On October 22 2011 11:51 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote: well we all know that usa cant live long enough without war so they will find another country
It's not a matter of "finding another country" to wage arbitrary war against. It's a matter of declaring war against a country which has been giving the US more and more reasons and justification to invade them since the 50's.
Iraq was invaded around 15 years after the US was in direct alliance with it, providing military support whilst they were engaged in an active war with Iran. This was after the US supported the Ba'ath party (i.e. the ruling party that was later so evil it had to be deposed) in their bid to take power and throughout its rule. The reason they supported it was because they disliked Iran's government, the one that had deposed the American-implemented regime.
American relations only really soured only after the annexation of Kuwait, in 1990 - 30-40 years after the date you're talking about. The UN, with the US leading, repelled Iraq and put heavy sanctions on it as punishment/in an attempt to prevent future problems. They stopped their WMD programs and that was that, at least in theory, until the US and UK lied about them not stopping WMD programs and invaded illegally.
The claim that it was 60 years of Iraq doing "bad stuff" (whatever that might be) until the US finally stopped them is laughable. Please educate yourself on the history of a region before posting; it's not black and white by any means - pretty much every country who has ever had any involvement, including the US, has done pretty terrible things in the Middle East.
Re-read my post and the post I was referring to again. I was clearly not referring to Iraq. It's too bad that you wasted your time typing up that post.
OK then.
I wonder, which specific country are you talking about here? If it's Afghanistan, that's still totally wrong. Afghanistan was allied with the US up to the late '80's, so I don't know where you'd get the '50's from.
If it's Iran, again, totally wrong. In the 1950's, the US overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran because they didn't like the utterly reasonable things the country was doing with oil. The pretty awful regime was supported up until 1979ish, when it was overthrown. So, until the 1980's you had an American supported government in Iran, not the 1950's. The US is clearly far more at fault in US-Iran relationship, anyone claiming otherwise is just refusing to look at facts.
If it's some other country, I really don't know which, but feel free to enlighten me.
And it's very fair to say that the dominant country has essentially always behaved pretty terribly. However, I like to think we have higher moral standards these days - indeed, the US at least pretends that it values things like democracy and freedom and whatnot. The whole "human rights watch" and stuff like that kind of suggests that it considers these values important and worth maintaining, therefore to hold them to the very standards the country appears to think matters is very reasonable.
Nationalizing (stealing) private oil fields is no where near reasonable. The US response didn't turn out to be a self interested one but the US was completed justified in responding with force to the initiation of force by the Iranian government.
The U.S. and Britain were completely justified in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a pro-West dictator? Good luck with that argument.
On October 22 2011 12:33 Tektos wrote: Republicans: "He's just trying to win an election!"
Everyone else: "Yay finally, this is a good thing."
Good thing? After investing this much what did we get out of this. There is no reason to pull out yet.
As there was no reason to go to war in the first place, what exact results are you expecting here? The terrorism there is a pretty obvious answer to foreigners occupying their home country for no reason. What would you do if some country declared war on yours and occupied it for 9 years? Would you eventually fight back? Perhaps if your family were raped and murdered? The resistance movements in Iraq won't stop, so there's no point in staying. Afaik the goal of the war is very unclear :/ There were no nuclear weapons, so really the best option would've been to pull out as soon as this was discovered to minimize the loss of civil life. The real reason for the war was probably oil supply however. A new puppet leader needed to be appointed, as the old one was too unreliable. Done and done.
Just my take on it.
With the United States being the biggest powerhouse in the world what does retreating from a small country in the Middle East look like. This withdraw is only going to hurt the US in the long run
The US has pulled out of the Korean War and the Vietnam War and saved face, if anything over time they actually benefited from it. I think the real question you should ask is what it looks like when "the biggest powerhouse in the world" picks on a sovereign nation completely unprovoked. If anything the US reputation worldwide is worse off now than before. Before the US was a country that was attacked by a radical extremist who caused the death of thousands of innocents, and the world stood with you. After invading Iraq the US looked essentially like bullies and liars to be fairly blunt. Add to the fact that the leaders lied to the people of the world saying that the reason for going to war was to remove weapons of mass destruction, of which there were none.
Believe me, I have no love lost for Saddam. In fact I think that him hanging was a triumph. But the United States has no right to police the world. They had no right to invade Iraq unprovoked. And the leaders (Bush, Cheeney, etc.) should be put on trial for war crimes. Because all of those assholes ruined the once great reputation, as far as globally, that the US had. And it will take time to recover from that into the same country it was before all this shit happened.
I wonder what would happen if the US went back to isolationism and just stopped trying to be a force for good in the world (with a dash of good for itself). I know the US has had very mixed results at best in its tenure as the most powerful nation but im curious to know. People would probably start bitching about the US doing nothing then.
It's not "a force for good in the world (with a dash of good for itself)", it's a force of self-interest that will often help others in the process. Any misguided war or action, is so, not because the actions were not morally justified, but because they turned out not to be self-interested.
On October 22 2011 11:51 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote: well we all know that usa cant live long enough without war so they will find another country
It's not a matter of "finding another country" to wage arbitrary war against. It's a matter of declaring war against a country which has been giving the US more and more reasons and justification to invade them since the 50's.
Iraq was invaded around 15 years after the US was in direct alliance with it, providing military support whilst they were engaged in an active war with Iran. This was after the US supported the Ba'ath party (i.e. the ruling party that was later so evil it had to be deposed) in their bid to take power and throughout its rule. The reason they supported it was because they disliked Iran's government, the one that had deposed the American-implemented regime.
American relations only really soured only after the annexation of Kuwait, in 1990 - 30-40 years after the date you're talking about. The UN, with the US leading, repelled Iraq and put heavy sanctions on it as punishment/in an attempt to prevent future problems. They stopped their WMD programs and that was that, at least in theory, until the US and UK lied about them not stopping WMD programs and invaded illegally.
The claim that it was 60 years of Iraq doing "bad stuff" (whatever that might be) until the US finally stopped them is laughable. Please educate yourself on the history of a region before posting; it's not black and white by any means - pretty much every country who has ever had any involvement, including the US, has done pretty terrible things in the Middle East.
Re-read my post and the post I was referring to again. I was clearly not referring to Iraq. It's too bad that you wasted your time typing up that post.
OK then.
I wonder, which specific country are you talking about here? If it's Afghanistan, that's still totally wrong. Afghanistan was allied with the US up to the late '80's, so I don't know where you'd get the '50's from.
If it's Iran, again, totally wrong. In the 1950's, the US overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran because they didn't like the utterly reasonable things the country was doing with oil. The pretty awful regime was supported up until 1979ish, when it was overthrown. So, until the 1980's you had an American supported government in Iran, not the 1950's. The US is clearly far more at fault in US-Iran relationship, anyone claiming otherwise is just refusing to look at facts.
If it's some other country, I really don't know which, but feel free to enlighten me.
And it's very fair to say that the dominant country has essentially always behaved pretty terribly. However, I like to think we have higher moral standards these days - indeed, the US at least pretends that it values things like democracy and freedom and whatnot. The whole "human rights watch" and stuff like that kind of suggests that it considers these values important and worth maintaining, therefore to hold them to the very standards the country appears to think matters is very reasonable.
Nationalizing (stealing) private oil fields is no where near reasonable. The US response didn't turn out to be a self interested one but the US was completed justified in responding with force to the initiation of force by the Iranian government.
The U.S. and Britain were completely justified in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a pro-West dictator? Good luck with that argument.
On October 22 2011 11:51 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote: well we all know that usa cant live long enough without war so they will find another country
It's not a matter of "finding another country" to wage arbitrary war against. It's a matter of declaring war against a country which has been giving the US more and more reasons and justification to invade them since the 50's.
Iraq was invaded around 15 years after the US was in direct alliance with it, providing military support whilst they were engaged in an active war with Iran. This was after the US supported the Ba'ath party (i.e. the ruling party that was later so evil it had to be deposed) in their bid to take power and throughout its rule. The reason they supported it was because they disliked Iran's government, the one that had deposed the American-implemented regime.
American relations only really soured only after the annexation of Kuwait, in 1990 - 30-40 years after the date you're talking about. The UN, with the US leading, repelled Iraq and put heavy sanctions on it as punishment/in an attempt to prevent future problems. They stopped their WMD programs and that was that, at least in theory, until the US and UK lied about them not stopping WMD programs and invaded illegally.
The claim that it was 60 years of Iraq doing "bad stuff" (whatever that might be) until the US finally stopped them is laughable. Please educate yourself on the history of a region before posting; it's not black and white by any means - pretty much every country who has ever had any involvement, including the US, has done pretty terrible things in the Middle East.
Re-read my post and the post I was referring to again. I was clearly not referring to Iraq. It's too bad that you wasted your time typing up that post.
OK then.
I wonder, which specific country are you talking about here? If it's Afghanistan, that's still totally wrong. Afghanistan was allied with the US up to the late '80's, so I don't know where you'd get the '50's from.
If it's Iran, again, totally wrong. In the 1950's, the US overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran because they didn't like the utterly reasonable things the country was doing with oil. The pretty awful regime was supported up until 1979ish, when it was overthrown. So, until the 1980's you had an American supported government in Iran, not the 1950's. The US is clearly far more at fault in US-Iran relationship, anyone claiming otherwise is just refusing to look at facts.
If it's some other country, I really don't know which, but feel free to enlighten me.
And it's very fair to say that the dominant country has essentially always behaved pretty terribly. However, I like to think we have higher moral standards these days - indeed, the US at least pretends that it values things like democracy and freedom and whatnot. The whole "human rights watch" and stuff like that kind of suggests that it considers these values important and worth maintaining, therefore to hold them to the very standards the country appears to think matters is very reasonable.
Nationalizing (stealing) private oil fields is no where near reasonable. The US response didn't turn out to be a self interested one but the US was completed justified in responding with force to the initiation of force by the Iranian government.
The U.S. and Britain were completely justified in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a pro-West dictator? Good luck with that argument.
On October 22 2011 12:33 Tektos wrote: Republicans: "He's just trying to win an election!"
Everyone else: "Yay finally, this is a good thing."
Good thing? After investing this much what did we get out of this. There is no reason to pull out yet.
As there was no reason to go to war in the first place, what exact results are you expecting here? The terrorism there is a pretty obvious answer to foreigners occupying their home country for no reason. What would you do if some country declared war on yours and occupied it for 9 years? Would you eventually fight back? Perhaps if your family were raped and murdered? The resistance movements in Iraq won't stop, so there's no point in staying. Afaik the goal of the war is very unclear :/ There were no nuclear weapons, so really the best option would've been to pull out as soon as this was discovered to minimize the loss of civil life. The real reason for the war was probably oil supply however. A new puppet leader needed to be appointed, as the old one was too unreliable. Done and done.
Just my take on it.
With the United States being the biggest powerhouse in the world what does retreating from a small country in the Middle East look like. This withdraw is only going to hurt the US in the long run
The US has pulled out of the Korean War and the Vietnam War and saved face, if anything over time they actually benefited from it. I think the real question you should ask is what it looks like when "the biggest powerhouse in the world" picks on a sovereign nation completely unprovoked. If anything the US reputation worldwide is worse off now than before. Before the US was a country that was attacked by a radical extremist who caused the death of thousands of innocents, and the world stood with you. After invading Iraq the US looked essentially like bullies and liars to be fairly blunt. Add to the fact that the leaders lied to the people of the world saying that the reason for going to war was to remove weapons of mass destruction, of which there were none.
Believe me, I have no love lost for Saddam. In fact I think that him hanging was a triumph. But the United States has no right to police the world. They had no right to invade Iraq unprovoked. And the leaders (Bush, Cheeney, etc.) should be put on trial for war crimes. Because all of those assholes ruined the once great reputation, as far as globally, that the US had. And it will take time to recover from that into the same country it was before all this shit happened.
I wonder what would happen if the US went back to isolationism and just stopped trying to be a force for good in the world (with a dash of good for itself). I know the US has had very mixed results at best in its tenure as the most powerful nation but im curious to know. People would probably start bitching about the US doing nothing then.
You obviously have no grasp whatsoever of political science or philosophy. Every country (actually every person) has their own version of what 'good' is, and all the US is doing is imposing their view upon the rest of the world, and declearing wars upon countries, and in doing so commiting straight up war crimes, and condemned by the rest of the world and the UN.
If Hitler would've won WW2, we would have a huge Nazi empire, and when they attack and conquer the US 2003 for no reason whatsoever, and occupy it for 9 years without any reason whatsoever - people are going to get mad at them.
And then some nazi posts in a thread in this alternate version on TL "I wonder what would happen if the Nazi Empire went back to isolationism and just stopped trying to be a force for good in the world (with a dash of good for itself). I know the Nazi Empire has had very mixed results at best in its tenure as the most powerful nation but im curious to know. People would probably start bitching about the Nazi Empire doing nothing then."
What is good and what is not is not up to the president of the united states to decide, just as little as it is for this fictional dictator of this nazi empire-
It's funny that my comparison is fairly accurate as what's allowed to do to a suspect 'terrorist' (which by the way is a very wide concept) in the US, is very similar to what the nazis allowed themselves to do to jews, however admittedly in a much greater scale. Throwing people in prison and openly torturing with horrific methods for years without a trial. All in the name of good. That's a strong sign of fascism if you ask me.
I don't share that view of what good is, and therefor I wouldn't mind if the US stopped interfering in other countries to show them what good is. I'm more than happy with the geneva convention and the international law to be honest. I'm also more than happy with the laws in my country, where torture and obdoctions to prison camps without trial is completely illegal.
Maybe me and my country are one of the evil ones though, and deserve an invasion some day soon? Why not?
On October 22 2011 11:51 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote: well we all know that usa cant live long enough without war so they will find another country
It's not a matter of "finding another country" to wage arbitrary war against. It's a matter of declaring war against a country which has been giving the US more and more reasons and justification to invade them since the 50's.
Iraq was invaded around 15 years after the US was in direct alliance with it, providing military support whilst they were engaged in an active war with Iran. This was after the US supported the Ba'ath party (i.e. the ruling party that was later so evil it had to be deposed) in their bid to take power and throughout its rule. The reason they supported it was because they disliked Iran's government, the one that had deposed the American-implemented regime.
American relations only really soured only after the annexation of Kuwait, in 1990 - 30-40 years after the date you're talking about. The UN, with the US leading, repelled Iraq and put heavy sanctions on it as punishment/in an attempt to prevent future problems. They stopped their WMD programs and that was that, at least in theory, until the US and UK lied about them not stopping WMD programs and invaded illegally.
The claim that it was 60 years of Iraq doing "bad stuff" (whatever that might be) until the US finally stopped them is laughable. Please educate yourself on the history of a region before posting; it's not black and white by any means - pretty much every country who has ever had any involvement, including the US, has done pretty terrible things in the Middle East.
Re-read my post and the post I was referring to again. I was clearly not referring to Iraq. It's too bad that you wasted your time typing up that post.
OK then.
I wonder, which specific country are you talking about here? If it's Afghanistan, that's still totally wrong. Afghanistan was allied with the US up to the late '80's, so I don't know where you'd get the '50's from.
If it's Iran, again, totally wrong. In the 1950's, the US overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran because they didn't like the utterly reasonable things the country was doing with oil. The pretty awful regime was supported up until 1979ish, when it was overthrown. So, until the 1980's you had an American supported government in Iran, not the 1950's. The US is clearly far more at fault in US-Iran relationship, anyone claiming otherwise is just refusing to look at facts.
If it's some other country, I really don't know which, but feel free to enlighten me.
And it's very fair to say that the dominant country has essentially always behaved pretty terribly. However, I like to think we have higher moral standards these days - indeed, the US at least pretends that it values things like democracy and freedom and whatnot. The whole "human rights watch" and stuff like that kind of suggests that it considers these values important and worth maintaining, therefore to hold them to the very standards the country appears to think matters is very reasonable.
Nationalizing (stealing) private oil fields is no where near reasonable. The US response didn't turn out to be a self interested one but the US was completed justified in responding with force to the initiation of force by the Iranian government.
The U.S. and Britain were completely justified in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a pro-West dictator? Good luck with that argument.
1:07-1:13. The justification is right there in your video. Being democratically elected does not give you impunity to violate rights free of any response of force.
On October 22 2011 11:51 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote: well we all know that usa cant live long enough without war so they will find another country
It's not a matter of "finding another country" to wage arbitrary war against. It's a matter of declaring war against a country which has been giving the US more and more reasons and justification to invade them since the 50's.
Iraq was invaded around 15 years after the US was in direct alliance with it, providing military support whilst they were engaged in an active war with Iran. This was after the US supported the Ba'ath party (i.e. the ruling party that was later so evil it had to be deposed) in their bid to take power and throughout its rule. The reason they supported it was because they disliked Iran's government, the one that had deposed the American-implemented regime.
American relations only really soured only after the annexation of Kuwait, in 1990 - 30-40 years after the date you're talking about. The UN, with the US leading, repelled Iraq and put heavy sanctions on it as punishment/in an attempt to prevent future problems. They stopped their WMD programs and that was that, at least in theory, until the US and UK lied about them not stopping WMD programs and invaded illegally.
The claim that it was 60 years of Iraq doing "bad stuff" (whatever that might be) until the US finally stopped them is laughable. Please educate yourself on the history of a region before posting; it's not black and white by any means - pretty much every country who has ever had any involvement, including the US, has done pretty terrible things in the Middle East.
Re-read my post and the post I was referring to again. I was clearly not referring to Iraq. It's too bad that you wasted your time typing up that post.
OK then.
I wonder, which specific country are you talking about here? If it's Afghanistan, that's still totally wrong. Afghanistan was allied with the US up to the late '80's, so I don't know where you'd get the '50's from.
If it's Iran, again, totally wrong. In the 1950's, the US overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran because they didn't like the utterly reasonable things the country was doing with oil. The pretty awful regime was supported up until 1979ish, when it was overthrown. So, until the 1980's you had an American supported government in Iran, not the 1950's. The US is clearly far more at fault in US-Iran relationship, anyone claiming otherwise is just refusing to look at facts.
If it's some other country, I really don't know which, but feel free to enlighten me.
And it's very fair to say that the dominant country has essentially always behaved pretty terribly. However, I like to think we have higher moral standards these days - indeed, the US at least pretends that it values things like democracy and freedom and whatnot. The whole "human rights watch" and stuff like that kind of suggests that it considers these values important and worth maintaining, therefore to hold them to the very standards the country appears to think matters is very reasonable.
Nationalizing (stealing) private oil fields is no where near reasonable. The US response didn't turn out to be a self interested one but the US was completed justified in responding with force to the initiation of force by the Iranian government.
The U.S. and Britain were completely justified in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a pro-West dictator? Good luck with that argument.
Don't you know the drill by now? Uncle Sam is justified in everything he does. :/ le sigh. It's sad some people actually believe that.
It's sad so many people don't recognize the importance of property rights and that people have a right to fight back when force is initiated against them.
I have lived on several military bases, I was even born on one, and I can say that out of every base I've been to, I've never met a single local that didn't like the base's presence there.
And to address your statement about "responsibility", how is it America's sole responsibility to 'save' a country that is half way around the world?
Edit: to clarify, the only bases I've been to are those in Japan, so take that into account.[/QUOTE]
Well thanks for not dealing in ultimatums but America isn't welcome wherever it is and most of the time it is out of necessitous not because they wan't to sell out local power to gain some military protection.
How it is your responsibility? I don't know... invading a country and letting near a million civilians die because of a revenge-war seems like a good reason to why you shouldn't let it all be in vain; If it collapses we'll have a even worse situation than we have now. So ofcourse it is your responsibility. It wasn't your responsibility to go to war with them, it is your responsibility to rebuild them. [/QUOTE] So true
On October 22 2011 11:51 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote: well we all know that usa cant live long enough without war so they will find another country
It's not a matter of "finding another country" to wage arbitrary war against. It's a matter of declaring war against a country which has been giving the US more and more reasons and justification to invade them since the 50's.
Iraq was invaded around 15 years after the US was in direct alliance with it, providing military support whilst they were engaged in an active war with Iran. This was after the US supported the Ba'ath party (i.e. the ruling party that was later so evil it had to be deposed) in their bid to take power and throughout its rule. The reason they supported it was because they disliked Iran's government, the one that had deposed the American-implemented regime.
American relations only really soured only after the annexation of Kuwait, in 1990 - 30-40 years after the date you're talking about. The UN, with the US leading, repelled Iraq and put heavy sanctions on it as punishment/in an attempt to prevent future problems. They stopped their WMD programs and that was that, at least in theory, until the US and UK lied about them not stopping WMD programs and invaded illegally.
The claim that it was 60 years of Iraq doing "bad stuff" (whatever that might be) until the US finally stopped them is laughable. Please educate yourself on the history of a region before posting; it's not black and white by any means - pretty much every country who has ever had any involvement, including the US, has done pretty terrible things in the Middle East.
Re-read my post and the post I was referring to again. I was clearly not referring to Iraq. It's too bad that you wasted your time typing up that post.
OK then.
I wonder, which specific country are you talking about here? If it's Afghanistan, that's still totally wrong. Afghanistan was allied with the US up to the late '80's, so I don't know where you'd get the '50's from.
If it's Iran, again, totally wrong. In the 1950's, the US overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran because they didn't like the utterly reasonable things the country was doing with oil. The pretty awful regime was supported up until 1979ish, when it was overthrown. So, until the 1980's you had an American supported government in Iran, not the 1950's. The US is clearly far more at fault in US-Iran relationship, anyone claiming otherwise is just refusing to look at facts.
If it's some other country, I really don't know which, but feel free to enlighten me.
And it's very fair to say that the dominant country has essentially always behaved pretty terribly. However, I like to think we have higher moral standards these days - indeed, the US at least pretends that it values things like democracy and freedom and whatnot. The whole "human rights watch" and stuff like that kind of suggests that it considers these values important and worth maintaining, therefore to hold them to the very standards the country appears to think matters is very reasonable.
Nationalizing (stealing) private oil fields is no where near reasonable. The US response didn't turn out to be a self interested one but the US was completed justified in responding with force to the initiation of force by the Iranian government.
The U.S. and Britain were completely justified in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a pro-West dictator? Good luck with that argument.
1:07-1:13. The justification is right there in your video. Being democratically elected does not give you impunity to violate rights free of any response of force.
ROFL not ten seconds later you can see that the British took Iran to the world court and lost.
On October 22 2011 11:51 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote: well we all know that usa cant live long enough without war so they will find another country
It's not a matter of "finding another country" to wage arbitrary war against. It's a matter of declaring war against a country which has been giving the US more and more reasons and justification to invade them since the 50's.
Iraq was invaded around 15 years after the US was in direct alliance with it, providing military support whilst they were engaged in an active war with Iran. This was after the US supported the Ba'ath party (i.e. the ruling party that was later so evil it had to be deposed) in their bid to take power and throughout its rule. The reason they supported it was because they disliked Iran's government, the one that had deposed the American-implemented regime.
American relations only really soured only after the annexation of Kuwait, in 1990 - 30-40 years after the date you're talking about. The UN, with the US leading, repelled Iraq and put heavy sanctions on it as punishment/in an attempt to prevent future problems. They stopped their WMD programs and that was that, at least in theory, until the US and UK lied about them not stopping WMD programs and invaded illegally.
The claim that it was 60 years of Iraq doing "bad stuff" (whatever that might be) until the US finally stopped them is laughable. Please educate yourself on the history of a region before posting; it's not black and white by any means - pretty much every country who has ever had any involvement, including the US, has done pretty terrible things in the Middle East.
Re-read my post and the post I was referring to again. I was clearly not referring to Iraq. It's too bad that you wasted your time typing up that post.
OK then.
I wonder, which specific country are you talking about here? If it's Afghanistan, that's still totally wrong. Afghanistan was allied with the US up to the late '80's, so I don't know where you'd get the '50's from.
If it's Iran, again, totally wrong. In the 1950's, the US overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran because they didn't like the utterly reasonable things the country was doing with oil. The pretty awful regime was supported up until 1979ish, when it was overthrown. So, until the 1980's you had an American supported government in Iran, not the 1950's. The US is clearly far more at fault in US-Iran relationship, anyone claiming otherwise is just refusing to look at facts.
If it's some other country, I really don't know which, but feel free to enlighten me.
And it's very fair to say that the dominant country has essentially always behaved pretty terribly. However, I like to think we have higher moral standards these days - indeed, the US at least pretends that it values things like democracy and freedom and whatnot. The whole "human rights watch" and stuff like that kind of suggests that it considers these values important and worth maintaining, therefore to hold them to the very standards the country appears to think matters is very reasonable.
Nationalizing (stealing) private oil fields is no where near reasonable. The US response didn't turn out to be a self interested one but the US was completed justified in responding with force to the initiation of force by the Iranian government.
The U.S. and Britain were completely justified in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a pro-West dictator? Good luck with that argument.
1:07-1:13. The justification is right there in your video. Being democratically elected does not give you impunity to violate rights free of any response of force.
ROFL not ten seconds later you can see that the British took Iran to the world court and lost.
On October 22 2011 11:51 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote: well we all know that usa cant live long enough without war so they will find another country
It's not a matter of "finding another country" to wage arbitrary war against. It's a matter of declaring war against a country which has been giving the US more and more reasons and justification to invade them since the 50's.
Iraq was invaded around 15 years after the US was in direct alliance with it, providing military support whilst they were engaged in an active war with Iran. This was after the US supported the Ba'ath party (i.e. the ruling party that was later so evil it had to be deposed) in their bid to take power and throughout its rule. The reason they supported it was because they disliked Iran's government, the one that had deposed the American-implemented regime.
American relations only really soured only after the annexation of Kuwait, in 1990 - 30-40 years after the date you're talking about. The UN, with the US leading, repelled Iraq and put heavy sanctions on it as punishment/in an attempt to prevent future problems. They stopped their WMD programs and that was that, at least in theory, until the US and UK lied about them not stopping WMD programs and invaded illegally.
The claim that it was 60 years of Iraq doing "bad stuff" (whatever that might be) until the US finally stopped them is laughable. Please educate yourself on the history of a region before posting; it's not black and white by any means - pretty much every country who has ever had any involvement, including the US, has done pretty terrible things in the Middle East.
Re-read my post and the post I was referring to again. I was clearly not referring to Iraq. It's too bad that you wasted your time typing up that post.
OK then.
I wonder, which specific country are you talking about here? If it's Afghanistan, that's still totally wrong. Afghanistan was allied with the US up to the late '80's, so I don't know where you'd get the '50's from.
If it's Iran, again, totally wrong. In the 1950's, the US overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran because they didn't like the utterly reasonable things the country was doing with oil. The pretty awful regime was supported up until 1979ish, when it was overthrown. So, until the 1980's you had an American supported government in Iran, not the 1950's. The US is clearly far more at fault in US-Iran relationship, anyone claiming otherwise is just refusing to look at facts.
If it's some other country, I really don't know which, but feel free to enlighten me.
And it's very fair to say that the dominant country has essentially always behaved pretty terribly. However, I like to think we have higher moral standards these days - indeed, the US at least pretends that it values things like democracy and freedom and whatnot. The whole "human rights watch" and stuff like that kind of suggests that it considers these values important and worth maintaining, therefore to hold them to the very standards the country appears to think matters is very reasonable.
Nationalizing (stealing) private oil fields is no where near reasonable. The US response didn't turn out to be a self interested one but the US was completed justified in responding with force to the initiation of force by the Iranian government.
The U.S. and Britain were completely justified in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a pro-West dictator? Good luck with that argument.
1:07-1:13. The justification is right there in your video. Being democratically elected does not give you impunity to violate rights free of any response of force.
ROFL not ten seconds later you can see that the British took Iran to the world court and lost.
So? The world court was wrong.
Besides your trolling, where is your proof for this absolutely ludicrous claim besides your ultranationalist beliefs?
On October 22 2011 11:51 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote: well we all know that usa cant live long enough without war so they will find another country
It's not a matter of "finding another country" to wage arbitrary war against. It's a matter of declaring war against a country which has been giving the US more and more reasons and justification to invade them since the 50's.
Iraq was invaded around 15 years after the US was in direct alliance with it, providing military support whilst they were engaged in an active war with Iran. This was after the US supported the Ba'ath party (i.e. the ruling party that was later so evil it had to be deposed) in their bid to take power and throughout its rule. The reason they supported it was because they disliked Iran's government, the one that had deposed the American-implemented regime.
American relations only really soured only after the annexation of Kuwait, in 1990 - 30-40 years after the date you're talking about. The UN, with the US leading, repelled Iraq and put heavy sanctions on it as punishment/in an attempt to prevent future problems. They stopped their WMD programs and that was that, at least in theory, until the US and UK lied about them not stopping WMD programs and invaded illegally.
The claim that it was 60 years of Iraq doing "bad stuff" (whatever that might be) until the US finally stopped them is laughable. Please educate yourself on the history of a region before posting; it's not black and white by any means - pretty much every country who has ever had any involvement, including the US, has done pretty terrible things in the Middle East.
Re-read my post and the post I was referring to again. I was clearly not referring to Iraq. It's too bad that you wasted your time typing up that post.
OK then.
I wonder, which specific country are you talking about here? If it's Afghanistan, that's still totally wrong. Afghanistan was allied with the US up to the late '80's, so I don't know where you'd get the '50's from.
If it's Iran, again, totally wrong. In the 1950's, the US overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran because they didn't like the utterly reasonable things the country was doing with oil. The pretty awful regime was supported up until 1979ish, when it was overthrown. So, until the 1980's you had an American supported government in Iran, not the 1950's. The US is clearly far more at fault in US-Iran relationship, anyone claiming otherwise is just refusing to look at facts.
If it's some other country, I really don't know which, but feel free to enlighten me.
And it's very fair to say that the dominant country has essentially always behaved pretty terribly. However, I like to think we have higher moral standards these days - indeed, the US at least pretends that it values things like democracy and freedom and whatnot. The whole "human rights watch" and stuff like that kind of suggests that it considers these values important and worth maintaining, therefore to hold them to the very standards the country appears to think matters is very reasonable.
Nationalizing (stealing) private oil fields is no where near reasonable. The US response didn't turn out to be a self interested one but the US was completed justified in responding with force to the initiation of force by the Iranian government.
The U.S. and Britain were completely justified in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a pro-West dictator? Good luck with that argument.
1:07-1:13. The justification is right there in your video. Being democratically elected does not give you impunity to violate rights free of any response of force.
ROFL not ten seconds later you can see that the British took Iran to the world court and lost.
So? The world court was wrong.
Oh good. Nothing is wrong as long as you decide that it's right. Property rights sure are important, I guess...unless you decide they aren't? After all, what court can disagree with you?
You really believe that we have the right to overthrow whomever we want and install dictators while pandering about democracy, killing, torturing, subjecting as many people as it takes in the name of U.S. interests. Are you actually Dick Cheney trolling a Starcraft forum?
edit: actually, it could get fun to extrapolate your position some more. The U.S. denied Britain of its "property" when it declared independence. Abraham Lincoln stole the property of the South when he abolished slavery. Maybe Ghandi was a terrorist?
On October 22 2011 14:58 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:53 Senorcuidado wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:40 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:51 FuzzyJAM wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:34 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:11 FuzzyJAM wrote:
On October 22 2011 11:56 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 11:51 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote: well we all know that usa cant live long enough without war so they will find another country
It's not a matter of "finding another country" to wage arbitrary war against. It's a matter of declaring war against a country which has been giving the US more and more reasons and justification to invade them since the 50's.
Iraq was invaded around 15 years after the US was in direct alliance with it, providing military support whilst they were engaged in an active war with Iran. This was after the US supported the Ba'ath party (i.e. the ruling party that was later so evil it had to be deposed) in their bid to take power and throughout its rule. The reason they supported it was because they disliked Iran's government, the one that had deposed the American-implemented regime.
American relations only really soured only after the annexation of Kuwait, in 1990 - 30-40 years after the date you're talking about. The UN, with the US leading, repelled Iraq and put heavy sanctions on it as punishment/in an attempt to prevent future problems. They stopped their WMD programs and that was that, at least in theory, until the US and UK lied about them not stopping WMD programs and invaded illegally.
The claim that it was 60 years of Iraq doing "bad stuff" (whatever that might be) until the US finally stopped them is laughable. Please educate yourself on the history of a region before posting; it's not black and white by any means - pretty much every country who has ever had any involvement, including the US, has done pretty terrible things in the Middle East.
Re-read my post and the post I was referring to again. I was clearly not referring to Iraq. It's too bad that you wasted your time typing up that post.
OK then.
I wonder, which specific country are you talking about here? If it's Afghanistan, that's still totally wrong. Afghanistan was allied with the US up to the late '80's, so I don't know where you'd get the '50's from.
If it's Iran, again, totally wrong. In the 1950's, the US overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran because they didn't like the utterly reasonable things the country was doing with oil. The pretty awful regime was supported up until 1979ish, when it was overthrown. So, until the 1980's you had an American supported government in Iran, not the 1950's. The US is clearly far more at fault in US-Iran relationship, anyone claiming otherwise is just refusing to look at facts.
If it's some other country, I really don't know which, but feel free to enlighten me.
And it's very fair to say that the dominant country has essentially always behaved pretty terribly. However, I like to think we have higher moral standards these days - indeed, the US at least pretends that it values things like democracy and freedom and whatnot. The whole "human rights watch" and stuff like that kind of suggests that it considers these values important and worth maintaining, therefore to hold them to the very standards the country appears to think matters is very reasonable.
Nationalizing (stealing) private oil fields is no where near reasonable. The US response didn't turn out to be a self interested one but the US was completed justified in responding with force to the initiation of force by the Iranian government.
The U.S. and Britain were completely justified in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a pro-West dictator? Good luck with that argument.
Don't you know the drill by now? Uncle Sam is justified in everything he does. :/ le sigh. It's sad some people actually believe that.
It's sad so many people don't recognize the importance of property rights and that people have a right to fight back when force is initiated against them.
So you're on the same side as the suicide bombers in Iraq then I presume? An aggression war without cause or reason was initiated by the US, depriving the Iraqie people of their property and their lives, as well as the Iraqie government. Go Saddam?
I somehow got the feeling that you were pro USA in these questions? O_O
Edit. Sorry that was rude to the american people. *Pro US official foreign policies.
On October 22 2011 11:56 OsoVega wrote: [quote] It's not a matter of "finding another country" to wage arbitrary war against. It's a matter of declaring war against a country which has been giving the US more and more reasons and justification to invade them since the 50's.
Iraq was invaded around 15 years after the US was in direct alliance with it, providing military support whilst they were engaged in an active war with Iran. This was after the US supported the Ba'ath party (i.e. the ruling party that was later so evil it had to be deposed) in their bid to take power and throughout its rule. The reason they supported it was because they disliked Iran's government, the one that had deposed the American-implemented regime.
American relations only really soured only after the annexation of Kuwait, in 1990 - 30-40 years after the date you're talking about. The UN, with the US leading, repelled Iraq and put heavy sanctions on it as punishment/in an attempt to prevent future problems. They stopped their WMD programs and that was that, at least in theory, until the US and UK lied about them not stopping WMD programs and invaded illegally.
The claim that it was 60 years of Iraq doing "bad stuff" (whatever that might be) until the US finally stopped them is laughable. Please educate yourself on the history of a region before posting; it's not black and white by any means - pretty much every country who has ever had any involvement, including the US, has done pretty terrible things in the Middle East.
Re-read my post and the post I was referring to again. I was clearly not referring to Iraq. It's too bad that you wasted your time typing up that post.
OK then.
I wonder, which specific country are you talking about here? If it's Afghanistan, that's still totally wrong. Afghanistan was allied with the US up to the late '80's, so I don't know where you'd get the '50's from.
If it's Iran, again, totally wrong. In the 1950's, the US overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran because they didn't like the utterly reasonable things the country was doing with oil. The pretty awful regime was supported up until 1979ish, when it was overthrown. So, until the 1980's you had an American supported government in Iran, not the 1950's. The US is clearly far more at fault in US-Iran relationship, anyone claiming otherwise is just refusing to look at facts.
If it's some other country, I really don't know which, but feel free to enlighten me.
And it's very fair to say that the dominant country has essentially always behaved pretty terribly. However, I like to think we have higher moral standards these days - indeed, the US at least pretends that it values things like democracy and freedom and whatnot. The whole "human rights watch" and stuff like that kind of suggests that it considers these values important and worth maintaining, therefore to hold them to the very standards the country appears to think matters is very reasonable.
Nationalizing (stealing) private oil fields is no where near reasonable. The US response didn't turn out to be a self interested one but the US was completed justified in responding with force to the initiation of force by the Iranian government.
The U.S. and Britain were completely justified in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a pro-West dictator? Good luck with that argument.
1:07-1:13. The justification is right there in your video. Being democratically elected does not give you impunity to violate rights free of any response of force.
ROFL not ten seconds later you can see that the British took Iran to the world court and lost.
So? The world court was wrong.
Besides your trolling, where is your proof for this absolutely ludicrous claim besides your ultranationalist beliefs?
Are you really asking for proof that the Iranian nationalization of the AIOC was a violation of property rights? Just look at the 1933 agreements. There's nothing ultranationalist about my beliefs. Only a belief that property rights exist and that those who violate them open themselves up to a righteous response of force.
On October 22 2011 14:58 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:53 Senorcuidado wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:40 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:51 FuzzyJAM wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:34 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:11 FuzzyJAM wrote:
On October 22 2011 11:56 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 11:51 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote: well we all know that usa cant live long enough without war so they will find another country
It's not a matter of "finding another country" to wage arbitrary war against. It's a matter of declaring war against a country which has been giving the US more and more reasons and justification to invade them since the 50's.
Iraq was invaded around 15 years after the US was in direct alliance with it, providing military support whilst they were engaged in an active war with Iran. This was after the US supported the Ba'ath party (i.e. the ruling party that was later so evil it had to be deposed) in their bid to take power and throughout its rule. The reason they supported it was because they disliked Iran's government, the one that had deposed the American-implemented regime.
American relations only really soured only after the annexation of Kuwait, in 1990 - 30-40 years after the date you're talking about. The UN, with the US leading, repelled Iraq and put heavy sanctions on it as punishment/in an attempt to prevent future problems. They stopped their WMD programs and that was that, at least in theory, until the US and UK lied about them not stopping WMD programs and invaded illegally.
The claim that it was 60 years of Iraq doing "bad stuff" (whatever that might be) until the US finally stopped them is laughable. Please educate yourself on the history of a region before posting; it's not black and white by any means - pretty much every country who has ever had any involvement, including the US, has done pretty terrible things in the Middle East.
Re-read my post and the post I was referring to again. I was clearly not referring to Iraq. It's too bad that you wasted your time typing up that post.
OK then.
I wonder, which specific country are you talking about here? If it's Afghanistan, that's still totally wrong. Afghanistan was allied with the US up to the late '80's, so I don't know where you'd get the '50's from.
If it's Iran, again, totally wrong. In the 1950's, the US overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran because they didn't like the utterly reasonable things the country was doing with oil. The pretty awful regime was supported up until 1979ish, when it was overthrown. So, until the 1980's you had an American supported government in Iran, not the 1950's. The US is clearly far more at fault in US-Iran relationship, anyone claiming otherwise is just refusing to look at facts.
If it's some other country, I really don't know which, but feel free to enlighten me.
And it's very fair to say that the dominant country has essentially always behaved pretty terribly. However, I like to think we have higher moral standards these days - indeed, the US at least pretends that it values things like democracy and freedom and whatnot. The whole "human rights watch" and stuff like that kind of suggests that it considers these values important and worth maintaining, therefore to hold them to the very standards the country appears to think matters is very reasonable.
Nationalizing (stealing) private oil fields is no where near reasonable. The US response didn't turn out to be a self interested one but the US was completed justified in responding with force to the initiation of force by the Iranian government.
The U.S. and Britain were completely justified in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a pro-West dictator? Good luck with that argument.
Don't you know the drill by now? Uncle Sam is justified in everything he does. :/ le sigh. It's sad some people actually believe that.
It's sad so many people don't recognize the importance of property rights and that people have a right to fight back when force is initiated against them.
So you're on the same side as the suicide bombers in Iraq then I presume? An aggression war without cause or reason was initiated by the US, depriving the Iraqie people of their property and their lives, as well as the Iraqie government. Go Saddam?
I somehow got the feeling that you were pro USA in these questions? O_O
Edit. Sorry that was rude to the american people. *Pro US official foreign policies.
The Iraqi government was the initiator of force and thus responsible for the suffering the US brought on many of it's people through it's response of force. Just because the US declared war first (that time), doesn't mean that it was the initiator of force. The Iraqi government stayed in power only through the use of and threat of force against it's people, continually initiated force against the Kurds, was same government had invaded Kuwait and as such, forfeited any moral prerogatives, any claim to national rights or sovereignty, and became an outlaw. The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.
On October 22 2011 15:25 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:13 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:08 Senorcuidado wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:05 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:53 Senorcuidado wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:40 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:51 FuzzyJAM wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:34 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:11 FuzzyJAM wrote: [quote]
Iraq was invaded around 15 years after the US was in direct alliance with it, providing military support whilst they were engaged in an active war with Iran. This was after the US supported the Ba'ath party (i.e. the ruling party that was later so evil it had to be deposed) in their bid to take power and throughout its rule. The reason they supported it was because they disliked Iran's government, the one that had deposed the American-implemented regime.
American relations only really soured only after the annexation of Kuwait, in 1990 - 30-40 years after the date you're talking about. The UN, with the US leading, repelled Iraq and put heavy sanctions on it as punishment/in an attempt to prevent future problems. They stopped their WMD programs and that was that, at least in theory, until the US and UK lied about them not stopping WMD programs and invaded illegally.
The claim that it was 60 years of Iraq doing "bad stuff" (whatever that might be) until the US finally stopped them is laughable. Please educate yourself on the history of a region before posting; it's not black and white by any means - pretty much every country who has ever had any involvement, including the US, has done pretty terrible things in the Middle East.
Re-read my post and the post I was referring to again. I was clearly not referring to Iraq. It's too bad that you wasted your time typing up that post.
OK then.
I wonder, which specific country are you talking about here? If it's Afghanistan, that's still totally wrong. Afghanistan was allied with the US up to the late '80's, so I don't know where you'd get the '50's from.
If it's Iran, again, totally wrong. In the 1950's, the US overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran because they didn't like the utterly reasonable things the country was doing with oil. The pretty awful regime was supported up until 1979ish, when it was overthrown. So, until the 1980's you had an American supported government in Iran, not the 1950's. The US is clearly far more at fault in US-Iran relationship, anyone claiming otherwise is just refusing to look at facts.
If it's some other country, I really don't know which, but feel free to enlighten me.
And it's very fair to say that the dominant country has essentially always behaved pretty terribly. However, I like to think we have higher moral standards these days - indeed, the US at least pretends that it values things like democracy and freedom and whatnot. The whole "human rights watch" and stuff like that kind of suggests that it considers these values important and worth maintaining, therefore to hold them to the very standards the country appears to think matters is very reasonable.
Nationalizing (stealing) private oil fields is no where near reasonable. The US response didn't turn out to be a self interested one but the US was completed justified in responding with force to the initiation of force by the Iranian government.
The U.S. and Britain were completely justified in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a pro-West dictator? Good luck with that argument.
1:07-1:13. The justification is right there in your video. Being democratically elected does not give you impunity to violate rights free of any response of force.
ROFL not ten seconds later you can see that the British took Iran to the world court and lost.
So? The world court was wrong.
Besides your trolling, where is your proof for this absolutely ludicrous claim besides your ultranationalist beliefs?
Are you really asking for proof that the Iranian nationalization of the AIOC was a violation of property rights? Just look at the 1933 agreements. There's nothing ultranationalist about my beliefs. Only a belief that property rights exist and that those who violate them open themselves up to a righteous response of force.
On October 22 2011 14:58 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:53 Senorcuidado wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:40 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:51 FuzzyJAM wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:34 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:11 FuzzyJAM wrote:
On October 22 2011 11:56 OsoVega wrote: [quote] It's not a matter of "finding another country" to wage arbitrary war against. It's a matter of declaring war against a country which has been giving the US more and more reasons and justification to invade them since the 50's.
Iraq was invaded around 15 years after the US was in direct alliance with it, providing military support whilst they were engaged in an active war with Iran. This was after the US supported the Ba'ath party (i.e. the ruling party that was later so evil it had to be deposed) in their bid to take power and throughout its rule. The reason they supported it was because they disliked Iran's government, the one that had deposed the American-implemented regime.
American relations only really soured only after the annexation of Kuwait, in 1990 - 30-40 years after the date you're talking about. The UN, with the US leading, repelled Iraq and put heavy sanctions on it as punishment/in an attempt to prevent future problems. They stopped their WMD programs and that was that, at least in theory, until the US and UK lied about them not stopping WMD programs and invaded illegally.
The claim that it was 60 years of Iraq doing "bad stuff" (whatever that might be) until the US finally stopped them is laughable. Please educate yourself on the history of a region before posting; it's not black and white by any means - pretty much every country who has ever had any involvement, including the US, has done pretty terrible things in the Middle East.
Re-read my post and the post I was referring to again. I was clearly not referring to Iraq. It's too bad that you wasted your time typing up that post.
OK then.
I wonder, which specific country are you talking about here? If it's Afghanistan, that's still totally wrong. Afghanistan was allied with the US up to the late '80's, so I don't know where you'd get the '50's from.
If it's Iran, again, totally wrong. In the 1950's, the US overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran because they didn't like the utterly reasonable things the country was doing with oil. The pretty awful regime was supported up until 1979ish, when it was overthrown. So, until the 1980's you had an American supported government in Iran, not the 1950's. The US is clearly far more at fault in US-Iran relationship, anyone claiming otherwise is just refusing to look at facts.
If it's some other country, I really don't know which, but feel free to enlighten me.
And it's very fair to say that the dominant country has essentially always behaved pretty terribly. However, I like to think we have higher moral standards these days - indeed, the US at least pretends that it values things like democracy and freedom and whatnot. The whole "human rights watch" and stuff like that kind of suggests that it considers these values important and worth maintaining, therefore to hold them to the very standards the country appears to think matters is very reasonable.
Nationalizing (stealing) private oil fields is no where near reasonable. The US response didn't turn out to be a self interested one but the US was completed justified in responding with force to the initiation of force by the Iranian government.
The U.S. and Britain were completely justified in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a pro-West dictator? Good luck with that argument.
Don't you know the drill by now? Uncle Sam is justified in everything he does. :/ le sigh. It's sad some people actually believe that.
It's sad so many people don't recognize the importance of property rights and that people have a right to fight back when force is initiated against them.
So you're on the same side as the suicide bombers in Iraq then I presume? An aggression war without cause or reason was initiated by the US, depriving the Iraqie people of their property and their lives, as well as the Iraqie government. Go Saddam?
I somehow got the feeling that you were pro USA in these questions? O_O
Edit. Sorry that was rude to the american people. *Pro US official foreign policies.
The Iraqi government was the initiator of force and thus responsible for the suffering the US brought on many of it's people through it's response of force. The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.
Sorry? Iraq was the initiator of force? Did I miss something?
Edit. Your ninja edit still is invalid as every country has to respect eachothers autonomy and sovereignity within the country. For instance the tjetjenias in Russia who wants their own country, and brutally was forced down by the Russian government. Another country may not intervene in such circumstances, as it'd be a violation of Russian sovereignity. Have you actually passed high school?
The US commited a war crime when attacking Iraq, and it was condemned by the UN. It is Impossible to justify. George W. Bush is a war criminal.
Edit2: As appearantly everything self interested is morally justified, I am to understand that in whatever hick state you live in you can do whatever the fuck you want as long as it's to your own benefit? Murder, theft, robbery? I'm starting to understand the grounds on the US foreign policy in the middle east lmao.
On October 22 2011 15:25 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:13 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:08 Senorcuidado wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:05 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:53 Senorcuidado wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:40 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:51 FuzzyJAM wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:34 OsoVega wrote: [quote] Re-read my post and the post I was referring to again. I was clearly not referring to Iraq. It's too bad that you wasted your time typing up that post.
OK then.
I wonder, which specific country are you talking about here? If it's Afghanistan, that's still totally wrong. Afghanistan was allied with the US up to the late '80's, so I don't know where you'd get the '50's from.
If it's Iran, again, totally wrong. In the 1950's, the US overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran because they didn't like the utterly reasonable things the country was doing with oil. The pretty awful regime was supported up until 1979ish, when it was overthrown. So, until the 1980's you had an American supported government in Iran, not the 1950's. The US is clearly far more at fault in US-Iran relationship, anyone claiming otherwise is just refusing to look at facts.
If it's some other country, I really don't know which, but feel free to enlighten me.
And it's very fair to say that the dominant country has essentially always behaved pretty terribly. However, I like to think we have higher moral standards these days - indeed, the US at least pretends that it values things like democracy and freedom and whatnot. The whole "human rights watch" and stuff like that kind of suggests that it considers these values important and worth maintaining, therefore to hold them to the very standards the country appears to think matters is very reasonable.
Nationalizing (stealing) private oil fields is no where near reasonable. The US response didn't turn out to be a self interested one but the US was completed justified in responding with force to the initiation of force by the Iranian government.
The U.S. and Britain were completely justified in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a pro-West dictator? Good luck with that argument.
1:07-1:13. The justification is right there in your video. Being democratically elected does not give you impunity to violate rights free of any response of force.
ROFL not ten seconds later you can see that the British took Iran to the world court and lost.
So? The world court was wrong.
Besides your trolling, where is your proof for this absolutely ludicrous claim besides your ultranationalist beliefs?
Are you really asking for proof that the Iranian nationalization of the AIOC was a violation of property rights? Just look at the 1933 agreements. There's nothing ultranationalist about my beliefs. Only a belief that property rights exist and that those who violate them open themselves up to a righteous response of force.
On October 22 2011 15:34 Euronyme wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:08 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:58 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:53 Senorcuidado wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:40 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:51 FuzzyJAM wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:34 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:11 FuzzyJAM wrote: [quote]
Iraq was invaded around 15 years after the US was in direct alliance with it, providing military support whilst they were engaged in an active war with Iran. This was after the US supported the Ba'ath party (i.e. the ruling party that was later so evil it had to be deposed) in their bid to take power and throughout its rule. The reason they supported it was because they disliked Iran's government, the one that had deposed the American-implemented regime.
American relations only really soured only after the annexation of Kuwait, in 1990 - 30-40 years after the date you're talking about. The UN, with the US leading, repelled Iraq and put heavy sanctions on it as punishment/in an attempt to prevent future problems. They stopped their WMD programs and that was that, at least in theory, until the US and UK lied about them not stopping WMD programs and invaded illegally.
The claim that it was 60 years of Iraq doing "bad stuff" (whatever that might be) until the US finally stopped them is laughable. Please educate yourself on the history of a region before posting; it's not black and white by any means - pretty much every country who has ever had any involvement, including the US, has done pretty terrible things in the Middle East.
Re-read my post and the post I was referring to again. I was clearly not referring to Iraq. It's too bad that you wasted your time typing up that post.
OK then.
I wonder, which specific country are you talking about here? If it's Afghanistan, that's still totally wrong. Afghanistan was allied with the US up to the late '80's, so I don't know where you'd get the '50's from.
If it's Iran, again, totally wrong. In the 1950's, the US overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran because they didn't like the utterly reasonable things the country was doing with oil. The pretty awful regime was supported up until 1979ish, when it was overthrown. So, until the 1980's you had an American supported government in Iran, not the 1950's. The US is clearly far more at fault in US-Iran relationship, anyone claiming otherwise is just refusing to look at facts.
If it's some other country, I really don't know which, but feel free to enlighten me.
And it's very fair to say that the dominant country has essentially always behaved pretty terribly. However, I like to think we have higher moral standards these days - indeed, the US at least pretends that it values things like democracy and freedom and whatnot. The whole "human rights watch" and stuff like that kind of suggests that it considers these values important and worth maintaining, therefore to hold them to the very standards the country appears to think matters is very reasonable.
Nationalizing (stealing) private oil fields is no where near reasonable. The US response didn't turn out to be a self interested one but the US was completed justified in responding with force to the initiation of force by the Iranian government.
The U.S. and Britain were completely justified in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a pro-West dictator? Good luck with that argument.
Don't you know the drill by now? Uncle Sam is justified in everything he does. :/ le sigh. It's sad some people actually believe that.
It's sad so many people don't recognize the importance of property rights and that people have a right to fight back when force is initiated against them.
So you're on the same side as the suicide bombers in Iraq then I presume? An aggression war without cause or reason was initiated by the US, depriving the Iraqie people of their property and their lives, as well as the Iraqie government. Go Saddam?
I somehow got the feeling that you were pro USA in these questions? O_O
Edit. Sorry that was rude to the american people. *Pro US official foreign policies.
The Iraqi government was the initiator of force and thus responsible for the suffering the US brought on many of it's people through it's response of force. The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.
Sorry? Iraq was the initiator of force? Did I miss something?
Read my edit. Determining who is the initiator of force isn't so simple as seeing who declares outright war first. It would have been just as morally justifiable to invade Nazi Germany in 1938 as it was to fight back in 1939.
On October 22 2011 15:25 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:13 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:08 Senorcuidado wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:05 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:53 Senorcuidado wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:40 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:51 FuzzyJAM wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:34 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:11 FuzzyJAM wrote: [quote]
Iraq was invaded around 15 years after the US was in direct alliance with it, providing military support whilst they were engaged in an active war with Iran. This was after the US supported the Ba'ath party (i.e. the ruling party that was later so evil it had to be deposed) in their bid to take power and throughout its rule. The reason they supported it was because they disliked Iran's government, the one that had deposed the American-implemented regime.
American relations only really soured only after the annexation of Kuwait, in 1990 - 30-40 years after the date you're talking about. The UN, with the US leading, repelled Iraq and put heavy sanctions on it as punishment/in an attempt to prevent future problems. They stopped their WMD programs and that was that, at least in theory, until the US and UK lied about them not stopping WMD programs and invaded illegally.
The claim that it was 60 years of Iraq doing "bad stuff" (whatever that might be) until the US finally stopped them is laughable. Please educate yourself on the history of a region before posting; it's not black and white by any means - pretty much every country who has ever had any involvement, including the US, has done pretty terrible things in the Middle East.
Re-read my post and the post I was referring to again. I was clearly not referring to Iraq. It's too bad that you wasted your time typing up that post.
OK then.
I wonder, which specific country are you talking about here? If it's Afghanistan, that's still totally wrong. Afghanistan was allied with the US up to the late '80's, so I don't know where you'd get the '50's from.
If it's Iran, again, totally wrong. In the 1950's, the US overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran because they didn't like the utterly reasonable things the country was doing with oil. The pretty awful regime was supported up until 1979ish, when it was overthrown. So, until the 1980's you had an American supported government in Iran, not the 1950's. The US is clearly far more at fault in US-Iran relationship, anyone claiming otherwise is just refusing to look at facts.
If it's some other country, I really don't know which, but feel free to enlighten me.
And it's very fair to say that the dominant country has essentially always behaved pretty terribly. However, I like to think we have higher moral standards these days - indeed, the US at least pretends that it values things like democracy and freedom and whatnot. The whole "human rights watch" and stuff like that kind of suggests that it considers these values important and worth maintaining, therefore to hold them to the very standards the country appears to think matters is very reasonable.
Nationalizing (stealing) private oil fields is no where near reasonable. The US response didn't turn out to be a self interested one but the US was completed justified in responding with force to the initiation of force by the Iranian government.
The U.S. and Britain were completely justified in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a pro-West dictator? Good luck with that argument.
1:07-1:13. The justification is right there in your video. Being democratically elected does not give you impunity to violate rights free of any response of force.
ROFL not ten seconds later you can see that the British took Iran to the world court and lost.
So? The world court was wrong.
Besides your trolling, where is your proof for this absolutely ludicrous claim besides your ultranationalist beliefs?
Are you really asking for proof that the Iranian nationalization of the AIOC was a violation of property rights? Just look at the 1933 agreements. There's nothing ultranationalist about my beliefs. Only a belief that property rights exist and that those who violate them open themselves up to a righteous response of force.
On October 22 2011 14:58 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:53 Senorcuidado wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:40 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:51 FuzzyJAM wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:34 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:11 FuzzyJAM wrote:
On October 22 2011 11:56 OsoVega wrote: [quote] It's not a matter of "finding another country" to wage arbitrary war against. It's a matter of declaring war against a country which has been giving the US more and more reasons and justification to invade them since the 50's.
Iraq was invaded around 15 years after the US was in direct alliance with it, providing military support whilst they were engaged in an active war with Iran. This was after the US supported the Ba'ath party (i.e. the ruling party that was later so evil it had to be deposed) in their bid to take power and throughout its rule. The reason they supported it was because they disliked Iran's government, the one that had deposed the American-implemented regime.
American relations only really soured only after the annexation of Kuwait, in 1990 - 30-40 years after the date you're talking about. The UN, with the US leading, repelled Iraq and put heavy sanctions on it as punishment/in an attempt to prevent future problems. They stopped their WMD programs and that was that, at least in theory, until the US and UK lied about them not stopping WMD programs and invaded illegally.
The claim that it was 60 years of Iraq doing "bad stuff" (whatever that might be) until the US finally stopped them is laughable. Please educate yourself on the history of a region before posting; it's not black and white by any means - pretty much every country who has ever had any involvement, including the US, has done pretty terrible things in the Middle East.
Re-read my post and the post I was referring to again. I was clearly not referring to Iraq. It's too bad that you wasted your time typing up that post.
OK then.
I wonder, which specific country are you talking about here? If it's Afghanistan, that's still totally wrong. Afghanistan was allied with the US up to the late '80's, so I don't know where you'd get the '50's from.
If it's Iran, again, totally wrong. In the 1950's, the US overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran because they didn't like the utterly reasonable things the country was doing with oil. The pretty awful regime was supported up until 1979ish, when it was overthrown. So, until the 1980's you had an American supported government in Iran, not the 1950's. The US is clearly far more at fault in US-Iran relationship, anyone claiming otherwise is just refusing to look at facts.
If it's some other country, I really don't know which, but feel free to enlighten me.
And it's very fair to say that the dominant country has essentially always behaved pretty terribly. However, I like to think we have higher moral standards these days - indeed, the US at least pretends that it values things like democracy and freedom and whatnot. The whole "human rights watch" and stuff like that kind of suggests that it considers these values important and worth maintaining, therefore to hold them to the very standards the country appears to think matters is very reasonable.
Nationalizing (stealing) private oil fields is no where near reasonable. The US response didn't turn out to be a self interested one but the US was completed justified in responding with force to the initiation of force by the Iranian government.
The U.S. and Britain were completely justified in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a pro-West dictator? Good luck with that argument.
Don't you know the drill by now? Uncle Sam is justified in everything he does. :/ le sigh. It's sad some people actually believe that.
It's sad so many people don't recognize the importance of property rights and that people have a right to fight back when force is initiated against them.
So you're on the same side as the suicide bombers in Iraq then I presume? An aggression war without cause or reason was initiated by the US, depriving the Iraqie people of their property and their lives, as well as the Iraqie government. Go Saddam?
I somehow got the feeling that you were pro USA in these questions? O_O
Edit. Sorry that was rude to the american people. *Pro US official foreign policies.
The Iraqi government was the initiator of force and thus responsible for the suffering the US brought on many of it's people through it's response of force. Just because the US declared war first (that time), doesn't mean that it was an initiator of force. The Iraqi government stayed in power only through the use of and threat of force against it's people, continually initiated force against the Kurds, was same government had invaded Kuwait and as such, forfeited any moral prerogatives, any claim to national rights or sovereignty, and became an outlaw. The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.
Oh my, and here we thought that we were trying to stop Saddam from getting WMD's or something...
And now it's because of how he treated his people??? Where was the U.S. for decades prior with the moral outrage? Oh yeah, we were giving him more weapons.
I'll just re-quote the most important part of your argument, which summarizes your ethic:
The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.
Anything self-interested is morally justified. Got it.
Sadly, George Bush and his lackeys were so stupid I don't think America even got anything out of Iraq. Who the hell lies to start a war then doesn't have a clearly attainable goal of self interest!? Why aren't my gas prices lower? GEORGE!?!
On October 22 2011 15:25 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:13 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:08 Senorcuidado wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:05 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:53 Senorcuidado wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:40 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:51 FuzzyJAM wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:34 OsoVega wrote: [quote] Re-read my post and the post I was referring to again. I was clearly not referring to Iraq. It's too bad that you wasted your time typing up that post.
OK then.
I wonder, which specific country are you talking about here? If it's Afghanistan, that's still totally wrong. Afghanistan was allied with the US up to the late '80's, so I don't know where you'd get the '50's from.
If it's Iran, again, totally wrong. In the 1950's, the US overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran because they didn't like the utterly reasonable things the country was doing with oil. The pretty awful regime was supported up until 1979ish, when it was overthrown. So, until the 1980's you had an American supported government in Iran, not the 1950's. The US is clearly far more at fault in US-Iran relationship, anyone claiming otherwise is just refusing to look at facts.
If it's some other country, I really don't know which, but feel free to enlighten me.
And it's very fair to say that the dominant country has essentially always behaved pretty terribly. However, I like to think we have higher moral standards these days - indeed, the US at least pretends that it values things like democracy and freedom and whatnot. The whole "human rights watch" and stuff like that kind of suggests that it considers these values important and worth maintaining, therefore to hold them to the very standards the country appears to think matters is very reasonable.
Nationalizing (stealing) private oil fields is no where near reasonable. The US response didn't turn out to be a self interested one but the US was completed justified in responding with force to the initiation of force by the Iranian government.
The U.S. and Britain were completely justified in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a pro-West dictator? Good luck with that argument.
1:07-1:13. The justification is right there in your video. Being democratically elected does not give you impunity to violate rights free of any response of force.
ROFL not ten seconds later you can see that the British took Iran to the world court and lost.
So? The world court was wrong.
Besides your trolling, where is your proof for this absolutely ludicrous claim besides your ultranationalist beliefs?
Are you really asking for proof that the Iranian nationalization of the AIOC was a violation of property rights? Just look at the 1933 agreements. There's nothing ultranationalist about my beliefs. Only a belief that property rights exist and that those who violate them open themselves up to a righteous response of force.
On October 22 2011 15:34 Euronyme wrote:
On October 22 2011 15:08 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:58 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:53 Senorcuidado wrote:
On October 22 2011 14:40 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:51 FuzzyJAM wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:34 OsoVega wrote:
On October 22 2011 12:11 FuzzyJAM wrote: [quote]
Iraq was invaded around 15 years after the US was in direct alliance with it, providing military support whilst they were engaged in an active war with Iran. This was after the US supported the Ba'ath party (i.e. the ruling party that was later so evil it had to be deposed) in their bid to take power and throughout its rule. The reason they supported it was because they disliked Iran's government, the one that had deposed the American-implemented regime.
American relations only really soured only after the annexation of Kuwait, in 1990 - 30-40 years after the date you're talking about. The UN, with the US leading, repelled Iraq and put heavy sanctions on it as punishment/in an attempt to prevent future problems. They stopped their WMD programs and that was that, at least in theory, until the US and UK lied about them not stopping WMD programs and invaded illegally.
The claim that it was 60 years of Iraq doing "bad stuff" (whatever that might be) until the US finally stopped them is laughable. Please educate yourself on the history of a region before posting; it's not black and white by any means - pretty much every country who has ever had any involvement, including the US, has done pretty terrible things in the Middle East.
Re-read my post and the post I was referring to again. I was clearly not referring to Iraq. It's too bad that you wasted your time typing up that post.
OK then.
I wonder, which specific country are you talking about here? If it's Afghanistan, that's still totally wrong. Afghanistan was allied with the US up to the late '80's, so I don't know where you'd get the '50's from.
If it's Iran, again, totally wrong. In the 1950's, the US overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran because they didn't like the utterly reasonable things the country was doing with oil. The pretty awful regime was supported up until 1979ish, when it was overthrown. So, until the 1980's you had an American supported government in Iran, not the 1950's. The US is clearly far more at fault in US-Iran relationship, anyone claiming otherwise is just refusing to look at facts.
If it's some other country, I really don't know which, but feel free to enlighten me.
And it's very fair to say that the dominant country has essentially always behaved pretty terribly. However, I like to think we have higher moral standards these days - indeed, the US at least pretends that it values things like democracy and freedom and whatnot. The whole "human rights watch" and stuff like that kind of suggests that it considers these values important and worth maintaining, therefore to hold them to the very standards the country appears to think matters is very reasonable.
Nationalizing (stealing) private oil fields is no where near reasonable. The US response didn't turn out to be a self interested one but the US was completed justified in responding with force to the initiation of force by the Iranian government.
The U.S. and Britain were completely justified in overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing a pro-West dictator? Good luck with that argument.
Don't you know the drill by now? Uncle Sam is justified in everything he does. :/ le sigh. It's sad some people actually believe that.
It's sad so many people don't recognize the importance of property rights and that people have a right to fight back when force is initiated against them.
So you're on the same side as the suicide bombers in Iraq then I presume? An aggression war without cause or reason was initiated by the US, depriving the Iraqie people of their property and their lives, as well as the Iraqie government. Go Saddam?
I somehow got the feeling that you were pro USA in these questions? O_O
Edit. Sorry that was rude to the american people. *Pro US official foreign policies.
The Iraqi government was the initiator of force and thus responsible for the suffering the US brought on many of it's people through it's response of force. Just because the US declared war first (that time), doesn't mean that it was an initiator of force. The Iraqi government stayed in power only through the use of and threat of force against it's people, continually initiated force against the Kurds, was same government had invaded Kuwait and as such, forfeited any moral prerogatives, any claim to national rights or sovereignty, and became an outlaw. The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.
Oh my, and here we thought that we were trying to stop Saddam from getting WMD's or something...
And now it's because of how he treated his people??? Where was the U.S. for decades prior with the moral outrage? Oh yeah, we were giving him more weapons.
I'll just re-quote the most important part of your argument, which summarizes your ethic:
The only objection I have against the Iraq war that it was not self interested but had it been, it would have been morally justified.
Anything self-interested is morally justified. Got it.
You're misunderstanding me. The justification, not the reason, was that his regime was an initiator of force. The reason given was WMDs.
Anything self-interested is morally justified. Got it.
This is unfair depending on what you consider self-interested. The invasion of Iraq would have been morally justified had it been self interested but it wasn't so it was not. My moral objection with the Iraq war is that it was self destructive. It's not that no other moral objections exist, it's that no other moral objections apply.
To be completely fair, anything truly rationally self interested is morally justified but I refrain from saying so because self interest is more complicated than most people believe. Any violation of rights is a self destructive action. Most people don't realize this but if you do, then it would be fair to say that anything truly rationally selfish is morally justified.
EPT
