why do ppl always think its about oil...Kmarion wrote:
Why did the US pull out then in the first Gulf war when we were standing right outside of Baghdad ? You know if it was about oil ?B.Schuss wrote:
Moreover, I wonder if GWB had pushed for a military action in Iraq if that country didn't have
a) quite some oil reserves
I hope you realize that was my point. If it were why did the US pull out.cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
why do ppl always think its about oil...Kmarion wrote:
Why did the US pull out then in the first Gulf war when we were standing right outside of Baghdad ? You know if it was about oil ?B.Schuss wrote:
Moreover, I wonder if GWB had pushed for a military action in Iraq if that country didn't have
a) quite some oil reserves
Last edited by Kmarion (2006-07-13 04:25:40)
I wish to state, before I begin my diatribe, that I don't particularly consider myself a supporter of American adventurism; and I am CERTAINLY NOT a supporter of the Bush administration. What I am about to write is borne of frustration with foreign criticism that fails to see its own contradictions.B.Schuss wrote:
I guess the main criticism is about the way the US does what it does. Acting unilaterally. Without the support by the proper Institutions.
For example, no one would have objected if the US had been part of a UN peace force in Iraq, should the SC have decided to put one in place.
But the US decided that the UN wasn't moving forward as fast as the US would have wanted them to, and then acted unilaterally. That's when the criticism errupted.
That is a shame, because our fellow UN members, and some allies, will continue to lose the respect of Americans if they continue to show they are incapable of acting on their own; or in fact, at all. Just once I'd like to see Europe take military action without American help. Until that day, I'm sorry, but it appears to us that you have no intention of acting, ever. So if action is judged necessary, it is clear from this side of the Atlantic that we will have to do it ourselves; and given that we will be criticised whether we do or not, we will decide when that action is to be taken without regard to the criticism that will come in any case. And I repeat, this is from one who isn't particularly thrilled at the idea of America acting abroad.B.Schuss wrote:
I have no problems with nations taking all the precautions to preserve their national security. That's every nation's basic right. But IMHO, america will continue to lose international respect and support if they keep disrespecting and ignoring the concerns of their fellow UN members / allies, like they did in Iraq.
just my 2c...
Last edited by whittsend (2006-07-13 07:19:17)
I don't doubt individual americans care about others. That is only natural. I just don't think the US government does particularly.Kmarion wrote:
I hope you realize that was my point. If it were why did the US pull out.cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
why do ppl always think its about oil...Kmarion wrote:
Why did the US pull out then in the first Gulf war when we were standing right outside of Baghdad ? You know if it was about oil ?
Oh and cameron yes, we do care about others. Lest you forgot to look at the image posted in the initial post of this thread.
Isn't it so convenient to say something like that? That's bullshit. If you'd sent troops to Rwanda there would have been nothing to claim 'imperialistic'. You're entirely missing my point that there are always alterior motives. I have no problems with people being liberated from the possibility of death, and in the case of Rwanda, you'd have gotten no flak and you know it, but you still can't justify not going in. Like I said, it deserved attention and got none because of its material worth. So in fact I'm accusing the current actions as imperialistic, not the ones that could have been done in Rwanda. I'm disappointed that you, whittsend, can't say anything that shows you have interest in other's opinions. Not everyone is a hypocrite. If you want to call me one you're wrong, I would never have criticized fighting a good fight. The problem is YOU AIN'T IN ONEwhittsend wrote:
Gunlinger: Hope you enjoy it (new MOS) Be sure to check back in and let us know how it goes.Comical. If the US had gone into Rwanda, I strongly suspect you would have been among the first to cite it as an example of US imperialism. Like so many have said: It doesn't actually matter what the US does; to folks like you we will always be doing the wrong thing.Spumantiii wrote:
It is a noble cause but sadly if that were true there are and were so many places that deserved the good fight but were ignored, amidst the slaughter of millions of citizens. There was no reason not to go into Rwanda. Where was the good fight then? There are people living under worse governments than Saddam's was.
Last edited by Spumantiii (2006-07-13 07:39:08)
I don't want to break your heart but I don't think many goverments do. It's all politics just some have better PR people.CameronPoe wrote:
I don't doubt individual americans care about others. That is only natural. I just don't think the US government does particularly.Kmarion wrote:
I hope you realize that was my point. If it were why did the US pull out.cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
why do ppl always think its about oil...
Oh and cameron yes, we do care about others. Lest you forgot to look at the image posted in the initial post of this thread.
So now we have to justify inaction as well? How do you justify your country's inaction? There are always choices to be made, and there are plenty of murderers and criminals to be stopped. If by 'alterior [sic] motives' you mean that when we act against a murderer or criminal, we tend to go after the ones who cause the most geopolitical trouble, you will forgive me for wondering why that is a problem. You complain when we stop some, and complain when we don't stop others; how can you wonder that we tune your complaints out after a while?Spumantiii wrote:
Isn't it so convenient to say something like that? That's bullshit. If you'd sent troops to Rwanda there would have been nothing to claim 'imperialistic'. You're entirely missing my point that there are always alterior motives. I have no problems with people being liberated from the possibility of death, and in the case of Rwanda, you'd have gotten no flak and you know it, but you still can't justify not going in.whittsend wrote:
Comical. If the US had gone into Rwanda, I strongly suspect you would have been among the first to cite it as an example of US imperialism. Like so many have said: It doesn't actually matter what the US does; to folks like you we will always be doing the wrong thing.
It deserved attention? Ok, I'll buy that. But why did that attention have to come from the US? Could a coalition of states which were later critical of the US for not acting not have done the job just as well? Why, if action was so essential, did no country act without the US?Spumantiii wrote:
Like I said, it deserved attention and got none because of its material worth. So in fact I'm accusing the current actions as imperialistic, not the ones that could have been done in Rwanda. I'm disappointed that you, whittsend, can't say anything that shows you have interest in other's opinions.
Given the actions of Saddam Hussein against other countries and against his own people, that is PURELY a matter of opinion. I happen to agree that we probably could have done without an invasion of Iraq, but it is ridiculous to state that Rwanda was the good fight and Iraq is a bad one.Spumantiii wrote:
Not everyone is a hypocrite. If you want to call me one you're wrong, I would never have criticized fighting a good fight. The problem is YOU AIN'T IN ONE
I'm not sure how that is a 'blue collar' response, but even if it is, what's wrong with the working class? I'm not sure why you would consider that an insult.Spumantiii wrote:
Comical? What, your typical blue collar response?
Last edited by whittsend (2006-07-13 07:58:23)
every action should be justified, and if there were principle reasons for inaction they must also be just. Nobody can give a good enough reason for inaction during a genocide. I agree that nobody should shoulder the brunt of that responsibility alone. It's true that not alot was done in Rwanda, even by Canada, who spend large amounts in international aid, and lives during peacekeeping. It should be said that countries that chose inaction were unjustified in the act, and a coalition was required. I say the UN failed on that one, I found a link that says the same, however, when propelry conducted with enthusiasm by all parties, it works.whittsend wrote:
So now we have to justify inaction as well? How do you justify your country's inaction? There are always choices to be made, and there are plenty of murderers and criminals to be stopped. If by 'alterior [sic] motives' you mean that when we act against a murderer or criminal, we tend to go after the ones who cause the most geopolitical trouble, you will forgive me for wondering why that is a problem. You complain when we stop some, and complain when we don't stop others; how can you wonder that we tune your complaints out after a while?Spumantiii wrote:
Isn't it so convenient to say something like that? That's bullshit. If you'd sent troops to Rwanda there would have been nothing to claim 'imperialistic'. You're entirely missing my point that there are always alterior motives. I have no problems with people being liberated from the possibility of death, and in the case of Rwanda, you'd have gotten no flak and you know it, but you still can't justify not going in.whittsend wrote:
Comical. If the US had gone into Rwanda, I strongly suspect you would have been among the first to cite it as an example of US imperialism. Like so many have said: It doesn't actually matter what the US does; to folks like you we will always be doing the wrong thing.It deserved attention? Ok, I'll buy that. But why did that attention have to come from the US? Could a coalition of states which were later critical of the US for not acting not have done the job just as well? Why, if action was so essential, did no country act without the US?Spumantiii wrote:
Like I said, it deserved attention and got none because of its material worth. So in fact I'm accusing the current actions as imperialistic, not the ones that could have been done in Rwanda. I'm disappointed that you, whittsend, can't say anything that shows you have interest in other's opinions.Given the actions of Saddam Hussein against other countries and against his own people, that is PURELY a matter of opinion. I happen to agree that we probably could have done without an invasion of Iraq, but it is ridiculous to state that Rwanda was the good fight and Iraq is a bad one.Spumantiii wrote:
Not everyone is a hypocrite. If you want to call me one you're wrong, I would never have criticized fighting a good fight. The problem is YOU AIN'T IN ONEI'm not sure how that is a 'blue collar' response, but even if it is, what's wrong with the working class? I'm not sure why you would consider that an insult.Spumantiii wrote:
Comical? What, your typical blue collar response?
South Vietnam, Grenada, Great Britian, france and South Korea didnt have oil.CameronPoe wrote:
Do you think the US would have protected the pifflingly tiny state of Kuwait if it wasn't packed to the gills with oil?Kmarion wrote:
Why did the US pull out then in the first Gulf war when we were standing right outside of Baghdad ? You know if it was about oil ?B.Schuss wrote:
Moreover, I wonder if GWB had pushed for a military action in Iraq if that country didn't have
a) quite some oil reserves
Vietnam, Grenada and South Korea: Cold War 'My dick is bigger than your dick' battles...Horseman 77 wrote:
South Vietnam, Grenada, Great Britian, france and South Korea didnt have oil.CameronPoe wrote:
Do you think the US would have protected the pifflingly tiny state of Kuwait if it wasn't packed to the gills with oil?Kmarion wrote:
Why did the US pull out then in the first Gulf war when we were standing right outside of Baghdad ? You know if it was about oil ?
Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-07-13 14:45:00)
perhaps he fancies himself a " wanna be" Elitist, Oh well, Graduation usually fixes that!whittsend wrote:
I'm not sure how that is a 'blue collar' response, but even if it is, what's wrong with the working class? I'm not sure why you would consider that an insult.
Please start making sense ? I have know idea what you mean here.CameronPoe wrote:
Vietnam, Grenada and South Korea: Cold War 'My dick is bigger than your dick' battles....Horseman 77 wrote:
South Vietnam, Grenada, Great Britian, france and South Korea didnt have oil.CameronPoe wrote:
Do you think the US would have protected the pifflingly tiny state of Kuwait if it wasn't packed to the gills with oil?
We were aiding Britian and effectivly engaging Japan the German Navy long before Pearl Harbor.CameronPoe wrote:
Great Britain & France: fair enough but they took their time and if Japan hadn't attacked and Germany hadn't stupidly declared war on the US then my guess is as good as yours with respect to whether the US would have come to their rescue. Churchill practically had to lick the shit off Roosevelts shoes to get the US to intervene as it was.
Last edited by Spumantiii (2006-07-13 15:06:38)
I noticed you removed the part whee you called me a foul mouthed hypocrite Thanks !Spumantiii wrote:
hey at least I don't 'fancy myself' to be a horse-man.
falling off your high horse usually fixes that ;P
Last edited by Horseman 77 (2006-07-13 15:18:50)
What I meant by that was that these were wars of necessity during the cold war because if the US allowed communism to grow and show that it could be successful then the global balance of power would be tipped against their favour. It wasn't exactly for any altruistic reasons.Horseman 77 wrote:
Please start making sense ? I have know idea what you mean here.cameronpoe wrote:
Vietnam, Grenada and South Korea: Cold War 'My dick is bigger than your dick' battles....Horseman 77 wrote:
South Vietnam, Grenada, Great Britian, france and South Korea didnt have oil.
exactly, US didnt want communism to spread... they wanted to stop communism every chance, well theyre not doing it now. re-defeat communism! boycott chinese products!CameronPoe wrote:
What I meant by that was that these were wars of necessity during the cold war because if the US allowed communism to grow and show that it could be successful then the global balance of power would be tipped against their favour. It wasn't exactly for any altruistic reasons.Horseman 77 wrote:
Please start making sense ? I have know idea what you mean here.cameronpoe wrote:
Vietnam, Grenada and South Korea: Cold War 'My dick is bigger than your dick' battles....
Hindering and practically extinguishing Communism is in fact The Ultimate Altruistic EndeavorCameronPoe wrote:
What I meant by that was that these were wars of necessity during the cold war because if the US allowed communism to grow and show that it could be successful then the global balance of power would be tipped against their favour. It wasn't exactly for any altruistic reasons.Horseman 77 wrote:
Please start making sense ? I have know idea what you mean here.cameronpoe wrote:
Vietnam, Grenada and South Korea: Cold War 'My dick is bigger than your dick' battles....
LOL. Good name for a yacht.Horseman 77 wrote:
Hindering and practically extinguishing Communism is in fact The Ultimate Altruistic EndeavorCameronPoe wrote:
What I meant by that was that these were wars of necessity during the cold war because if the US allowed communism to grow and show that it could be successful then the global balance of power would be tipped against their favour. It wasn't exactly for any altruistic reasons.Horseman 77 wrote:
Please start making sense ? I have know idea what you mean here.
And a pretty good name for a Yacht too.
like smacking an airliner into a High Rise ? They can Elect a Communist leader anytime they want to, now that they are free,CameronPoe wrote:
LOL. Good name for a yacht.Horseman 77 wrote:
Hindering and practically extinguishing Communism is in fact The Ultimate Altruistic EndeavorCameronPoe wrote:
What I meant by that was that these were wars of necessity during the cold war because if the US allowed communism to grow and show that it could be successful then the global balance of power would be tipped against their favour. It wasn't exactly for any altruistic reasons.
And a pretty good name for a Yacht too.
That depends on what your views are and how you feel about some foreign power intervening in your affairs.
Last edited by Horseman 77 (2006-07-13 17:12:50)