|
Thadius -> RE: Those Evil Americans... (8/14/2008 1:43:47 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cloudboy
quote:
Please show me where I have called anybody that opposes the policies un-American?
Its an implied criticism, else why the title of your thread? You are trying to defang those critical of American Foreign policy by making them look like extremist Americans who "hate America" or who think Americans are "evil."
It goes along with these posts as well:
http://www.collarchat.com/m_2068149/mpage_1/key_/tm.htm#2068158
http://www.collarchat.com/m_2068149/mpage_1/key_/tm.htm#2068207
I just don't understand how you can give the US a free pass, and then get worked up over Russia -- a country and Region you don't live in. I don't get your indignation over Russia's actions but blithe acquiescence to US behavior.
Why aren't you upset about 2 million refugees in IRAQ? Why aren't you upset about 100,000 IRAQIs killed. What about the torture instituted in Abu Ghraib? What about the Blackwater guys who mowed down innocent IRAQIs. What about the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan? We own that shit a lot more than we we own Russia's foreign policy.
The same implication is taking place on the "Where are the Protestors of Russia Thread," implying that the real motives of war protesters rest in Anti-Americanism.
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.
To your first point, isn't it funny how a thread about charity, has you and a few others posting lists of the "bad" things the US has done to the world. Think about that one for a minute.
The 2 links of my quotes, well the first one I stand by, as there were many people in the "Russia invades.." thread that suggested the reason for it was because of American foreign policy, and even suggested that Georgia deseerved it because they were allied to the US. I know sometimes it is difficult for people to see things like that when it agrees with their position.
Where did I suggest giving the US a free pass on wrong doings? However, your response in the thread you are quoting me from is pretty telling...
quote:
Unlike the paranoia in the US, at least the Russians have some historical precedent for their own: The Mongols, Swedes, Poles, French, and Germans have all invaded Russia in the past. We've never had such hostile neighbors, except for maybe the American Indians. I wonder how we treated them on their lands?
Also, why don't we give credit to Russia for freeing its own serfs without having to engage in a civil war to get there.
How does that come off to you? To me it sounds like your position is that the US acts out of paranoia and that Russia is noble for their actions because they are a victim of past wrongs by the rest of the world.
It is kind of funny that some folks here have been apologetic for the Russians because they were "protecting" a certain group of people, and justifying it with things the US has done. Well done.
Finally to your last point... this one you are completely wrong on. I will assume you are just not informed on the subject. So let's knock all of it out in one little trip....
Public Law 105-338 signed into law by William Clinton states:
quote:
“It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.”
Shortly after signing it into law...
quote:
“The hard fact is that so long as Saddam Hussein remains in power, he threatens the well- being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with the new Iraqi government, a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people."
How did Bill feel about WMD?
Here is the speech he gave prior to signing the bill.. http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/
quote:
Then and only then did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities and weapon stocks. Previously, it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth. Now listen to this, what did it admit? It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production. As if we needed further confirmation, you all know what happened to his son-in-law when he made the untimely decision to go back to Iraq.
Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door. And our people were there observing it and had the pictures to prove it.
Despite Iraq's deceptions, UNSCOM has nevertheless done a remarkable job. Its inspectors the eyes and ears of the civilized world have uncovered and destroyed more weapons of mass destruction capacity than was destroyed during the Gulf War.
This includes nearly 40,000 chemical weapons, more than 100,000 gallons of chemical weapons agents, 48 operational missiles, 30 warheads specifically fitted for chemical and biological weapons, and a massive biological weapons facility at Al Hakam equipped to produce anthrax and other deadly agents.
Over the past few months, as they have come closer and closer to rooting out Iraq's remaining nuclear capacity, Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions.
Saddam has undertaken yet another gambit to thwart their ambitions by imposing debilitating conditions on the inspectors and declaring key sites which have still not been inspected off limits.... It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.... Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal....
If we look at the past and imagine that future, we will act as one together. And we still have, God willing, a chance to find a diplomatic resolution to this, and if not, God willing, the chance to do the right thing for our children and grandchildren.
President Clinton ~ 1998
I could go on and on, but I figure that should be enough for now. Denial is not a river in Egypt.
One last thing, I have never claimed that the US hasn't committed some real fuck ups in the exercise of foreign policy, I am just tired of those fuck ups being the only things that folks seem to talk about, ignoring the good things that have been done. Take that however you want.
Thadius
|
|
|
|
