Stuff the X Factor, the US is giving us another garging war!

kuliwil · Post by **kuliwil** » Sat Jan 07, 2012 2:50

Scarlet, are you a fan of Chomsky? I think he has some really great things to say on this issue.

Scarlet · Post by **Scarlet** » Sat Jan 07, 2012 3:22

kuliwil wrote:Scarlet, are you a fan of Chomsky? I think he has some really great things to say on this issue.

A little bit. I have some respect for the guy, but in all honesty a lot of what he does is just take things that other people says and re-presents them.

He does lay some stuff out nicely sometimes, so I give him some respect for that. There is some effort to put things together.

Rorie · Post by **Rorie** » Sat Jan 07, 2012 7:01

Scarlet wrote:
This is a whole different can of worms, but because the US is allied with Israel, we would have been attacked regardless of whether or not we were actively in the middle east... simply for being allied with Israel. Is it wrong for a nation to help out one of their allies?
The US helps Israel so much that it's disgusting. Israel has other friends, but it has not been able to milk other countries nowhere near as much as the US.

I am a firm believer that the US hit itself on 9-11 in order to go to war. Did you see that list of inventions that the US did? It is unofficial policy to go in and destabilize/screw countries.
And other countries do not want revenge. No. They're above that. They just want the US to get the F**** OUT of their affairs.

well said scarlet. half or all the attacks against america could have been avoided if they simply kept thier nose out of other countries affairs. australia keep their nose out of america's affairs so they should do the same with like for example the middle east

Pokota · Post by **Pokota** » Sat Jan 07, 2012 15:23

It is unofficial policy to go in and destabilize/screw countries.

Yeah, we've only been doing that for the past 200 years :eyeroll:

Seriously, go study up on the Monroe Doctrine at some point; it set the precedent. I find it darkly hilarious that we've been doing this sort of crap for our entire history under the same excuse of "Preserving the freedoms of the people from overbearing nations" yet people only complain when we're in Europe or Asia.

EDIT: What we were doing in the cold war is not unlike what the Europeans were doing during the era of the Conquistadors, or even Victorian England. It's one thing to spread culture and religion. It's another thing entirely to force it down people's throats. The irony of what the US is trying to do is that we're trying to force people to accept freedom of choice.

thehackercat · Post by **thehackercat** » Sat Jan 07, 2012 17:01

Rorie wrote: which is why the u.s needs to keep thier nose out of matters that do not concern them. they have already inflicted enough damage in the middle east they should NOT start a conflict against iran

You mentioned the United States' involvement in the Middle East as the leading cause of 9/11. However, you seem to have forgotten that the US first deployed troops to that region to stop the Soviet takeover of Afghanistan (where one Osama bin Laden was a freedom fighter). Osama founded Al-Qaeda in the late 80s as an organization to keep their homelands free of intruders. On August 2, 1990, Saddam Hussein made aggressive movements toward the Saudi border. The House of Saud wanted to ask for US support, but bin Laden wanted them to use local Muslim fighters (i.e. the program his family's money was invested in). When they made the decision to bring in foreign help (American troops), it was the primary reason for Osama's vendetta against the US specifically and the West in general.

Rorie wrote:iran has the capability to wipe out the united states and it's allies and it will happen if the u.s gets involved with iran.

People like you, even some in the US Congress, said the same thing about Saddam's Republican Guard. The coalition wiped them out in a year with minimal losses.

Rorie wrote:tell the u.s government to spend more on national health care rather than waste it on weapons and starting wars.

That's a bit hypocritical of you, considering you just suggested the United States not stick their noses in other countries' business. Defense programs are not a waste of money. The one point I agree with is that wars are needlessly expensive.

Rorie wrote: then again the u.s wants to control the world and they make a huge mess like they have already done in iraq and afghanistan the logical thing would be to get out bring our troops home and let these countries rebuild themselfs.

You're getting more and more brazen with those comments. It's obvious you can't hold a dispassionate view about this. It's no small wonder you've angered Americans on this forum if you keep accusing the country of having a world-domination complex. The fact is, the US along with the rest of the Western world has a big stake in the Middle East. To put it quite simply, the developed world can't afford some third-world thug to cut off their industries' lifeblood. Another reason for US involvement in particular is that Israel is our only real ally in the region. Should countries like Iran truly decide to become hostile, it would be tremendously helpful to have an ally in the region as opposed to having to take the entire area by force.

Rorie wrote:many western countries already have massive debt so why continue to loan money to developing nations? there is no way they can afford pay the loans back.

You're right.

Rorie wrote: tell our governments to focus on matters in their own countries like housing and feeding the homeless. providing world class health care and provide jobs to everyone and fairer welfare benefits to those who cannot work like the disabled

The isolation policy might have worked for everyone two centuries ago, but the world is connected in huge ways now. Even though it's a peaceful course of action to stay at home, sometimes it's necessary to conduct operations in foreign lands. You just spoke about the crippling debt of the Western world. Now is *not* the time to create more bloated social programs. We can fix internal programs once we clean the gunk out of our respective political machines.

TL;DR: Holding the Suez Canal is in the best interest of the entire Western world. If the United States were not in a position to do something about it, I'm sure that other Western powers would see the problem more clearly, without looking through the prism of anti-Americanism.

Which is really getting quite irritating.

Scarlet · Post by **Scarlet** » Sat Jan 07, 2012 19:05

Seriously, go study up on the Monroe Doctrine at some point; it set the precedent. I find it darkly hilarious that we've been doing this sort of crap for our entire history under the same excuse of "Preserving the freedoms of the people from overbearing nations" yet people only complain when we're in Europe or Asia.

I know it very well. The worse thing is the following correlations that were added to it. I wondering how on earth do you support the monroe doctorine? That is disturbing.

Which people are you talking about? There are protests in the US against actions that the US does. Remember the terrorist training school in Florida? People still protest that every year, tens of thousands show up.

What we were doing in the cold war is not unlike what the Europeans were doing during the era of the Conquistadors, or even Victorian England. It's one thing to spread culture and religion. It's another thing entirely to force it down people's throats. The irony of what the US is trying to do is that we're trying to force people to accept freedom of choice.

Freedom as long as it is what we consider to be freedom. In other words a democratically elected socialist government is not acceptable. Freedom is simply the justification that the US uses to terrorize the world.

On August 2, 1990, Saddam Hussein made aggressive movements toward the Saudi border. The House of Saud wanted to ask for US support, but bin Laden wanted them to use local Muslim fighters

Wrong. Saddam invaded kuwait because the kuwait government was usurping Iraqi oil. They did not want to stop, and the US gave saddam the green light to attack. Every decent person would have done the same, I think.

Defense programs are not a waste of money. The one point I agree with is that wars are needlessly expensive.

Defense spending should be one fifth (probably less) of what it is, in the US.

It's no small wonder you've angered Americans on this forum if you keep accusing the country of having a world-domination complex.

I have provided evidence of how this is true. Did you miss the chapters of the book "Killing Hope"? Intervention after intervention. Global bully, as Chomsky would say.

The fact is, the US along with the rest of the Western world has a big stake in the Middle East. To put it quite simply, the developed world can't afford some third-world thug to cut off their industries' lifeblood.

Other countries have not been so ruthless as the US in the last 60 years, in the middle east.
The only thug in the question is the US.

Another reason for US involvement in particular is that Israel is our only real ally in the region.

Correction, Israel is considered the 51st state. The US has many allies. But none get such treatment like Israel.

Now is *not* the time to create more bloated social programs.

And what alternative do you suggest? To let everything collapse? Social programs are a necessity.
The problem in the US is that the government wants to rely on civil society... you know, that religious organizations and such stuff help out. That's an insane way to take care of the population. The government has to be the primary one, not religious organizations.

I do not see social programs as bloated. They're a necessity. Now yeah, if they're created in the first place to have loophole and such stuff then sure they suck. But in European countries they seem to be doing pretty well.

The problem in the US is that bums are tolerated. In former socialist countries we had no bums or homeless that siphoned off the system. The problem is that rats in the US say that "omg any social program is just helping lazy ass garg, cut all social programs because those people are lazy, let them find a job!"... it doesn't work when the jobs have been sent overseas. This social darwinism is a policy of social failure.

Pokota · Post by **Pokota** » Sat Jan 07, 2012 22:18

I wondering how on earth do you support the monroe doctorine?

When did I ever say I supported it? I was citing it as the first recorded example of what you were complaining about. This is old news, Scarlet. We've been doing this crap for almost 200 years now. The only difference is that the rest of the world actually cares.

There are protests in the US against actions that the US does.

That would actually be an occupational hazard of being the United States - somebody will always find something to protest about no matter what, so the optimal solution is to create the situation with the fewest people protesting.

Freedom is simply the justification that the US uses to terrorize the world.

Didn't I say that with "The irony of what the US is trying to do is that we're trying to force people to accept freedom of choice"? You can't force people to accept freedom of choice, it's something that their culture has to develop on its own - forcing it only makes it break down (see Vietnam).

On August 2, 1990, Saddam Hussein made aggressive movements toward the Saudi border. The House of Saud wanted to ask for US support, but bin Laden wanted them to use local Muslim fighters
Wrong. Saddam invaded kuwait because the kuwait government was usurping Iraqi oil. They did not want to stop, and the US gave saddam the green light to attack. Every decent person would have done the same, I think.

Why can't both be true?

Rorie · Post by **Rorie** » Sun Jan 08, 2012 0:03

thehackercat wrote:
Rorie wrote: which is why the u.s needs to keep thier nose out of matters that do not concern them. they have already inflicted enough damage in the middle east they should NOT start a conflict against iran
You mentioned the United States' involvement in the Middle East as the leading cause of 9/11. However, you seem to have forgotten that the US first deployed troops to that region to stop the Soviet takeover of Afghanistan (where one Osama bin Laden was a freedom fighter). Osama founded Al-Qaeda in the late 80s as an organization to keep their homelands free of intruders. On August 2, 1990, Saddam Hussein made aggressive movements toward the Saudi border. The House of Saud wanted to ask for US support, but bin Laden wanted them to use local Muslim fighters (i.e. the program his family's money was invested in). When they made the decision to bring in foreign help (American troops), it was the primary reason for Osama's vendetta against the US specifically and the West in general.

Rorie wrote:iran has the capability to wipe out the united states and it's allies and it will happen if the u.s gets involved with iran.
People like you, even some in the US Congress, said the same thing about Saddam's Republican Guard. The coalition wiped them out in a year with minimal losses.

Rorie wrote:tell the u.s government to spend more on national health care rather than waste it on weapons and starting wars.
That's a bit hypocritical of you, considering you just suggested the United States not stick their noses in other countries' business. Defense programs are not a waste of money. The one point I agree with is that wars are needlessly expensive.

Rorie wrote: then again the u.s wants to control the world and they make a huge mess like they have already done in iraq and afghanistan the logical thing would be to get out bring our troops home and let these countries rebuild themselfs.
You're getting more and more brazen with those comments. It's obvious you can't hold a dispassionate view about this. It's no small wonder you've angered Americans on this forum if you keep accusing the country of having a world-domination complex. The fact is, the US along with the rest of the Western world has a big stake in the Middle East. To put it quite simply, the developed world can't afford some third-world thug to cut off their industries' lifeblood. Another reason for US involvement in particular is that Israel is our only real ally in the region. Should countries like Iran truly decide to become hostile, it would be tremendously helpful to have an ally in the region as opposed to having to take the entire area by force.

Rorie wrote:many western countries already have massive debt so why continue to loan money to developing nations? there is no way they can afford pay the loans back.
You're right.

Rorie wrote: tell our governments to focus on matters in their own countries like housing and feeding the homeless. providing world class health care and provide jobs to everyone and fairer welfare benefits to those who cannot work like the disabled
The isolation policy might have worked for everyone two centuries ago, but the world is connected in huge ways now. Even though it's a peaceful course of action to stay at home, sometimes it's necessary to conduct operations in foreign lands. You just spoke about the crippling debt of the Western world. Now is *not* the time to create more bloated social programs. We can fix internal programs once we clean the gunk out of our respective political machines.

TL;DR: Holding the Suez Canal is in the best interest of the entire Western world. If the United States were not in a position to do something about it, I'm sure that other Western powers would see the problem more clearly, without looking through the prism of anti-Americanism.

Which is really getting quite irritating.

seriously i do not hate america or it's citizens i have a lot of respect towards the people. it is just that your government that wants to mess things up and that is by starting wars that they seriously cannot afford to that what really ticks me off and no i do not believe that my comments are anti american. in fact i want to visit the u.s again this time the mainland and to visit canada while i am over there

Commander Spleen · Post by **Commander Spleen** » Sun Jan 08, 2012 6:26

You're going by the assumption that the government is the ultimate source of these decisions. By the economic interests that perpetuate them, the US is actually doing a very good job. War is big business. Just like fat people.

StupidBunny · Post by **StupidBunny** » Sun Jan 08, 2012 7:59

I actually have a theory that part of the reason that parts of sub-Saharan Africa has experienced increasing growth and stability over the last decade or two is because of the lack of foreign intervention there. During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union were funding the survival of all kinds of awful dictators and keeping bloody wars in places like Angola and Mozambique (which were also spurred on by apartheid South Africa, itself a US beneficiary), and that after the Cold War ended the outside world more or less abandoned Africa to its folly and began looking for proxies in more profitable parts of the world. In the 20 years since, many countries in sub-Saharan Africa have become stable, and all over the continent stagnation has been replaced with significant growth. It plays off a theory I've already heard which suggests that Francophone Africa has been much more unstable than Anglophone Africa largely on account of continuous French interventionism and thinly veiled neocolonialism in their former empire that Britain was much better about avoiding.

I could go on and on and on about African states and tribalism and instability and their origins and misunderstandings of them and stuff, but certainly divide-and-conquer tactics employed by outside superpowers have played a huge part in keeping the continent from reaching its potential.

kuliwil · Post by **kuliwil** » Sun Jan 08, 2012 9:12

Commander Spleen wrote:You're going by the assumption that the government is the ultimate source of these decisions. By the economic interests that perpetuate them, the US is actually doing a very good job. War is big business. Just like fat people.

Spleen, for that comment I am buying you a drink whenever we meet.

Scarlet · Post by **Scarlet** » Sun Jan 08, 2012 20:37

I actually have a theory that part of the reason that parts of sub-Saharan Africa has experienced increasing growth and stability over the last decade or two is because of the lack of foreign intervention there. During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union were funding the survival of all kinds of awful dictators and keeping bloody wars in places like Angola and Mozambique, and that after the Cold War ended the outside world more or less abandoned Africa to its folly and began looking for proxies in more profitable parts of the world.

Wrong.
Totally wrong.

Intervention from foreigners increased. Just which foreigners. Libya's Gadaffi, the holy angel of Africa, had spent countless billions of dollars in investment in the continent. He is a big reason why things are good. Also, China invested a lot.

As for stability and peacefulness and such stuff... I guess you missed some awful atrocities. Here're some for a start...

- Somalia disintegrates
- Rwanda Genocide
- and still genocide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Congo_War
- more genocide http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-11105289
- the ongoing Lord's genocide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_R ... insurgency
- Ivory Coast civil war http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 57837.html
- The Bush War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Af ... c_Bush_War
- Liberian civil war http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Liberian_Civil_War

Oooiiiyyyy.

edit:

but certainly divide-and-conquer tactics employed by outside superpowers have played a huge part in keeping the continent from reaching its potential

Their divide an conquer, making arbitrary borders with no meaning, dividing people and putting various people together who do not want to be together, is what is causing all the problems.

Paramultart · Post by **Paramultart** » Sun Jan 08, 2012 22:59

kuliwil wrote:
Commander Spleen wrote:You're going by the assumption that the government is the ultimate source of these decisions. By the economic interests that perpetuate them, the US is actually doing a very good job. War is big business. Just like fat people.
Spleen, for that comment I am buying you a drink whenever we meet.

But you are opposed to alcohol, Rolololol.

StupidBunny · Post by **StupidBunny** » Sun Jan 08, 2012 23:58

Scarlet wrote:As for stability and peacefulness and such stuff... I guess you missed some awful atrocities. Here're some for a start...

- Somalia disintegrates
- Rwanda Genocide
- and still genocide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Congo_War
- more genocide http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-11105289
- the ongoing Lord's genocide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_R ... insurgency
- Ivory Coast civil war http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 57837.html
- The Bush War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Af ... c_Bush_War
- Liberian civil war http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Liberian_Civil_War

Yes, thank you. I'm aware of all of these. I never said that nothing bad has happened in the last 20 years, rather that many of these atrocities and conflicts have ended (though by no means all; the D.R.C., the C.A.R., and Somalia all remain fractious failed states, as well as of course Chad and the Sudans.) But since then...again, Rwanda has stabilized and attained considerable growth. Uganda is also stable and growing, although the L.R.A. is still active, mostly out of more failed states like Congo and the C.A.R. The Angolan and Liberian civil wars ended in the early 2000s but both nations have become comparatively stable since then.

I also tried hard to make it clear that this wasn't a blanket statement, as in every state on the continent had become a paragon of stability and democracy. Nearly every country in Africa still has problems with income inequality or corruption or repression or non-state violence or any other number of things. Many of the conflicts that ended in the last 10 years (the Angolan and Liberian wars for instance) were holdovers of imperialist proxy wars from the 80s and 70s.

Bear in mind of course that the Rwandan genocide did not take place as a direct result of foreign intervention; indeed, foreign countries have been criticized for not trying to stop it (France in particular actually tried to prop up the faltering Hutu nationalist regime.)

Also Libya is not Sub-Saharan Africa. Foreign intervention in North Africa and the Middle East is as frequent as ever, as they are seen as more politically significant and profitable than the historically corrupt and unstable countries south of them.

Also, the problem of arbitrary borders, while certainly very real and an enduring negative legacy of colonialism, is itself much less significant without the divide-and-conquer tactics used alongside them. A prime example is the case of the Gio and Krahn tribes of west Africa, both of which are found in Liberia and CÃ´te d'Ivoire on both sides of the typically arbitrary border. And yet in CÃ´te d'Ivoire the two tribes live alongside and amongst one another and have for centuries, whereas in Liberia they have attempted to wipe each other out in the last 30 years. The Liberian leadership (supported by the U.S.) divided the two against one another; the Ivorians never did.

Scarlet · Post by **Scarlet** » Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:45

I just basically do not see subsarahan africa as having much good developments in terms of economic growth or stability. My point was that your post sounded way to positive sounding, while there's much hell left.

Your post is how I would have described Latin America. Now, there there has been a big positive change.

Bear in mind of course that the Rwandan genocide did not take place as a direct result of foreign intervention; indeed, foreign countries have been criticized for not trying to stop it

You don't have to explain it to me. Whoever watched the movie Hotel Rwanda hopefully did not miss that part when the Western Europeans evacuated their dogs, and left the blacks to continue getting slaughtered.
Some places do not have enough resources for the US to care about them. That's why the US said "we do not want to call it genocide because then we will have to do something about it"...

Hell, I could see them calling Iran genocide. "Pre-emptive strike to prevent imminent genocide"... jeeze I could see that as a headline.