Get a grip Steve, most nations with power and influence ignore the UN, yours included....The UN is full of idiots really.....and yes Americans are ignorant of the UN, but what they know, they often don't like. Charity does begin at home, and if the money spent on the UN was spent at home, I suspect you could do some good with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steve_spackman

Hate is a strong word Mark. Im sure you know i dont HATE Americans, i just find alot of them to be VERY ignorant and think they can do as they please. That would be why alot of people (not including myself) HATE them. You have to admit they do poke their noses in where its not wanted...trying to tell others how they should run their country, when their country is in a BIG bag of poo aswell...

charity begins at home does it not?

---

You just called the USA a big bag of poo. That's nice...you go overseas to football games and start fights? I guarntee you walk around most American cities calling their town a bag of poo, even if the city IS one, you will be asking for a fight. I dont think you HATE America, but the fact we are even having the discussion should put a filter on your mouth on some of the things you accuse them of.

Are they nasty and ugly on a holiday? Some of them are, and I have heard people who work in resorts hate drunken and stupid Brits at times. Germans? God knows they expose parts they shouldn't and stay drunk all the time. Italians? Cant get them from shutting up and making a lot of noise? The French? Gawd, they don't even like themselves. As I said; get a grip every nation has its morons, clods and jerks. If you cant figure that out, maybe you might be one. Steve, I am being harsh because you just dump on a country and play to every negative stereotype you can name and if you had done that about blacks or jews, some countries would be looking at you for hate speech. Get a grip son, you know better than that and I know you do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steve_spackman

The main reason why the US and others help these poor countries is because they play the "hearts and minds" game. We will give this and that if you guys do this and that for us...Its NOT to help them its to get what they want out of them

---

Did it ever ONCE occur to you that maybe the US wants to help legitmately? Maybe they have self interest in stopping the failed state of Haiti from getting much worse and having a bunch of poor Haitians showing up in Miami as refugees. I doubt it however. The military is there because that is the only way would find 13000 people willing to help AND protect the aid workers already there. There has been riots for food, riots for water. Haiti was a failed state BEFORE the earthquake so there is no way they have any power to do anything. IF we waited for the useless UN to organize things, half of Haiti would be in the Dominican Republic looking for help by now.

The US, Canada, Brazil and other nations have been in there since day one, and all those nations sent in their military. IT is however a humantarian mission. You say the soldiers are not trained for that? Ever occur to you they are human? Have family at home? You figure when they put the uniform on they forget how to be decent to people? Stupid thing for you to say Steve. I thought you were smarter than that.....

Haiti is a mess, and there is no real upside financially or powerwise for the US or any other nation in that part of the world helping. IT is a moral imperative to help, just like the US had a carrier and naval units off shore the day of the tsunami in Indonesia and Thailand. Helping....and even then, they were accused of an motive other than just good will. UNFREAKING believeable. If they hadn't helped, you would dump on them for ignoring the pain and suffering.

You say you don't hate Americans or America? Funny way of showing it chum. Cant wait to hear what you say about Canadians.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steve_spackman

Well lets hope the people get the help they need...thats the most important thing at the end of the day

---

Yes, I agree. When something like this happens, all political differences seem petty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

If you hate the Americans like you and Eki seem to Steve, then nothing they do outside there borders is ever justified now is it?

---

Have I complained that the US didn't invade Rwanda or Darfur? No.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Easy Drifter

Eki we are talking the Koreas not Finland.

---

Situation of Finland in 1918 was very similar to Korea in 1950. Big countries meddled with internal affairs of small countries and gave them weapons, training and even troops so that they can fight a civil war. Situation of Finland in 1939 was very similar to Iraq in 2003. Big countries invaded small countries saying they are going to liberate them and claimed that they were threats to the security of the big countries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Easy Drifter

There is nothing in Haiti to want

---

Children?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8494841.stm

You really are a sick puppy.
By the way what has Finland done to help in Haiti?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Easy Drifter

You really are a sick puppy.
By the way what has Finland done to help in Haiti?

---

Sent doctors, nurses and a field hospital:

http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Fin.../1135252279044

The UN has also asked Finland to send crises management troops, but I don't know if they are sent yet:

http://www.hs.fi/english/article/UN+.../1135252386350

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

Sent doctors, nurses and a field hospital:

http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Fin.../1135252279044

---

And the Finnish people? How much have they donated? US private donations has topped over $100 million dollars.

It is really cynical to make a race who is kinder and better in such situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by F1boat

It is really cynical to make a race who is kinder and better in such situation.

---

I am really cynical about a lot of things. It has served me well throughout my life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

And the Finnish people? How much have they donated? US private donations has topped over $100 million dollars.

---

The last I heard, private donations were about 3 million € (about= $4.12 million). Per capita it makes more than the US donations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

The last I heard, private donations were about 3 million € (about= $4.12 million). Per capita it makes more than the US donations.

---

I wonder why I doubt that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

I wonder why I doubt that.

---

Beats me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

Beats me.

---

actually I was wrong about the US.

Private donations by Americans expected to top those for Katrina....
$6.47 BILLION!!!!!

http://www.usatoday.com/news/sharing...onations_N.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

Have I complained that the US didn't invade Rwanda or Darfur? No.

---

George Clooney did. Some people here in Canada did. Many people in the UN wanted the US to go in. There are numerous people who have advocated the US should have. You are at least consistent on no one invading anyone for any reason even if millions are dying....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

actually I was wrong about the US.

Private donations by Americans expected to top those for Katrina....
$6.47 BILLION!!!!!

http://www.usatoday.com/news/sharing...onations_N.htm

---

Paul Volcker was in Davo's at that G20 meeting and he was quoted somewhere on the Canadian networks praising us for what we have sent. There is no medal for which nations give the most per capita, but I always notice the two nations who never seem to run out of money or resoureces to help in disasters are the USA and Canada. Maybe the EC nations do their thing as well, and I am sure they have done a lot. It is the nature of rich nations with a rich Judeo-Christian culture to want to help and give. Just one seems to be singled out if they don't do "enough" and it is wrong....

To know just how much the USA tries to help, was it not Iran that accepted aid from the US in the 90's when a terrible earth tremor leveled the city of Qum? No matter how much the two countries don't get along, the US was all set to help. Funny....I didn't see Iran offering any help when the Hurricanes hit the US hard in 06...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

You say you don't hate Americans or America? Funny way of showing it chum. Cant wait to hear what you say about Canadians.....

---

Mark just because i dont agree with a certain band of people does not mean i hate them...

In actual fact most of my friends are actually American.....

Canadians? Great bunch of people...seriously :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

You just called the USA a big bag of poo. That's nice...you go overseas to football games and start fights? I guarntee you walk around most American cities calling their town a bag of poo, even if the city IS one, you will be asking for a fight. I dont think you HATE America, but the fact we are even having the discussion should put a filter on your mouth on some of the things you accuse them of.

Are they nasty and ugly on a holiday? Some of them are, and I have heard people who work in resorts hate drunken and stupid Brits at times. Germans? God knows they expose parts they shouldn't and stay drunk all the time. Italians? Cant get them from shutting up and making a lot of noise? The French? Gawd, they don't even like themselves. As I said; get a grip every nation has its morons, clods and jerks. If you cant figure that out, maybe you might be one. Steve, I am being harsh because you just dump on a country and play to every negative stereotype you can name and if you had done that about blacks or jews, some countries would be looking at you for hate speech. Get a grip son, you know better than that and I know you do.

---

Well Mark yes you are correct in the fact that every country has its fair share of morons..i am not disputing that at all.

What i meant by a big pag of poo is the fact that the US isnt really doing well what with mass unemployment and so forth. (just like other major countries) Why not help their own people out, like every other country should before they start poking around aother countries. Hell i wish our government would do that instead of donating money to everyone but their own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

You say you don't hate Americans or America? Funny way of showing it chum. Cant wait to hear what you say about Canadians.....

---

I disagree with you, it doesn't mean I hate you. Heck, I don't even hate anthonyvop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

I disagree with you, it doesn't mean I hate you. Heck, I don't even hate anthonyvop.

---

See there Mark, I told you Eki didn't hate us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steve_spackman

Most Americans have no clue what the UN is anyway so yeah why pay for something you have no clue about eh? ;) Also the US has a habit of ignoring the UN so why in the hell bother at all????

Hate is a strong word Mark. Im sure you know i dont HATE Americans, i just find alot of them to be VERY ignorant and think they can do as they please. That would be why alot of people (not including myself) HATE them. You have to admit they do poke their noses in where its not wanted...trying to tell others how they should run their country, when their country is in a BIG bag of poo aswell...

charity begins at home does it not?

The main reason why the US and others help these poor countries is because they play the "hearts and minds" game. We will give this and that if you guys do this and that for us...Its NOT to help them its to get what they want out of them...

---

Everytime I read something you post of a political nature I can't help but to believe you can't be older than 16 and it makes me wonder about the history you were taught, and how it was presented. I expect the USA to get slagged by people of different nationalities and Eki's attitude doesn't come as a shock considering the relationships that Finland and the USA have had together. But coming from people that display the English flag or the Union Jack for the UK irritates me at the least and sometimes angers me. Especially when you flip the Holier-Than-Thou switch to the on position. If we were in my living room by the fire and you started spitting out your garbage, I don't know if I would politely tell you to leave or just snatch you by the scruff of your neck and back of your trousers and throw you out.

Prior to WW I, almost everybody was in the empire building business. You have such notables as the Hudson's Bay Company, a monopoly set up to exploit local populations in the fur trade. The Royal African Company, a slave trading company credited with the delivery of at least one third of the slaves delivered to America, and the famous English East India Company. When China had the audacity to sieze a huge cargo of illegal opium from a British ship, Britain came back and stomped a mud hole in them until they had their cargo back, compensation, and Hong Kong, from which they would operate as they pleased. How about the Suez Canal? A project Britain wanted nothing to do with until it was up and running. Once adjustments were made to make it profitable, Britain snached control of it and kept control of it for the next 70+ years. Marching into Afghanistan to block the Russians from marching into the English East India Company.

It was the Era of Pax Britannica. The British Empire was the largest in the world. It created the expression "The sun never sets on the British Empire" because at any time of day some part of the empire was in daylight due to it's vast span. The British Empire was the self-appointed policeman of the world, meddled everywhere, and did as it wished.

The USA built the Panama Canal, for the use of all nations.

Fast forward to the last year of WWI. Russia, broke and exhausted, is already out of it. France, Britain, and Germany are at a standstill again. All three countries have squandered an entire generation of young men in futile attacks so stupidly conceived that their leaders should have been hung on criminal charges. They were all broke and had suffering civillian populations at home. They all knew that the USA would make the winning side. President Wilson had vowed to stay out of the war and, with the exception of playing fast and loose with the rules by supplying England and France with food, fuel, and war material, did so. When the plans of Germany to form an alliance with Mexico to attack the USA came to light, Wilson asked for and got a Declaration of War against Germany. Did the USA win the war? Nope, the war was ended by an armistice, but the USA, by coming in, ended the war. Although Wilson tried to push his League of Nations and mercy for the defeated policy, he was overruled by France and Britain. Both of them made real estate claims and outrageous compensation demands that Germany had no choice but to agree to. Britain and France became major players in the Middle East, Africa, and the Far East. Wilson adopts a policy that the USA should support democratic causes world wide.

Now comes WW II. The American people want to stay out of this one too. President Roosevelt is not going to let Britain go down. His own ambassador tells him to let Britain go, but he won't do it. Instead he embarks upon all kinds of legal, sort of legal, and not even close to legal programs to keep food, fuel, war material, and equipment flowing into Britain. Amercan civillians donated personal weapons to be shipped to Britain for arming the Home Guard. After the war, the British Empire was on the way out. Britain was damn near bankrupt and the USA lent them $ 4.3 bn which I believe was finally paid off in 2006. Britain got caught up in the Malayan Emergency fight communist insurgents for 10 years or so. Nassar tossed France and Britain out of Egypt and nationalized the canal. Leading France and Britain to concoct a plan with Israel to take it back by baiting Eisenhower and the USA into it but Ike didn't bite. So Nasser went ahead and natioalized the British banks while he was at it. Britain created Israel. Britain created the India-Pakistan partition (borders) that are the source of brotherly love to this day. Britain leaned on and then monitored the elections that saw Rhodesia go from a productive, food exporting nation to the starving hell hole Mugabe calls Zimbabwe. Seems like everywhere you've been, somebody else has had to go, to keep wiping up the crap that spills out of your kid's diaper. Somalia, well...

At the end of WW II, the spread of communism from the Soviet Union and Red China was taken very seriously and very much feared. The Domino Theory, if one small country falls to communism, each small country next to it will topple also, was a major concern. This may seem silly to you now, but it wasn't then. The possibility of the USSR starting an unprovoked war was a question of when, not if. You're talking about countries that built walls to keep their people in and shot them if they tried to escape. The only country big and strong enough to arm for the cold war to safeguard Europe and fight the brush wars to protect against the domino theory was the USA. So we did. When the USSR blockaded Berlin to starve a concession from them, the US Air Force and the RAF began an incredible airlift of supplies to Berlin that finally broke the Soviet blockade.

I really can't think of any meddling the USA has done since the end of WWII that was done for the sole and exclusive good of the USA. We get nothing out of aiding Israel. We get nothing out of our emergency aid except to be spit on again once they are feeling better. We didn't get a discount on oil when the Saudis asked us to come in and protect them from Saddam and Iraq. When Britain went to get the Falklands back we gave logistic and intelligence support. If you ever get a chance to see unclassified cold war plans for a Soviet invasion of Europe during the cold war, you might be amazed to see how much effort, equipment, manpower, money, food, fuel, and defensive weapontry was earmarked to save the UK. Bunches.

We have done a lot for the world, many times when others couldn't or wouldn't. We have done a hell of a lot for Britain. The USA and Britain have done much together. Has the USA always done the right thing? No, but that's through the benefit of hindsight. I can't think of anything anybody can do, that will please everybody all the time. The more people look to you for a solution, the more often that will happen.

Just once, I'd like to see one of you say "I appreciate what you've done for us and maybe some of that is the reason I'm even here, but I sure wish you'd have done ( your cause here ) differently.

Mr. Spackman, should you ever show up at my door freezing, tired, and hungry, I'll invite you in, set you by the fire, feed you supper until you're full and let you sleep on the sofa. But when you wake up, you're leaving.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7

We have done a lot for the world, many times when others couldn't or wouldn't. We have done a hell of a lot for Britain. The USA and Britain have done much together. Has the USA always done the right thing? No, but that's through the benefit of hindsight. I can't think of anything anybody can do, that will please everybody all the time. The more people look to you for a solution, the more often that will happen.

Just once, I'd like to see one of you say "I appreciate what you've done for us and maybe some of that is the reason I'm even here, but I sure wish you'd have done ( your cause here ) differently.

---

Well of course the US has done alot of good in this world...who hasnt in some sense or another?

Just because i dont agree with alot of things doesnt mean i hate the country...far from it actually. As i dont agree with alot of things my own country does, does that make me hate England??

I spend alot of time in the US as i have family there. I have met ALOT of great people through my travels and enjoy the culture

Its my views politically that you dont agree with..thats fine. My political views are different from my views on the actual people and the actual country....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steve_spackman

Well of course the US has done alot of good in this world...who hasnt in some sense or another?

Just because i dont agree with alot of things doesnt mean i hate the country...far from it actually. As i dont agree with alot of things my own country does, does that make me hate England??

I spend alot of time in the US as i have family there. I have met ALOT of great people through my travels and enjoy the culture

Its my views politically that you dont agree with..thats fine. My political views are different from my views on the actual people and the actual country....

---

Steve, you doth protest too much. The point is I know you are a good guy outside of the forums, and often in it. We agree on nothing politically apparently but I get that. What I was pointing out is you were condeming the USA as if they were just the problem, and if you read Fiero's very accurate history of events, the British Empire has a LOT more blood on its hands, and the sad part is, It wasn't even the most egregious violator. The French and Spanish had even worse colonies. At least the British Empire's possessions were given a stable system of government and some form of competance in the wake of their leaving.

What people in their criticism of the US have to acknowledge is for the amount of power the US has posessesd, it has actually done the LEAST amount of imperial conquest, and has only really gotten invovled outside when dragged into it until Iraq came along.

Even with Iraq, most of the Arab nations leaders had no problem with the Iraq war. The people protested only because there are many in the Islamic world who resent anyone coming who isn't Muslim to fix what the Muslim world WONT fix. The USA probably should have stayed away...but i do know that American Isolationsism led to two World War's dragging them right back in to tip the balance of power. It is the most benign of the three superpowers on the planet (Russia still has its fangs, and China is......well China) and the only one that takes the heat for what it does...and doens't do.

On here, it gets slagged, bashed, criticized and malinged, and while I am not an American, I take offense to some of it. I can tell you guys, I live beside the elephant, if he was dangerous, I would let you know. HE can be annoying...but we are glad to have him, and 90% of Canadians when pressed will tell you the same...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

What people in their criticism of the US have to acknowledge is for the amount of power the US has posessesd, it has actually done the LEAST amount of imperial conquest, and has only really gotten invovled outside when dragged into it until Iraq came along.

---

What dragged them into Korea and Vietnam?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

Steve, you doth protest too much. The point is I know you are a good guy outside of the forums, and often in it. We agree on nothing politically apparently but I get that. What I was pointing out is you were condeming the USA as if they were just the problem, and if you read Fiero's very accurate history of events, the British Empire has a LOT more blood on its hands, and the sad part is, It wasn't even the most egregious violator. The French and Spanish had even worse colonies. At least the British Empire's possessions were given a stable system of government and some form of competance in the wake of their leaving.

What people in their criticism of the US have to acknowledge is for the amount of power the US has posessesd, it has actually done the LEAST amount of imperial conquest, and has only really gotten invovled outside when dragged into it until Iraq came along.

Even with Iraq, most of the Arab nations leaders had no problem with the Iraq war. The people protested only because there are many in the Islamic world who resent anyone coming who isn't Muslim to fix what the Muslim world WONT fix. The USA probably should have stayed away...but i do know that American Isolationsism led to two World War's dragging them right back in to tip the balance of power. It is the most benign of the three superpowers on the planet (Russia still has its fangs, and China is......well China) and the only one that takes the heat for what it does...and doens't do.

On here, it gets slagged, bashed, criticized and malinged, and while I am not an American, I take offense to some of it. I can tell you guys, I live beside the elephant, if he was dangerous, I would let you know. HE can be annoying...but we are glad to have him, and 90% of Canadians when pressed will tell you the same...

---

Oh yes i agree that our Empire was made with the spilling of blood..and lots of it too..

My political views may not be the same with others, but doesnt mean i HATE....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

What dragged them into Korea and Vietnam?

---

Dumb as it may sound now, stopping the spread of communism and assisting people that wanted a democratic form of government. I believe Korea was the first UN action too. I know the Brits were involved in Korea and the Turks also. Australia was in Vietnam along with a few others.

If I remember correctly, the actual triggers were ceasefire violations on the part of the communists.

We know now that Ho Chi Min only wanted a united Vietnam again. He wasn't a communist per se but was willing to buddy up to whoever aided his cause. In addition, as we know now, once he had the country united again he was going to be no one's lap dog, as China and the USSR both found out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fiero 5.7

Dumb as it may sound now, stopping the spread of communism

---

Still it was far away, it's not like the communists were knocking on the US door.

Quote:

---

We know now that Ho Chi Min only wanted a united Vietnam again. He wasn't a communist per se but was willing to buddy up to whoever aided his cause. In addition, as we know now, once he had the country united again he was going to be no one's lap dog, as China and the USSR both found out.

---

So was Tito in Yugoslavia, and I think Castro would have been the same way if the US had only given him a chance.

Eki you should leave Korea alone. You sound more and more like a fool.
What do you not get. North Korea invaded!
South Korea, a democratic country needed help.
The United Nations responded not the United States.
Yes the US responded. So did the UK, Turkey, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. Altogether about 20 countries were involved on the UN side including Norway and Sweden.
Noticeably absent was Finland.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

Still it was far away, it's not like the communists were knocking on the US door.

It was a far different time Eki. Distance had nothing to do with it.


So was Tito in Yugoslavia, and I think Castro would have been the same way if the US had only given him a chance.

---

I don't know that much about Tito so I'll defer on that. The CIA and American organized crime both gave support to Castro which he took and once in power, turned on them. Knowing he now had a powerful enemy, he got a powerful friend, the USSR. Doing the buddy-up with the USSR is probably the biggest reason he succeeded because they provided the financing and other things he needed to get settled in. Castro later paid their debt to the USSR by sending Cuban troops to Angola.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Easy Drifter

Eki you should leave Korea alone. You sound more and more like a fool.
What do you not get. North Korea invaded!
South Korea, a democratic country needed help.

---

It was a democratic country mainly because it fell into the hands of the US after WW2 and the US made it democratic and tried to turn the Koreans into American image. I doubt it was democratic before WW2 and the Japanese occupation. Yet there was a military rule for awhile, so you can suspect the transition into democracy wasn't necessarily voluntary but a forced one like in Iraq and Afghanistan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korea

Quote:

---

After liberation and occupation by Soviet and U.S. forces at the end of World War II, the nation was divided into North and South Korea. The latter was established in 1948 as a democracy. A war between the two Koreas ended in an uneasy cease-fire. After the war and a period of military rule, the South Korean economy grew significantly and the country was transformed into a major economy[10] and a full democracy.

---

So what. It was a democratic country invaded by communist North Korea.
Why it was democratic doesn't have diddley squat to do with anything.
The same silly statements could be made about West Germany, Italy, Austria and Japan.
Sometimes I think you must be related to Wade91 as well as being George Bush's half brother.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Easy Drifter

So what. It was a democratic country invaded by communist North Korea.
Why it was democratic doesn't have diddley squat to do with anything.
The same silly statements could be made about West Germany, Italy, Austria and Japan.
Sometimes I think you must be related to Wade91 as well as being George Bush's half brother.

---

Austria and Japan were democratic, as far as I know, before the war. So was Germany until Hitler changed it.

Germany, once Hitler came into power, and the methods of the Nazi Party, especially in regards to gaining allies and real estate is a pretty good example of what the post WW II world expected from the USSR and later, Red China. I supposed you could say South Korea was forced into democracy but judging by the numbers of them that fled south from the North's invasion they seemed to prefer democracy. In addition, South Korea has never had to erect barbed wire and shoot their own citizens to keep them from fleeing the country.

Come to think of it, I can't think of any form of government beyond the communism, marxism kind of thing that has had to resort to force of arms to keep it's population from running away.

And the people of East Germany, Poland, Hungary, etc. just adored being under a communist dictatorship.
I don't think I have ever seen you take such a silly position before and that is saying something!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Easy Drifter

And the people of East Germany, Poland, Hungary, etc. just adored being under a communist dictatorship.

---

Yes, East Germany would probably had been better off under the Nazis. And Hungary under Imrédy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungary

Quote:

---

In 1932 Horthy appointed a new prime-minister, Gyula Gömbös, that changed the course of Hungarian policy towards closer cooperation with Germany. Gömbös signed a trade agreement with Germany that drew Hungary's economy out of depression but made Hungary dependent on the German economy for both raw materials and markets. Adolf Hitler appealed to Hungarian desires for territorial revisionism, while extreme right wing organizations, like the Arrow Cross party, increasingly embraced Nazi policies, including those related to Jews. The government passed the First Jewish Law in 1938. The law established a quote system to limit Jewish involvement in the Hungarian economy.
Imrédy's attempts to improve Hungary's diplomatic relations with the United Kingdom initially made him very unpopular with Germany and Italy. In light of Germany's Anschluss with Austria in March, he realized that he could not afford to alienate Germany and Italy for long; in the autumn of 1938 his foreign policy became very much pro-German and pro-Italian.[59] Intent on amassing a base of power in Hungarian right wing politics, Imrédy began to suppress political rivals, so the increasingly influential Arrow Cross Party was harassed, and eventually banned by Imrédy's administration. As Imrédy drifted further to the right, he proposed that the government be reorganized along totalitarian lines and drafted a harsher Second Jewish Law. The Parliament under the new government of Pál Teleki approved the Second Jewish Law in 1939, which greatly restricted Jewish involvement in the economy, culture, and society and, significantly, defined Jews by race instead of religion. This definition altered the status of those who had formerly converted from Judaism to Christianity.

---