Has the USA changed it's ways?

[d0b33]

So you want the U.S to invade Zim as well? I guess then they'd have to invade Burma too and a dozen other countries. Where exactly do you think they'd get the man power and resources to do that?

They have contractors to hire don't they?

 

[Nod]

I don't have a problem if an American company gets a contract to help rebuild Iraq. Do you?

Yes, especially if other companies from France, Germany, etc, excluded in the bidding process.
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/rebuilding_iraq/index.asp
http://money.cnn.com/2003/03/25/news/companies/war_contracts/

You got any proof of that?

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/123031/george_bushs_new_iraq_plan_includes.html

So you saying a dictatorship is acceptable for different cultures? Would that be acceptable here if it was deemed to "work" for Africans?

Democracies don't come quick or cheap.

That is what I'm saying. A dictatorship does not have to be "evil" as with Zim, etc. It is a valid system of rule. Sure, not a lot of examples where it actually worked well. It mostly fails because the person on top, should not have been there from the start.

Yes you can also blame Saddam. It was his actions that led to the sanctions and it was his actions that kept them there.

Saddam had been in power for decades millions dead and he still was in power. Look at Zim now with Mugabe still in power. People can't just rise up and chuck a guy out like that when they feel like it.

So you want the U.S to invade Zim as well? I guess then they'd have to invade Burma too and a dozen other countries. Where exactly do you think they'd get the man power and resources to do that?

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0408e.asp

Despite all the highfalutin rhetoric about the U.S. government’s commitment to “freedom, democracy, and liberation,” nothing could be further from the truth. Ever since the U.S. government abandoned its role as a limited-government republic to become an imperial world interloper, the quest has been to support those dictators in the world who would do the bidding of U.S. officials, no matter how unsavory, corrupt, and brutal those dictators were. That’s in fact why the U.S. government, even while still clinging to its claim that it invaded Iraq to establish “democracy and freedom,” continues to proudly align itself with the brutal military dictator in Pakistan, who took power in a military coup.

http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff01262005.html

One thing you can pretty much count on. When the U.S. charges in with guns blazing and bombs blowing up with the promise of "bringing democracy" to some benighted and oppressed people, the end result will be a corrupt and barbaric regime not much better, and maybe worse, than the old one.

This was certainly so in Vietnam, where one dictatorship after another was set up under American authority, each with its own new style of viciousness and corruption. It was true in Korea, where the U.S., after fending off North Korea, underwrote and supported a string of vicious tyrants. It is proving to be so in Haiti, where a gangster regime has been installed by U.S. troops.

So why the surprise that the regime set up in Iraq, soon to be validated with a fraudulent election (the world's first secret election where voters don't know whom they are voting for because the candidates, especially those backed by the U.S., dare not give out their names or speak in public of their "platforms") is proving to be every bit as vicious as the old (one-time U.S-backed) regime of Saddam Hussein?

IMO, the only reason the US did not invade Zim, is because there is nothing in it for them. Zim is already on it's knees, so no need to overthrow anybody. When Mogabe goes out, he will leave a vacuum of power, which will probably result in anarchy, even worse, than what we see today, as his goons try to get into power themselves.

And yes, people can rise up, and chuck people out. Read up on the French Revolution. Sure, it's not easy, and takes a lot of scarifies, but there is always a price for freedom.

 

[Alan]

Well if the US had not interfered in Afghanistan, Osama and alqaeda would be Russia's problem.

Imposing yourself where you're not welcome will inevitably make things worse.

Oh sure Al Qlqeada wouldn't be the U.S's problems

Many countries didn't interfere in Afghanistan and guess what? Al Qaeda is very much their problem

They have contractors to hire don't they?

Yes by the 100 000s

Yes, especially if other companies from France, Germany, etc, excluded in the bidding process.
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/rebuilding_iraq/index.asp
http://money.cnn.com/2003/03/25/news/companies/war_contracts/

Considering the Germans and French did nothing towards overthrowing Saddam. In fact undermined it I'm not concerned that they misssed out.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/123031/george_bushs_new_iraq_plan_includes.html

So what's wrong with a McDonalds. If Iraqis don't like it they don't have to eat there. McDonalds will soon be gone. They're probably flocking there in droves driving you 'anti imperialists' crazy

That is what I'm saying. A dictatorship does not have to be "evil" as with Zim, etc. It is a valid system of rule. Sure, not a lot of examples where it actually worked well. It mostly fails because the person on top, should not have been there from the start.

So which dictatorships worked well then?

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0408e.asp


http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff01262005.html

Bwahahaha the loonies at counterpunch are always good for a laugh

IMO, the only reason the US did not invade Zim, is because there is nothing in it for them. Zim is already on it's knees, so no need to overthrow anybody. When Mogabe goes out, he will leave a vacuum of power, which will probably result in anarchy, even worse, than what we see today, as his goons try to get into power themselves.

So exactly what did Vietnam offer other than rice? Oh wait didn't you say jobs

And yes, people can rise up, and chuck people out. Read up on the French Revolution. Sure, it's not easy, and takes a lot of scarifies, but there is always a price for freedom.

Yeah that was very pleasant. So you say just sit back and wait and hope the country isn't brought to it's knees. Oh and Iraq was well on it's way to being brought to it's knees and if you think the Baath party leaders or Jihadis wouldn't have made a play for power if Saddam was overthrown sending the country into anarchy you would have been in for a big surprise

 

[antowan]

None I suppose, but they shouldn't pretend it's to better the other country.

I understand your point and yes they shouldn't if it won't.

There are however examples where US involvement did work out for the better. The politics assunder, the base goal always had a current of nobility. Even the Vietnam war had that.

When you look at the communist north resisting the democratic south.

The same is prevelant in North vs South Korea. I am waiting for that little pot to boil...

 

[antowan]

That's no excuse though. They should have done more. Just don't think they could have pulled it off with the usual lefties throwing their toys out the cot at this ‘belligerent imperialism’

True.

 

[antowan]

If the US was really such a pillar of liberty, spreading the love and all, they would have removed Mogabe ages ago.

Oh my, you are sooo right! I still however don't blame the US for helping in countries that affect it. If the US was a person, and that person were me, I'd be helping and interefering too...

They do send aid to people all over Africa, pretty much like we individuals do with beggars on the streets etc...

 

[Nod]

Alan, I must say, you really make good points. Well thought out and researched. I can only hope to be as good, as you, in debate someday.

Seriously though, I don't think any kind of debate with you regarding the US would be useful, as it's plain to see that you are a US fanboy. At least try to provide some links to articles that would contradict mine, instead of just disregarding everything, and providing your pov as fact. Thanks for playing.

 

[Alan]

Alan, I must say, you really make good points. Well thought out and researched. I can only hope to be as good, as you, in debate someday.

Seriously though, I don't think any kind of debate with you regarding the US would be useful, as it's plain to see that you are a US fanboy. At least try to provide some links to articles that would contradict mine, instead of just disregarding everything, and providing your pov as fact. Thanks for playing.

So nearly a compliment

I take links seriously but not from places like 'counterpunch' sorry. As for you other links I never took issue with them by disregarding or contradicting them.

 

[Nod]

So nearly a compliment

I take links seriously but not from places like 'counterpunch' sorry. As for you other links I never took issue with them by disregarding or contradicting them.

Neither did you even try to provide any form of material to substantiate your claims. There was another link together with 'counterpunch', didn't say anything about that. That was the first 2 results from a quick google search. I'm sure, with your list of "counterpunch-like" sites, that you can do better.

 

[Alan]

Neither did you even try to provide any form of material to substantiate your claims. There was another link together with 'counterpunch', didn't say anything about that. That was the first 2 results from a quick google search. I'm sure, with your list of "counterpunch-like" sites, that you can do better.

Forgive me if I tire of repeating the same old story of posting links. I'm sure a quick search of my posts will show plenty of links I've posted before. So which claims do you doubt?

Oh and going by your snippet from the link above the 'counterpunch' one what do you expect the U.S to do? Musharaff(SP) is about as good as it gets in Pakistan at the moment. Pakistan is a nuclear state that very is very unstable and the last time I checked the U.S had it's hand full in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Out of interest do you think it was wrong for the U.S to have supported the Soviets in WW2?

 

[Nod]

Forgive me if I tire of repeating the same old story of posting links. I'm sure a quick search of my posts will show plenty of links I've posted before. So which claims do you doubt?

Oh and going by your snippet from the link above the 'counterpunch' one what do you expect the U.S to do? Musharaff(SP) is about as good as it gets in Pakistan at the moment. Pakistan is a nuclear state that very is very unstable and the last time I checked the U.S had it's hand full in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Out of interest do you think it was wrong for the U.S to have supported the Soviets in WW2?

I was referring to this link: http://www.fff.org/comment/com0408e.asp
Talks about the leaders that is placed in position of power by the US.

I wouldn't say the US supported the Soviets in WW2. It was rather a uncomfortable coalition to topple a common enemy.

 

[mercurial]

If the US was really such a pillar of liberty, spreading the love and all, they would have removed Mogabe ages ago.

absolutely.

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

wikipedia come on alan, you're better than that

Imposing yourself where you're not welcome will inevitably make things worse.

agreed.

North vs South Korea. I am waiting for that little pot to boil...

don't hold your breath, the US are afraid of the Asians, so in all likeliness, nothing will happen there.

 

[rwenzori]

Most are totally ignorant relying solely on MSM propaganda and celeb soundbites to form their opinions.

Alan's "Fair and Balanced Media Coverage" -

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Image:Politician.jpg

 

[mercurial]

Alan's "Fair and Balanced Media Coverage" -

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Image:Politician.jpg

network blocked it. can you wrap it in image tags? i don't know if i'll be able to see it even then, but it's worth a try

 

[Alan]

I was referring to this link: http://www.fff.org/comment/com0408e.asp
Talks about the leaders that is placed in position of power by the US.

I wouldn't say the US supported the Soviets in WW2. It was rather a uncomfortable coalition to topple a common enemy.

Which is exactly what is happening with Musharraff. Technically they did support the Soviets with military hardware, credit and even food

http://www.historians.org/projects/GIRoundtable/Lend_Lease/LendLease2.htm

Just because your aim is to spread Liberty doesn't mean you can suddenly ignore reality and realpolitik. It's naive to expect that the U.S must now invade every single despot controlled country from Zim to Burma. It's equally absurd to think the U.S wouldn't have to deal with dodgy characters. It's an utterly impossible feat.

So if the U.S is confronted by the choice between a militant despot or a communist dictatorship vehemently anti U.S who do you think they'd prefer? Just like to today except it's religious extremists and not commies. That's the reality and you make the best of it.

Just like the Soviets and Mujahideen which the U.S supported it doesn't mean they were supporters.

wikipedia come on alan, you're better than that

Journal Sentinel reporter Tom Heinen recently visited Iraq with a small group of peace activists and concerned observers from Milwaukee. His reports, published last week, powerfully detailed the misery, heartache and poverty that many Iraqis experience.

Shortages of food and medicine are common; it is estimated that hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children have died prematurely.

The greatest portion of the blame for the humanitarian disaster falls on Hussein. But there is little doubt that the sanctions, which the United Nations put into effect in 1990 after the Persian Gulf War, have contributed to the tragedy despite a massive oil-for-food relief program.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/081400-103.htm

There's a link you'll find far more satisfactory

 

[Nod]

Just because your aim is to spread Liberty doesn't mean you can suddenly ignore reality and realpolitik. It's naive to expect that the U.S must now invade every single despot controlled country from Zim to Burma. It's equally absurd to think the U.S wouldn't have to deal with dodgy characters. It's an utterly impossible feat.

"spread Liberty"? Oh come on. Since when is it acceptable to go around, invade countries because their political / social structure differ from yours. There is a reason why the UN was created. To self police all the member states. They can't do anything about countries that do not belong to them. The US went outside the UN to further their own agenda.

IMO, a lot of the middle east problems, could have been prevented, if the US did not interfere in their business. I would say, these wars are mostly to protect the US's way of life.

 

[Alan]

"spread Liberty"? Oh come on. Since when is it acceptable to go around, invade countries because their political / social structure differ from yours. There is a reason why the UN was created. To self police all the member states. They can't do anything about countries that do not belong to them. The US went outside the UN to further their own agenda.

IMO, a lot of the middle east problems, could have been prevented, if the US did not interfere in their business. I would say, these wars are mostly to protect the US's way of life.

When those 'political / social structures' is a threatening society that kills and oppresses even their own citizens. So if Hitler never threatened or invaded anybody and just gassed millions of his own citizens would that be acceptable because it's their 'political / social structures' that just happens to differ

Oh please the U.N is a pathetic, impotent and pacifist organisation not worth the paper it uses. It's run by the same people who allowed the global catastrophe of WW2 too happen which it was set up afterwards prevent happening again.

Like it or not people prefer the U.S 'way of life'. Many Europeans, Japs, S.Koreans and many other countries around the world have embraced it and they're doing better than ever. Why can't other countries benefit from it as well.

 

[mercurial]

i think the point that we're trying to make is that if the USA feels so strongly about helping other countries, why have they sat back and watched Mugabe become Saddam 2.0? it indicates that they only intervene when it will benefit them and not because they actually care about genuinely helping others.

i agree with the comment about the UN.

 

[sox63]

Like it or not people prefer the U.S 'way of life'. Many Europeans, Japs, S.Koreans and many other countries around the world have embraced it and they're doing better than ever. Why can't other countries benefit from it as well.

The difference being, those countries you mentioned choose to live their life that way, instead of it being imposed on them, IMO.

 

[Alan]

The difference being, those countries you mentioned choose to live their life that way, instead of it being imposed on them, IMO.

Actually it was pretty much imposed on most of them after WW2. Are you saying the Iraqis chose to live under Saddam . Do you believe he fairly won his elections by 90 odd percent every time

If you compare Japan in 1938 to 1958 and today it's like comparing Earth to Pluto. To the lesser extent Germany too.