 |
| |
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
Only if you come up with some decent arguments instead of posting the same old tired crap. If you can't understand that international relations are for the most part governed by realpolitik, then you really aren't qualified to enter this discussion.
Anyway, how about showing us these vaunted weapons of mass destruction? I haven't seen one yet, and there were supposed to be thousands, right? |
Realpolitik. Check. I agree for the most part. Then why are you surprised that the US would engage in it, and why do you whine incessantly about American foreign policy?
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
You know - you too will have to do better than this. I said that it didn't matter what Chirac's motives were. My point was that the Ameri-scum weren't much different (in fact their motives were probably worse) and that Chirac was on the right side, albeit for different reasons.
You can flap on all you like, but this war was waged on fake pretexts partly to make sure that people of limited political awareness, like yourself, would vote for little George in the upcoming election. And you all bought it.
And don't give me that crap about the US helping the Iraqui people. Everyone with half a brain knows that foreign policy has very little to do with caring; and everyone who watched the news media knows that they slipped back to that excuse after all their others were shown to be wanting. |
Ameri-scum? Oh, OK. I think I see the answer.
btw, since the US government is doing things to better the position of the US in the region (I agree that is why they did it) and you seem to think that is how all foreign affairs are governed, why are you so pissed off that they have to do it in such a way as to be of some benefit to the locals in order to ensure support for their policies with their own people? Doesn't sound so bad to me. The US acts like every other nation would if they had the muscle to do so, but is tempered by the sensibilities of the American people. Can you think of any better way to do it when there is a hegemon?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Menlas
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by skywalker
I'm sure you're wrong. We supplied the vast majority of the military equipment and personell. The only people who paid for stuff that wasn't theirs were the Saudis (and maybe the Kuwaitis... but I don't know there). |
What I found on http://www.ledevoir.com/2003/03/06/21844.html :
quote:
La première guerre du Golfe était justifiée par l'invasion du Koweït par les troupes de Saddam Hussein et l'offensive avait été décidée d'un commun accord entre puissances occidentales alliées. La facture avait ensuite été partagée entre l'Arabie Saoudite (31 %), le Koweït (29 %), le Japon (17 %), l'Allemagne (12 %) et les États-Unis pour le solde (un peu plus de 10 %).
|
quote:
Gulf War 1 was justified by the Kuwait invasion by Saddam Hussein troops, and the offensive had been collectively decided by the western allied countries. The bill had then been shared between Saoudi Arabia (31%), Kuweit (29%), Japan (17%), Germany (12%) and US (a bit more than 10%).
|
Cruddy : point taken, ok 
And sorry for the little off-topic, however the whole thread seems to have turned OT, so... 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cruddy
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
Perhaps. I thought he was disagreeing with me by agreeing with me.
Of course the United States was pursuing its own interests in WWII. That's about the sum of my claim. Again, why is this so controversial? |
If that is the sum of your claim, it's the way you are putting it that is raising so much laughter.
Of course the USA got benefits from WW2. Winners generally benefit from winning. The point is, WW2 was not a US idea.
It was a Fascist/Communist idea. When it became obvious that Fascist militarism could only be opposed by force, that's what happened.
Or do you seriosusly think otherwise?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Cruddy
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
Because realpolitik is evil and unjust: any decent person should oppose unjust wars.
|
I have no problem with argument and debate over whether a war is necessary or not. I doubt any war is "just" as such. War is an abomination and should not be taken as "a good thing".
quote:
[SIZE=1] Originally posted by Agathon [/SIZE
I'm pissed off when anyone does it. I doubt that it will be of that much benefit to the locals and considerable disutility should they decide that they want to take their fate into their own hands.
|
Then you support the weak against the strong. An admirable characteristic, and an important one for a balanced view. But do not doubt there are benefits to both ways - the question is, which gives the most benefits with the least drawbacks?
quote:
[SIZE=1] Originally posted by Agathon [/SIZE
And why not object to it. Might does not make right.
|
I agree with you. Every armed conflict should be questioned and judged individually. Even democracy is a bad system for protecting the views of minorities. But at least it gives the minority the opportunity to change things by convincing others to change their minds.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cruddy
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by skywalker
we would not have gone to war if it hadn't been for that
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
Prove it.
|
No Agathon - you're the one who's out to prove a point, you come up with the proof that refutes what is commonly held to be the truth.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cruddy
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by notyoueither
Why? Your Congress declared war in 1917. |
That's because the political will was there - this consensus did not exist in 1941 until the Fascists made the first move.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cruddy
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by notyoueither
American opinion was moving towards involvement. The Yanks were hardly neutral in November 1941. It was only a matter of time before the torpedoes started sinking things they shouldn't have, and that was precisely the issue that got the US into the first one.
It is highly arguable though, and we could go round and round. The point I wanted to make is that the US did declare war on Germany once before over European problems that encroached too close to the US. It can be argued they would have again. |
This is true up to a point, but one thing keeping them out of the war in Europe was the war in China, something that got a lot of attention at the time but has been largely forgotten since.
True, the US was not truly neutral in 1941, but not many other industrialised countries were either - Switzerland and Sweden being a couple that spring to mind.
I think it would have taken a lot of US lives lost to really stir them up enough to declare war first. I wouldn't say they would have done this for sure - but they certainly might have, if enough arguments had swung around the isolationists.
If you're going to go down this road of conjecture, you could even argue that the US would have allied with Germany. Certainly not with FDR at the helm- but he wasn't the only presidential candidate, was he?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-05-2003 06:42
I don't know whether I should be angry 
or simply laugh 
Go back and read the couple of sentences I posted on this topic. Then perform the mental operations needed to get from them to your ridiculous accusations. Or do you habitually indulge in such "creative interpretation"?
|