Printable View
And do you really believe Castro could actually harm the US even if he really wanted to? The US lives either in constant paranoia or is intoxicated by power. It has this silly "you're either with us or against us" attitude. You CAN be something in between, you know. I think Finland showed this during the Cold War when it had actually friendly relationship with both the "West" and the "East".Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Just one donkey comment before I go back to what I was doing...
Mark, I agree with a lot of what you're saying (except your view of Eki :p : ). You bring your points across well and Saddam doesn't deserve any pity whatsoever, but I'm slightly bemused at your constant reference to his warmongering with Iran ...
A lot of the "civilised world" tend to see the Saddam of that era as nothing more than a (yet another) convenient puppet-dictator for the interests of the "west", if you know what I mean :)
[edit]sure you do, and you type quicker than I read :p : [/edit]
The whole situation is a mess and we all know "I told you so" is not a solution, but I do wonder how many of the infamous Iraq war thread "pro" veterans will have seen the light before the next unilateral display of world policing.
Oh sorry I forgot, Trilateral: George, Tony and ... damn what was the name of the little twit with the big moustache in the Azores ? :confused: :p :
Oh, and one more thing I think is wrong with the US. It never settles in anything less than an unconditional surrender. Even the Soviet Union made a negotiated peace with Finland when it saw fighting wasn't worth it. I think the US should sometime try the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by donKey jote
I would hope that more than three nations are involved in helping the situation in Darfur. You know, the one that the UN and most of the world refuses to admit is genocide?
I don't think Mark has ever stated that the US has not made mistakes, he has simply stated facts supporting that the discussion and debate in general is biased against them. ;)
I couldn't agree more :up:
:confused:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Ah yes, I remember well the unconditional surrender of the Soviets after the Cold War. Rather than engage in diplomacy, provide generous humanitarian and financial relief, and agree to mutal arms reductions, we fought them hand to hand in the trenches, at range with artillery, in the air and seas, and finally the nuclear exhanges that some of us were lucky enough to live through.
It was only through an act of an obliously higher power that the Soviet saw the light and suddenly agreed to unconditional surrender. :laugh:
Donkey, I will take your comments gladly. Since Iam not Spanish, I am not sure who the twit was, but you do, and I believe his electorate disagreed and he is no longer in power. That is how the real world changes their leaders. By the ballot box, not by shooting one's opponents.
Eki, Saddam and Castro are not the same, good for you, you figured out that much. Saddam has and was backing terroists with anti-US sentiments. Castro despite all his long speeches, and oppression to his own people, has never put troops out to invade its neighbour. It would be suicide, but if the US is the cruel heartless thugs you would try to sell us on, then Cuba would have been the 51st state years ago. Kennedy tried to topple Castro but the effort was half-hearted and poorly organized. He regretted that decision for the rest of his life.
You speak of the "US vs Them" thing. You also speak of how Finland was able to straddle the interests of the Soviets and the interests of the West. It is very simple Eki, and I will say this slowly so you can understand. Finland is a democracy. A functioning modern nation with a government that respects the democratic freedoms of its citizens. If the Soviets in 1978 or any other year when they were looking for a nation to unstablize and convert to Communism, they would have found it a)hard to find anyone in Finland to be their lackies and puppets and b) hard to deal with west. Finland would have been fought for by the west by NATO. Even though Finland and Sweden are neutral, and have done much to build up military forces adequate to defend themselves against an attacker, they wouldn't fend off a Soviet attack on their own. No, Finland was able to be the voice of diplomacy and peace and everyone getting along much for the same reason Canada can. The total might of the US military complex would be pushed into the defense of your nation and mine. Democratic modern nations may not always agree with the US, but history has shown America in the last 60 years has been willing to go to war to defend democratically elected allies. Finland may not have been an "ally" in a formal sense, but make no mistake. Americans would be up in arms if Finland was ever invaded by the Soviets. During WW2, it was invaded, and I am sure the main reason much more was not made of it because the Germans were the ally of the Finn's then and with Germany taking over half of Europe, the Finnish invasion was a incident that was over long before anyone had a chance to figure out what to do about it.
Eki, your democratic rights and freedoms were not something that is absolute. At some point, the USSR might have tried to take over control of Finland if they knew no one would have stopped or said anything but platitudes to stop them. That argument about diplomacy breaking down, that would hold true if your nation was either under direct attack or threat by your Eastern neighbour. If the USSR thought they would only face diplomatic platitudes, you might have had grown up in a communist nation.
Don't hide the reality Eki. You think your nations role of being neutral between the East and West was purely because of diplomacy? No, it was because as a functioning liberal democracy, its values and sovereignity would have been fought for. By nations such as your favourite target, the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
spell check: Ronald Reagan was an oblivious higher power :p :
ok ok I'll go straight back to my stables :)
Eki, they got a bloody nose, but only a fool would dictate that the Finnish invasion by the USSR took place in a vacuum. No, Hitler was building up the troops to invade Russia. Stalin may have had a non-aggression pact with Germany but the writing was on the wall. He knew that a small war for Finland, a nation with little gain for the USSR in terms of strategic importance was not a good thing to continue in the face of determined opposition. Just the same, I am sure your Finnish nation would be defended if around 1977 or so the USSR decided to finish the job.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
OH yes, the US didn't ask for an unconditional surrender in 1991. Saddam was allowed to get out of Kuwait, keep his army, and while he had his air force grounded, the resolutions were passed by the UN, and Saddam was allowed his nation back. IN time, if he had complied, he would have been free to run his nation as he pleased, no matter how repugnant that may be to us who love freedom and the right of the individual. Instead, he flouted the international community's efforts to make him comply. If the US gotten an unconditional surrender and taken Iraq in 1991, then your argument that they always ask for unconditional take it or leave it terms would hold water. No, the US did it your way, they gave diplomacy 8 months plus after a sovereign nation was invaded, and then even after they had the means to whip his army and remove him from power, they let the international community impose the terms of surrender and negotiated a more than fair settlement. Look how well THAT worked. No, nice try, once again you completely have made an assertion that is not true.
The US does NOT unilaterally impose anything on anyone. They have been careful to enlist allies, and enlist the help of the UN, despite the fact the UN seems to be made up of nations that would kick the US at every opportunity. The point is, and always has been though, as long as you are a functioning democratic, free nation, your security and well being are not being threatened by the United States. Your interests are more than likely to be defended. By arms if necessary. You cant seem to grasp this Eki and it should be obvious by now. If diplomatic negotiations fail, then a last resort has to be an option on the table. IF your theory held true, no nation would ever have a military. We would just talk ourselves to death, accomplishing nothing. The fact every nation of note pretty much has some form of defense unit, no matter how small says to me that every leader at some point knows it has to have a military option.
No you just object to the US Eki, and as I have stated, the US makes a lot of errors in judgement. They are often inept and not always refined in how they deal with certain situations. Their invasion of Iraq has not worked as well as anyone would want because they have no idea of how to keep the lid on a nation that is bound and determined to have a religious civil war. They had no plan for this, and I always thought taking Iraq would not be hard, keeping it under control long enough for a replacement government to form would be.
Two nations the US had a hand in the total surrender of had a great turn around. West Germany/Germany and Japan. Both nations were wrecked ruins, both nations had all or a significant portion of territory under the control of the US. Unlike Iraq, the Germans and Japanese put up with the occupation, learned about how to rebuild their nations, took the millions and billions of dollars of aid through the Marshall plan. They rebuilt their government on democratic models and they accepted the fact their nations had to change their way of governing. The people in those two nations today have a greater freedom than they enjoyed before the US occupation. Dissent and debate are freedoms not given before the "invasion". Their economic futures were bright within 10 years of the war's end, and by 20 years, both nations were economic super powers. Now, Iraq may not be ever an economic superpower, but if Iraq is a mess right now, it isn't all the fault of the US. The people of Iraq have a lot of people who would stomp your life out as quick as a wink running around fighting a religious war settling scores and attempting to hold the whole nation in a grip much like Saddam's. The US didn't import those people, they were there. They learned that lesson of violence by being subjects of a regime that showed them how to steal power. You should condemn them with the same vigour you waste on George Bush. He didn't create these terrorists, they just use him as a pretense.
yes, The US NEVER uses diplomacy. Why they are at war every second of every day of every year in the conquest of some poor oppressed nation.Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
Ronald Reagan was the greatest president for using diplomacy and non-violent means coupled with some limited military deployments to affect change that only an idiot would argue against.....