Printable View
Are you sure Saddam did? Maybe he just didn't care. Not care and tell are two different things. I wish the trial of those marines won't just be a show after they will be released when media's attention is elsewhere, just like they did with William Calley, responsible for the My Lai massacre in Vietnam.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Yes, Bush says he cares, but does he really, or is it just to please the voters?
You know Mark, I think we'll just have to disagree with a lot of issues. As we are living now into 21st century I tend to think that lot of the problems in the world nowdays can be solved with diplomacy - not with guns and war.
Yes, we had WW1 and WW2 in 20th century, but after those I think that we should be wise enough to avoid situations like that to happen again. At the moment I can see that the tension between muslim world and christian world is rising and US attacking on Iraq and perhaps later on to Iran does't really help too much, does it? There should be enough room for diplomacy allways.
As you've said the US cannot win any fights it has entered. So why do they have to constantly enter to another war? Why instead of using brutal force they cannot use talking and diplomacy?
The answer, again, As I said before, war is far more profitable than peace is. This is a common fact in economics. Unfortunately I think it's naiive to think that US is supporting freedom by wars.
Because they only talk with the "good", and they want "justice", regardless if it's dead or alive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodeye
Yes, Justice and Prudence are often enemies.
I always root for Prudence. ;)
Very excellent points. I cannot agree with all of them, but a reasonable assertion. That said lets break it down...Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodeye
First off, the US cannot win in the eyes of public opinion, espeically it seems in your part of the world. That said, if they cannot win, should US foreign policy to just ignore what happens in the rest of the world. They used to do that, and that was a factor in WW2 starting for sure. Clinton's foreign policy was to not respond to attack after attack of Al Quaida, (African Embassy bombing,the first WTC attack, USS Cole, etc.) and after a while, Bin Laden thought, well why not the World Trade Center a second time?? Ignoring problems does not work. So ok, now we try diplomacy. This is the argument always heard here in Canada. We are not a powerful nation militarily. We are big on this diplomatic stuff.
Great two examples here of diplomacy not working. First off, Taliban in Afghanistan. They were harbouring a group of people responsible for the tragedy of 9/11. Those people admitted to it, for Bin Laden was very happy to have video of his cadre sitting around bragging about it. It wasn't a doctored tape, it wasn't a Jewish conspiracy (some idiots believe that to this day) and it certaintly was not the doing of the CIA. 9/11 happened. So ok, we know who did it, but the good honest folks that everyone knows as the Taliban were asked to detain and hand the criminals that are Al Quaida over. Basically they gave the finger to the US, and later the UN. So now what?
Ok Example 2. Saddam Hussein invades Kuwait. Claims it is Iraqi territory. Now while the British in colonial years were pretty hap hazard with their borders, no one except Saddam thought Kuwait really was part of Iraq. The Kuwaiti's certainly did not. So ok, He invaded of August of 1990, and in Feburary, 1991, the coalition invaded. Why? Failed diplomacy. Saddam refused to realize no one was buying his argument. Actually, he knew they didn't agree with his argument, but he figured, ah why negotiate or admit fault, they wont do anything.
So ok, we have two examples in recent history where diplomacy reaches a dead end. What message does that send to the terrorists? What message does doing nothing send to a dictator? See, diplomacy is negotiations. IT is no different than when you go to buy a car and you haggle with the salesman. You each want the best deal, but you also realize you will saw off in the middle. The consequences of failure are much greater, but that is why you don't spend 4 months with teams of negotiators buying a car. In International affairs, two nations, or two sides of a "conflict" have to see a common ground, have to reach a common conclusion, or at least a comprimise that both sides can live with. But you have no recourse if one side does NOT want to deal with the other. See, you would never advocate the use of force. Neville Chamberlain twisted himself into a pretzel trying to reach ground with Hitler in the 30's. Britain did NOT want to be drawn into a war. Her treasury was depleted after WW1 and the depression. Her people didn't want to sacrifice more sons to a useless slaughter and memories of the first war to end all wars. But in the end, Britain ended up at war, and Neville Chamberlain was the PM to announce it. Diplomacy only works when both parties will live with the outcome.
You guys can spout off all you want about the need for diplomacy, and how all war is wrong. I can tell you a lot of military men in the US will tell you they agree, but they also know at some point, you have to be prepared to stand up for your beliefs. You also should realize that you better prepared to die for your beliefs also.
Now we can say in the Iraq instance this is wrong. That is your opinion, and I realize you have your reasons for feeling that way. I wont sway you off of it, and in the case of Eki, well, he is still defending the actions of a dictator so I figure his argument is purely another reason to hate Americans. He hasn't denied this so I guess I am right on the money there. For the rest of my opponents on here, I respect your feelings. I respect you feel the need to use diplomacy and use negotiation over force to ensure the goals of a nation state. This system however will not work when one party refuses to be civilized. Saddam did it twice. 1991, 2002. He negotiated in bad faith, if at all. He demanded, he threatened, and while some of you might say the US did also, remember who created the issues for the need for this diplomatic negotiation. It wasn't the US that invaded a sovereign nation. It wasn't the US that refused to allow UN inspectors to see WMD facilities and search for production facilities. The UN resolutions, so finely negotiated as terms of cease fire after the eviction of Iraq from Kuwait were the articles that Saddam was to live by in exchange for the cease fire. Over the next 11 years, Saddam refused to live up to all of these 14 resolutions, and after the UN slapped sanctions on his regime in a trade embargo for anything but food and medical supplies, he continued to deal oil on the black market to the French through Jordan and Syria.
So we have a failed diplomacy with a man who took his nation to war 2 times in the previous 25 years. We have a man who agreed to terms set down through the UN to save his sorry hide after miscalculating resolve in 1991. We have a man who repeately has used his own people as slaves to his own grandeur, and lived like a king while starving, gassing and generally abusing his own people whenever and wherever he pleased. This isn't fiction. This isn't a right-wing conspiracy, this is history. Saddam refused to use his head. HE thumbed his nose at every nation he dealt with. HE ran a vicious regime where no amount of oppression was too much. You want to really negotiate with this man? You really think anyone should trust his word? Come on, you would need a bath after shaking hands with him.
Diplomacy is great when two democratic nations have a disagreement. The US and Canada share 3000 miles of border, and we are constantly in disagreement over many issues. There is no threats, there is no arms on the border, there is endless amounts of negotiation. Democratic societies can negotiate and use diplomacy and it works. Reasonable people can always avoid war when dealing with reasonable opponents. IT all falls apart when one party has no interest in anyone's well being but their own. Hitler and Germany in the 30's, the Taliban in Afghanistan, Saddam in 1990/91, Saddam in 02. If you are not going to use force at some point, then in the end, the negotiations are dependent on both sides being willing to find a common solution. It is like being in a union and never voting for a strike to show management you will stand together if negotiations fail. You always vote for a strike, while knowing you don't want to be out of work for 3 weeks or more walking the street. You know this, and you do it. Management knows if they don't see a strike vote, you wont stand, and they wont negotiate for a solution that benefits anyone but themselves. That is business, and you have extreme measures. Why should international diplomacy be any different?
First off, if the Marines are found innocent, even by the toughest tribunal ever, you would still say the fix was in. The American media wont let this one go Eki, trust me, they hate Bush almost as much as you do. AS for Saddam, I see you are still making excuses for him. Saddam knew. Nothing happened in Iraq that Saddam didn't find out about sooner or later. He wasn't sitting in his palace while his minions made up their own policy. No, between he and his sons, killing people was a sport. Torture, rape and oppression were their stock in trade. The UN and Amnesity International have documented much of the crap that went on in Iraq, and I am sure it didn't happen just because Saddam didn't care. Eki, you really expect any reasonable thinking logical human to believe that Saddam knew maybe and didn't care? That is as great a sin as actively ordering it in my books. Weak, very weak argument on your part.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
When you quit defending Saddam Hussein, as if his actions were justified when he stood over a nation for over 25 years killing thousands every year, then maybe I will give you credit for making a point.
Saddam is dead because he refused to bend to anyone's will but his own selfish wishes, even when faced with choices that would have allowed him to skate out of 2 certain wars with no real penalty. Saddam was a thug, and not a very bright one at that. No wonder his people found him guilty, and while many people disagree with the death penalty, including myself, in this case, it does NOT bother me at all. There is a special place in hell reserved for evil leaders who use their own people for amusement. As they say in old westerns "he needed killing".
Heck, one more example of diplomacy failing. Eki wont even admit Saddam was a dictatorial thug. He wont lose anything by admitting this, and yet he defends him. See, reasonable people see other peoples arguments when they are reasonable. Woodeye, Studiose have both presented their thoughts in a cogent manner and I can see some of their points, and don't disagree with their basic principles. But when Eki cannot see Hussein for the animal he was DOCUMENTED to be then he really is in a wonderland of denial. Amnesity International does not make up stuff and they will categoriacally state what was going on in Iraq and who signed off on it. I am not part of the right-wing conspiracy (so-called) to take down a nice guy here. I am talking about a full on dictator. In the classic sense, you know up there with Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Mao Tse-Tung. Yet Eki in over 40 posts and 3 days of arguing is STILL defending the man's actions. Eki, what do you do for a living? You should be a PR man for a dictator. Maybe Quaddifi can hire you, he is still in business....
Sure I can admit that, I just don't take for granted everything that's said about him. I didn't know him personally, and some things said may be propaganda from his opposition and enemies. It has been suggested that Iraqi refugees, exiles and opposition on purpose lied about the WMDs in order to get the US invade Iraq. I wonder what else they may have lied about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
It's hard to believe Saddam personally knew EVERY minute detail of what was going on in his country. It's a country of 25 million people for God's sake, he should have had supernatural powers in order to do that. It has also been said he was out of touch with reality and believed himself he had WMDs because he was surrounded by yes-men who only told him what they thought he wanted to hear. Do you really believe his thugs told him everytime they wanted to have some good time by raping someone or get a little extra by some pillaging?
Mark, you are fantastic. Finally I can come onto the board and read some sense about politics. Keep posting, because your explanations are like a breath of fresh air, and maybe, if you keep posting, people like Eki, who seem to have no understanding at all of the way the world works, will learn something.
What you say about diplomacy is, sadly, true. It only works when both sides want to reach a compromise.
As far as Saddam is concerned, maybe this little fact, Eki, will open your eyes to what the man was like. At the first meeting of the Baath party after Saddam had declared himself the leader, a few of the senior party members present suggested that it might be a good idea for the party to hold an election for the leadership, rather than simply announcing Saddam's accession to the post. It would give legitimacy to the leader's position, they argued. Saddam listened to the discussion for a short time, long enough to see who thought a leadership election was a good idea, and then ordered those people to be taken out of the room, taken to a room close by, tortured so that the rest of the people could hear their screams, and then killed. They were dead within hours of having suggested the leadership election.
Try negotiating with a man like that.
Eki, since you are so much a fan of plausable denial, why don't you grant George Bush that defense?? You cant have it both ways yet you always do. You say Saddam could have been lied to by yes men and lackies yet Bush isn't allowed to have the defense that the CIA, as well as most western intelliegence agencies were wrong? No, you dont' get off that easy.
After this many posts, you FINALLY admit it. I challenged you about 30 posts back to admit that he was a dictatorial thug who used his own people as a currency.
Iraq is a country of 25 Million. No leader can ever know EVERY LAST SINGLE THING. I don't dispute that, but when you have Amnesity International documneting numerous cases of state sponsored and state sanctioned torture, and no one being held accountable for these actions by Saddam, then you obviously know who is signing off on all of this. The man at the top. Qusay and Uday were infamous for their antics. They killed, tortured and used people and they were Saddam's sons. He knew what they were about. You are still defending the actions of a war criminal and thug. When the state uses its own people in a such a callous and obvious manner, it is clear who is sanctioning it.
When a sherriff in a small US town beats up a suspect to attain a confession, the Civil Rights crowd in the US goes crazy and defends the suspect's rights andthat law officer is usually charged and drummed out of his job. In no way would any US President be held accountable. In Iraq, not only was the suspect being beat up to attain confessions, it wasn't an isolated case, it was state policy. Amnesty International are the most reliable arbiter of state sponsored torture and violation of human rights, and they had Iraq right up there in the top 10 most deadly places to live in fear of the government. Saddam Hussein's record is not one that was made up by refugee's lying and exiles using people's sympathies. Eki, you are still defending this man.
I am not taking for granted EVERYTHING that has been stated. I am only going on the obvious. Amnesty is not a body that is sponsored by any government nor do they have any desire to provide the American government with propaganda to use against an innocent world leader who just wasn't running a country with very good lines of communication on their evil deeds.
Oh one more thing, if Saddam had yes men telling he had WMD's when he didn't, then something is seriously wrong. You are the leader who wont tollerate people telling you no. You tell your minions to prepare your supply of nerve gas to move from one palace to another. You really think the minions never bought or attained this weapon? Do you believe it never was created? You think Saddam wouldnt' have asked for a demonstration of the weapon? You think for one moment he would have weapons only in his own mind? REALLY? My my, you sound as naive and oblvious to the truth as the Iraqi information minister who stood on a building in Baghdad saying the Americans would be dead before they got near the city, and American tanks would never make it,.....as an Abrams Tank rolled down the road behind him.
They didn't even try properly. Who want's to negotiate if you only have the option of losing. First they didn't care what Saddam was like as long as he was useful to them (1980s). When he wasn't no longer useful, they tried to make Iraq miserable by sanctions and started to make demands. What was there for Saddam? The USA doesn't mind doing business with some other oppressive regimes like Saudi Arabia or Uzbekistan, why can't they try to have friendly and mutually beneficial relationships with countries like Cuba, Iran and Syria?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gannex
Besides, I'm positive that if the world tried to make Bush give up his WMDs and power, he'd be just as reluctant and stubborn as Saddam. Bush doesn't seem the easiest guy to negotiate with either.
:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gannex
Hum. So you want the United States to continue as the policeman of the world, and then you want to play Monday morning quarterback. Get real. BTW, what is the Finland doing to stop dictators and terrorists?Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodeye
Thank you for the kind words. I have no doubt that something like what you have described happened when Saddam took control, but to a man like Eki, he would say you are lying, your source cant be credible, you were not there, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gannex
You see, Eki isn't interested in logic, seeing the other side, or anything like accepting the obvious. I am building a constant and dedicated case here to prove that 1) Saddam was granted the justice he gave everyone else, 2) He had at least 2 opportunities in 12 years to avoid wars, and both times challenged the other side to fight 3)Eki is using this event like many as justification for his anti-American/Anti-George W. Bush diatribe; and 4) other people who believe there never should be a war and diplomacy always is the way have to realize while their point is noble, and indeed, something in a perfect world would work, we live in a world with nation states and their leaders who would use their nations and peoples to attain their own narrow personal ambtions of raw power.
Saddam was condemned by any human right's organization that you can name for many events as vicious as what Gannex described, and many crimes against humanity as documented by Doctors sans Frontieres, the UN and its agencies, Amnesity International and other human rights groups. None of these could be considered propaganda outlets for any nation, much less the US.
Eki has continually been on these boards for as long as I can remember posting endlessly his drivel and hate for Bush. Now, while I am a reasonable man, and I can accept another man's opinion without agreeing with it, I decided I wasn't going to give Eki a free ride. Let him prove his points. So far, he hasn't even come close to it. I see this for what it is, another thread where he could spout his hate for the current occupant of the White House.
The more important point I am trying to make though is this: Those of you who feel diplomacy and reason should hold the day have to realize that at some point, when you are dealing with a man who cares little for the rights of man, the rule of law, and basic human decency, then you cannot negotiate without having a threat he understands. In both 1991, and in 2002, negotiations between the UN and the Regime in Iraq took place. The world community hoped for peace. But it has to be understood that in both cases, the world community saw what happened. Kuwait was an illegal invasion and Iraq was asked to leave. They didn't, and they were ejected. The terms and conditions laid down in the peace that Saddam agreed to were then flouted and ignored by his regime for 11 years. These UN resolutions were to be enforced by the US and the coalition. After 11 years, and endless games, Bush finally gave Saddam the ultimatum. Now not all the world agreed on this. Many feel that diplomacy should be the end in itself I guess, but in the end, this was NOT an unilateral decison. A man like Tony Blair, a man who came from left wing and socially libreal political views joined forces with a right-wing Christian view in a common cause. They knew that diplomacy does not work if there are no consequences for failure. Saddam ignored the wishes of the UN for 11 years, and he was finally called to task.
You can quibble with how effective the war in Iraq has been, I wont dispute the civil unrest and terrorism that has sprung out of it, but the people of Iraq have options now. You can say the death penalty should not be applied to Saddam. I in princple don't approve of the death penalty, but in cases as egregious as this, I think they are appropriate. You can say that George Bush had a hidden agenda and was only out to fill the pockets as his friends. You could say it, but I would love you to try and prove it. Geopolitical motives by nation states, in particular democracies are not that easy to explain. I would argue that France never wanted the invasion purely based on the motivation they were going around the "oil for food" program and Kofi Annan was their profiteer just as easy.
No, Saddam Hussein was a common criminal who became president, and then became much more. He got what he wanted. Power, fame, the subservience of his people, and a role as a leader a man of his humble origins likely wouldn't have seen without the violent use of force. He then used his nation for his own sadistic whims and wants, caused 1 million deaths in his invasion of Iran, god knows how many more thousands of deaths just keeping his culture of fear and oppresion, and how many thousands in an illegal invasion of Kuwait? Does anyone believe if left to his own devices, he would have not attained WMD's? Does anyone believe this would be the last we would have heard from him?
The reason the world did something about him, while Quaddfi, the Theocracy in Iran, and Kim up in North Korea still are playing their game is simple. Saddam pushed too hard, used his power recklessly and he openely challenged the World as a whole to call his bluff. HE BEGGED for the fight, and he got it.
No tears for this man....
You have your facts scrambled, as usual. The butcher of Bagdad tried to bluff President Bush and lost. Saddam's bluff was the cause of the war, of his downfall, and led to his being tried for some of his many crimes against humanity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
You are an amusing little one. Cuba. Have you ever heard of Castro (the world's richest man), or read any of his positions on the United States?
Excellent!Quote:
Originally Posted by Gannex
Again, you missed Gannex's point in your knee-jerk support of fascism. It seems that you are the leader of what we call the Finnish Fascist League (FFL). It would be hard to "try properly" while you are being tortured, and even harder after you have been executed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Bush isn't using WMD's on people. The US aresnal of WMD's is likely never to be used again. Bush is an elected leader, not some self appointed thug who killed his way to power. Saddam used nerve gas on his own citizens. Why cant you see the difference???Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
As for negotiating the destruction of US WMD's, the US will eagerly give up their WMD's when the Chinese, Russians and the rest of the world do. You live in a fantasy land my friend though if you really believe any prudent nation with weapons of mass destruction (that includes nukes) who has people sworn to wipe it out will give up their arsenal. With Iran pursing a nuclear program, and nations with intentions often hostile to democratic interests pursuing WMD's, not to mention terrorist organizations, an American President would have to be an idiot and would be impeached for unilateral disarmanent.
Besides, the US can be negotaited with. Canada does it every day. There isn't an issue. Most disputes of trade and policy between the two nations are solved in time, through negotiation. Sometimes the US gets their way, sometimes Canada wins, usually there is a middle ground. America is a really easy nation to deal with. When they are in the wrong, and you can prove it in international tribunals and diplomatic negotiation, things are worked out. Saddam was the guy who wouldn't negotiate. I have stated this over and over, but as your self appointed role as the defender of Saddam Hussein, I guess you missed that Eki.
Excellent example. If anyone has heard Castro's tirades against the US, you would realize it takes a lot to make the American government mad enough to actually pick up arms and invade.Quote:
Originally Posted by agwiii
The point is Castro was not and IS not threatening anyone outside their own borders. IF anyone seriously thinks Saddam could be trusted with a weapon and not use it, they are living in a dream world. Saddam supported terrorism world wide, he openly admitted to that. He invaded Iran, and Kuwait to try to steal their oil fields. At some point, the time for diplomatic solutions was over.....and it was.
One more point. The US did back Saddam after a fact back in the 70's and to an extent in the war against Iran. Why? Nation states play a game of holding their nose and backing other nations with repugnant views at times to prevent a greater conflict breaking out.
The Cold war was a constant battle as the Soviets and the US backed often repugnant regimes in a proxy war. The US may have been in Saddam's corner in the 70's and 80's but that was because they saw him as a lesser evil than communism, and a lesser evil than the Shiite theocracy in Iran, who at that point had just held American citizens as hostages for better than a year. To understand why the Americans or any other nation of a democratic tradtion would back dictatorial regimes is to have a greater understanding of geo-politics than anyone posting here can understand. I do think however that Good men can often overlook thugs and crooks for purposes leading to the greater good of their nation. This is a NOT a balancing act that makes anyone sleep any better at night, but just about every world leader has to make decisions that look on the surface to be backing a country they have no time for. Alas, you can only be as ethical as possible, and you are elected to created the best situation for your nation and to an extent the world community. Often leaders in the past made bad decisions, such as backing Saddam Hussein.
One thing though, if you have a dog that is rough and a bit nasty, and you keep him, you also have an obligation to put him down when he becomes not just nasty but starts attacking people. Saddam was a bad mean dog, but was serving a purpose at the time. When he became rabid and started attacking his neighbours, and a threat to everyone, he was put down.
Wielding power is a responsibility. When you wield it in a manner that threatens the world order, don't be surprised when you are "put down". It explains why North Korea, Iran and Libya all have leaders as reprehensible as Saddam and they are still not the subject of invasion.
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.....
My tongue was so far in my cheek there I think I hurt myself!!
It has never been proved. Even if he hypothetically speaking was, he started probably only after the US turned against him. What would you do if your friend turns into your enemy?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
BTW, have you ever considered what causes those "anti-US sentiments" that seem to be so common these days and if there were something the US leaders could try to do about it?
By whom? Sorry if we are a bit sceptic. Here's some personal experiences from someone who as a little kid had to leave his home in Karelia after we were promised help the last time:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
http://peacecountry0.tripod.com/aitiperh.htm#oz
"Post-war Finland was under a huge burden of repaying the Soviet Union the immoral indemnity imposed by the Allies. As if the loss of 10% of Finland was not enough. Trying to rebuild lives, and paying Russia - meant hungry children and a long period of suffering before things would get much better. We have asked ourselves many times why Stalin's allies, America and Britain, allowed this to happen to the Karelian people. What had we done wrong? Why was Churchill and Roosevelt angry at us, we were only defending ourselves? Why didn't they threaten Russia when they attacked this neutral and free country in 1939? Hitler and Stalin were both at war with all of Europe. Choosing sides was not a matter of being fascist, it was a necessity to avoid being overrun by Stalin. The British said they were coming, but the war was short and they never made it. Finland had to make peace on Stalin's terms: give up Karelia. That didn't seem to bother these two allies, at least not enough to declare war on Russia. Oh well, tough luck for those Finns. The British even turned their backs on Poland which was relying on them, and they promised to help. Uncle Stalin could do as he wished in the last months of the war. It's no use, nobody will listen anyway, nor do they care. Their boys are back home, that's all that matters. But we could not go back home, and that didn't seem to matter to them. Britain is whole, France is whole, but many countries are left in pieces."
It would help if the CIA didn't back the same dictators and terrorists that you claim to rile against.Quote:
Originally Posted by agwiii
Saddam was recruited by the CIA to kill the King of Iraq in the 1950s.
and besides, no one in the world wants the USA to be the world's policeman. we do a good job of it by ourselves.
SOD, the CIA has made a lot of errors in its years. Most of what the CIA does is to back ugly regimes to stop uglier threats to the world. At least, that is how they see it. The problem is, if the US isn't the policeman of the world, and I can buy that no one really wants that, including Americans, then what happens when someone is doing B and E's in the neighbourhood? How about those being held hostage in Home invasions? THEN who is the policeman? See the beauty of your attitude SOD is that as a citizen of the world who thinks the US is a lousy policeman is not going to be able to give me a good answer. The UN? They don't have the guts nor the political will to do anything 90% of the time. Pol Pot killed a million, no one did anything, while the US was singled out for all sorts of atrocities that often were incidents of war in Vietnam. No one on this board opposing the US has ever explained to me what the world does when diplomacy fails.
What happens when diplomacy dies is often people die, in the thousands. Now thousands did die in Iraq, but at least the future has a shot of changing. Is the US a good policeman? Nope, not really, and they will admit it. They suck at the job at times, but the thing is, no one else in the world on a consistant basis will say something is wrong and then be prepared to actually do something about it. Most nations with the werewithal to fight a large war have either no interest, are actively creating trouble (China and Russia) or couldn't do it more than once a century. Those who stand with the US are accused of being lackeys and fools. You guys who think the world is being policed by yourselfs better get your head into the idea that the world is a dangerous place, and if you don't want the US to be the cops, then damn it, have your nation stand up for democratic rights and freedoms.
I don't see it, and when the member nations of NATO were asked by Canada last month for more help rebuilding Afghanistan in the Kandahar region, the Germans were admant about wanting nothing to do with it. The US, the UK and the Netherlands have all been there, Canada is there, but when it is time for some nations to actually get their hands dirty, they are NOT interested. You want to police the world SOD, better be prepared to put your money where your mouth is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by agwiii
Yes, that is probably what I would like too see happening. Do we need one nation to look after all the others? Nope.
There are no terrorists in Finland. We haven't created ones.
Eki, nice story but it is the story told from the point of view of a victim of a terrible diservice. Not that I doubt he should have been upset, I would have seen things the same way, but the bigger political picture of the time probably is a mitigating factor. Finland I think though was friendly with the Nazis. Playing both sides of the fence perhaps? I don't doubt Finland was not a fascist nation, and I do not think that anyone in Finland would seriously have wanted their nation to throw in with the Germans, but like a lot of the redrawing of maps in 1945, Finnish interests were tossed aside. Lets face it, the US and the UK needed the help of the USSR to take down Germany. The second the war was over, the USSR was not a helpful ally, they almost immediately became an adversary. The Yalta conference in 44 was where a lot of the decisions of the post war were decided. The problem with what happened to Finland was to get compensation and justice, they would have to get it from the USSR. The USSR was not willing to compromise on their "sphere of influence" and I think Roosevelt and Churchill had to respect that. To enforce justice for Finland was virtually going to a cause of war with the USSR. Diplomacy failing Eki, you know, that topic you feel is the solution to everything?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
When a nation state wont give up on a stance, you are forced with a choice, war, or to drop the subject. The UK and US of A just spent billions of dollars and hundred's of thousands of lives to go to war to defeat the Axis powers. You really think they wanted to fight the USSR at that point?
No Eki, there are not always nice endings to sad stories. Finland got screwed by the war. I get that, but considering they didn't have the country become FSSR they got off luckier than all the nations trapped behind the Iron Curtain. You just have to get it into your head that the world is a nasty place at times. Nation states do not always do the right thing. Decisions are made that leave no one happy but are often made on the pretense that it is for the greater good. It sucks, but I put a lot more stock in a democracy led free world making decisions than some regime led by an apparchartik of the Communist party, or a dictator who would gas his own people in the names of keeping control.
I guess Eki, while I have great sympathy to what happened to Finland in WW2, I still don't believe the decision was made with the idea that it was to screw the Finn's. You might, and it would explain your anti-American diatribes, but it I wont excuse them. Finland is a free nation, with a strong social conscience and free expression. It exists for the most part in 90% of its former territory does it not? I guess that is a world run by diplomatic negotiations, you don't always get what you want.
Do you mean that Finland was taken over by Russians in WW2? If you mean that, then you're wrong. Finland won a defensive battle against the mighty USSR.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
If you mean that Finland was under attack, that is true. But we still didn't lose that fight.
Woodeye, The US didn't create terrorists. Before 9/11 the US was not in Iraq. They were not in Afghanistan. They helped the Mujahideen against the Soviets with weapons, and yet when 9/11 happened, what did the Taliban do? Hide Bin Laden, and refused when the world body of the UN backed the US in their desire to have Bin Laden removed. Terrorism against the US is a radical desire to cause pain, suffering and death against innocent civilians. You want to say that is the fault of the victim for the rape? Come off it Woodeye, I thought you were smarter than that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodeye
There are no terrorists in Finland? Are you sure? Likely there isn't, just like there was none in Canada apparently according to my previous Prime Minister. He thought because we were nice and friendly and didn't agree with the US in Iraq, we wouldn't have any terrorists. Slight problem there, a cell was operating last summer in Toronto. The RCMP made the arrests when they started to make a buy of 3 tons of fertilzer. They had a camp north of the city where automatic weapons were heard for days. The police monitored these fellows. They were TERRORISTS. They may stand trial but there is so much circumstancial evidence, not to mention witnesses to their camp, not to mention other evidence, that I doubt any lawyer will get them out. Now, us Friendly Canadians who openly criticized the US for their role in Iraq were next on the target list. Terrorists don't use logic, and they don't care who they attack. What is more they have little time for self aggrandizing fools who think if you negotiate with them, they will find true happiness. Any time you have people willing to die and take 3000 plus people with them, you have to deal with it. The US didn't create them, they chose to violate the laws of civilized society. You want to condone that? IF Finland ever stated anything that agreed with anything against the Islamic terrorists and their goals, you think they will give you a pass?
Islamic facists are a corruption of Islam. Anyone that doens't believe in their narrow view of Islam is a non-believer of their cause and are ripe for killing. You think the US created them? No evil created them, the same sort of evil that creates people like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Saddam, the Shah and so on. Sometimes it would be wise of intelligent people to look at terrorism for what it is. Just because they target the US now, doens't mean it is justified. Terror is never justified. You dont' believe that it is, but by saying the US is the problem, you are ignoring the fact that the US may have their faults, but they don't go around creating terrorists bound on their destruction. Backing Israel shouldn't be the reason 3000 plus people died on 9/11. Helping the Saudi's protect their country by pushing Saddam out of Kuwait shouldn't be a reason to attack the US either, yet both are the two reasons terrorists have attacked the US. Whether they stayed out of Iraq or not, wouldn't have made a difference. People hate the US for reasons I have yet to figure out.
Woodeye, you have to think a little bit here. You are not going to defend Terrorists, and you may not like the US as the world's policeman, but don't give me this crap there are no terrorists that will attack you if you mind your own business. Nice theory, but it wont hold water with me.....the evidence is in the headlines. Terrorists strike for their own motives and reasons, and they don't attempt diplomacy for anything. So why give them any credit for logical thought?
You won a great victory just by surviving. The one reason you didn't get beat is because the USSR didn't figure it was worth the fight you were giving them to continue. I can't explain their motives but I do know if they wanted Finland bad enough, they would have taken it. The Red Army rolled up the German army in 4 years right through the gates of Berlin. It was a matter of polictical will and I have always thought Stalin thought Finland too nasty a fight when he suspected the Germans were about to invade.Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodeye
Make no mistake, Finland is the only nation to take on the USSR and not lose their freedom, but I suspect that has a lot to do with the will and whim's of Stalin, one of the worlds most heinous and conivving leaders. Finland did what they could, and managed to have world events work in their favour. If Germany really was friendly with the USSR as their pact dictated, then Finns would be very well knowledgable about Russia from the inside....