quote:

evil Americans

quote:

Its my position that Americans had little to do with any of the above military and covert operations. In not one action did Congress declare war. Most of the actions were done in secret by shadow wonks in the Government. These policies were deliberately engineered in such a manner that the Average American would be ignorant about the operations undertaken. The IRAQ war just followed suit here, with BUSH and his team whipping the nation up into unjustified war hysteria. Even now the BUSH team doesn't want to disclose the actual costs of the IRAQ war to tax payers.

What gets me is how you have the audacity to imply that we Americans who oppose these policies and tactics are somehow "un-American" or "anti-American," when the truth is you have it back-assed turned around --- its those policymakers who are anti-American, anti-democratic, and loathing of international law, treaties, and organizations.

Its we, who oppose these policies who are pro-American.

quote:

Please show me where I have called anybody that opposes the policies un-American?

quote:

Psst.. you do realize that the regime change for Iraq was signed into law in '98 by CLINTON.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

quote:

Psst.. you do realize that the regime change for Iraq was signed into law in '98 by CLINTON.

What the fuck is that shit. Clinton never invaded IRAQ or prepared the US to do it. What's that got to do with anything at all? The only thing Clinton passed onto BUSH was warnings about OSAMA BIN LADEN, which Condi & Co. fully ignored. They didn't give Richard Clarke the time of day.

quote:

SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD IRAQ.

     It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

quote:

evil Americans

First of all, the way the USA conducts foreign policy has little to do with "the Americans," "those evil Americans," or the average American. So you and your whole threadline are misleading.

You have to look at the actual policymakers and evaluate what they've done.

Here's a track record for you:

Bombing Cambodia

Installing Pinochet in Chile

Overthrowing Allende in Guatamala.

Installing the Shah of IRAN.

Propping up Marcos in the Phillippines.

Propping up Samoza in Nicaragua.

Supporting El Salvador who kept order through death squad tactics.

Arming Islamic Radicals to oust the Soviet backed Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. Up and leaving thereafter.... oooops the Islamists turn against the the WEST. Go back in, arm the Northern Alliance to oust the Islamists. Oooops, fail to secure the country thereafter while off invading IRAQ --- give $10 Billion in belated to aid to Afghanistan.

Arm Saddam Hussein with WMD.

Then invade IRAQ to try and disarm SH for having WMD.

Abu Ghraib

Bay of Pigs

Vietnam

Mining Nicaragua's harbor.

Having and embargo against Cuba and free trade with China.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

The only thing that I have implied is that some folks want to blame the US for every problem that occurs around the world. 

quote:

How amusing, in your list you conveniently left out the dozens, if not HUNDREDS of strictly humanitarian operations, doctor trips, foreign monetery aid and disaster relief sent all over the world.

I deem your list, worthless.

quote:

ORIGINAL: batshalom

Before we go off on a screaming tangent here, use the energy to do something important to you. If it's to save energy and cut our dependency on crude oil, do that. If it's to save starving orphans on every continent, do that. Instead of complaining and whining and jittering off ridiculous made-up statistics ~briefly looking at cuckyboy~ and instead of aiding and abetting hatred, do something productive.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

So, on your planet, there's a nexus between the Bush invasion and a 1998 action by Clinton? I'm sure that was front and center in the meetings of Rice, Rumsfeldt, Wolfowitz, Perle, and Cheney leading up to their battle plan.

BTW: the link is broken.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Smith117

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

quote:

evil Americans

First of all, the way the USA conducts foreign policy has little to do with "the Americans," "those evil Americans," or the average American. So you and your whole threadline are misleading.

You have to look at the actual policymakers and evaluate what they've done.

Here's a track record for you:

Bombing Cambodia

Installing Pinochet in Chile

Overthrowing Allende in Guatamala.

Installing the Shah of IRAN.

Propping up Marcos in the Phillippines.

Propping up Samoza in Nicaragua.

Supporting El Salvador who kept order through death squad tactics.

Arming Islamic Radicals to oust the Soviet backed Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. Up and leaving thereafter.... oooops the Islamists turn against the the WEST. Go back in, arm the Northern Alliance to oust the Islamists. Oooops, fail to secure the country thereafter while off invading IRAQ --- give $10 Billion in belated to aid to Afghanistan.

Arm Saddam Hussein with WMD.

Then invade IRAQ to try and disarm SH for having WMD.

Abu Ghraib

Bay of Pigs

Vietnam

Mining Nicaragua's harbor.

Having and embargo against Cuba and free trade with China.

How amusing, in your list you conveniently left out the dozens, if not HUNDREDS of strictly humanitarian operations, doctor trips, foreign monetery aid and disaster relief sent all over the world.

I deem your list, worthless.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59
Do the humanitarian efforts we`e done, somehow cancel out the damage we`ve done?

Hardly.

The Soviets did humanitarian work and so does fucking al-queda! God damm it!

Does that mitigate the evil things done by them?

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

So, on your planet, there's a nexus between the Bush invasion and a 1998 action by Clinton? I'm sure that was front and center in the meetings of Rice, Rumsfeldt, Wolfowitz, Perle, and Cheney leading up to their battle plan.

BTW: the link is broken.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.4655.ENR:

That the policy of the United States towards Iraq was the removal of Saddam Hussein since before George Bush even ran for President is fact. 

That Democrats pontificated against Saddam Hussein and accused him publicly of pursuing WMDs before George Bush even ran for President is fact.

Bush's decision to invade is the end stage of an evolution begun during the Clinton Administration.  The facts compel the conclusion.

There are many reasons to criticize Operation Iraqi Freedom:  lack of planning, faulty intelligence, inadequate advance PR work in the international community to secure international support and at least good will, just to name a few.  However, to describe it as a radical departure from prior US policy towards Iraq is historically inaccurate and shamefully disingenuous.

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy
...problem is, when someone makes a list opf the bad things done by US governments someone like yourself comes along and suggests a list of good things. Someone lists the good things, then someone comes along and lists the bad things........as if either strategy addressed the point.

This applies to all countries, but as its the USA we're talking about.......

......the USA has done both good and bad things. No-one seriously denies that. However if we're discussing errors made, in an honest attempt to identify how those errors came about so they can become avoidable, then it actually does the USA a dis-service if the only response is to talk about the good things.
Likewise, if the topic is good things done by a country, talked about so we can make sure those good things happen more often, then it does tyhe country a dis-service to immediately list bad things done.

These polarised arguments really get us nowhere..........

quote:

ORIGINAL: Smith117

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy
...problem is, when someone makes a list opf the bad things done by US governments someone like yourself comes along and suggests a list of good things. Someone lists the good things, then someone comes along and lists the bad things........as if either strategy addressed the point.

This applies to all countries, but as its the USA we're talking about.......

......the USA has done both good and bad things. No-one seriously denies that. However if we're discussing errors made, in an honest attempt to identify how those errors came about so they can become avoidable, then it actually does the USA a dis-service if the only response is to talk about the good things.
Likewise, if the topic is good things done by a country, talked about so we can make sure those good things happen more often, then it does tyhe country a dis-service to immediately list bad things done.

These polarised arguments really get us nowhere..........

Neither do discussions on the "evils" of a country that has done so much good.

Mistakes were made. No one denies that either. But declaring a country with our track record "evil" is just silly. If you want to analyze the mistakes and prevent them, then address them as mistakes. Don't say the country is "evil" because of them.

A country's people can only hear they're evil so many times before the collectively, if only subconciously, say "fuck it."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Smith117

Neither do discussions on the "evils" of a country that has done so much good.