THIS is why we're intervening in Libya

[JimC]

Frankly, some countries aren't interfered with enough.

Get the Vatican on the case...

They are experts at interfering...

[Coito ergo sum]

The US has "always, always" interfered with other countries' issues? That's nonsense. How much economic and covert power are we exerting against Austria at the moment? If you want to boil it down to a persistent influence in terms of commerce, diplomacy, intelligence, etc., then one can say that nearly every power in the world is always, always interfering in the affairs of others. Those efforts, whether they be handshakes between diplomats or naval blockades, don't always amount to much. The US is just the biggest and most powerful, and thus the most visible when it shifts its weight around. And unlike others, the US is conspicuous even when it does nothing... such as in (ahem) the Congo or Rwanda, or why the US hasn't been doing anything (including economically and covertly as far as I can tell) about recent leftist movements in Latin America.

Again, false equivalence. To say nearly every other power in the world has interfered in other countries affairs at the same rate as the US is nonsense. Name one country that has bombed, invaded, occupied, overthrown governments, etc as often as the US since the end of ww2.

The United Kingdom and the Soviet Union/Russia? Those would be my first two guesses.

At least we have the excuse of saying that when we did it, it was all the rage and so de rigueur.

Not sure why pointing out other nations behaving badly is really necessary.

It has the same necessity as pointing out that the US behaved badly. Moreover, he asked the question, and my guesses were in response to that question. Unless it was intended rhetorically, and the context didn't seem to be that, a question implies a request for an answer.

I don't defend any of the nations you mention. Most people wouldn't. Just goes to show that acting like a colonialist dick is fairly unusual outside of the 20th/21st century at least in the West.

Oh, I don't know. A rose by any other name.... there are dozens of examples of countries invading other countries since the end of WW2. Whether one considers them "colonial" invasions, is another matter. Heck, Eritrea invaded Ethiopia - colonial? Certainly conquest.

The mistake is ignoring the world and pretending that the only cause of strife is the US, and another mistake is considering all reasons for war to be the same. I'm glad, for example, of the Afghan campaign - it was entirely justified, and I say that unapologetically. Was the Russian invasion of Georgia? You tell me.

[Coito ergo sum]

Frankly, some countries aren't interfered with enough.

I've had my eye on Equatorial Guinea for a while now....

[Aos Si]

The US has "always, always" interfered with other countries' issues? That's nonsense. How much economic and covert power are we exerting against Austria at the moment? If you want to boil it down to a persistent influence in terms of commerce, diplomacy, intelligence, etc., then one can say that nearly every power in the world is always, always interfering in the affairs of others. Those efforts, whether they be handshakes between diplomats or naval blockades, don't always amount to much. The US is just the biggest and most powerful, and thus the most visible when it shifts its weight around. And unlike others, the US is conspicuous even when it does nothing... such as in (ahem) the Congo or Rwanda, or why the US hasn't been doing anything (including economically and covertly as far as I can tell) about recent leftist movements in Latin America.

Again, false equivalence. To say nearly every other power in the world has interfered in other countries affairs at the same rate as the US is nonsense. Name one country that has bombed, invaded, occupied, overthrown governments, etc as often as the US since the end of ww2.

The United Kingdom and the Soviet Union/Russia? Those would be my first two guesses.

At least we have the excuse of saying that when we did it, it was all the rage and so de rigueur.

Not sure why pointing out other nations behaving badly is really necessary.

It has the same necessity as pointing out that the US behaved badly. Moreover, he asked the question, and my guesses were in response to that question. Unless it was intended rhetorically, and the context didn't seem to be that, a question implies a request for an answer.

I don't defend any of the nations you mention. Most people wouldn't. Just goes to show that acting like a colonialist dick is fairly unusual outside of the 20th/21st century at least in the West.

Oh, I don't know. A rose by any other name.... there are dozens of examples of countries invading other countries since the end of WW2. Whether one considers them "colonial" invasions, is another matter. Heck, Eritrea invaded Ethiopia - colonial? Certainly conquest.

The mistake is ignoring the world and pretending that the only cause of strife is the US, and another mistake is considering all reasons for war to be the same. I'm glad, for example, of the Afghan campaign - it was entirely justified, and I say that unapologetically. Was the Russian invasion of Georgia? You tell me.

Will people stop quoting really inapt analogies. This is a Western country here we expect certain standards of countries like this we wouldn't expect from others.

And yeah it still sounds like pointing out wrongs somehow makes your wrongs better doesn't it? Oh look he done it too, like somehow that clears your name. It's a very weak argument at the best of times and usually just serves as a diversionary tactic to take the focus of your own wrong doing. I murdered him yes, but many human beings have committed murder. I mean come on?

How many Western nations exactly have invaded other countries since WWII anyway, it's not exactly the done thing is it?

The mistake is ignoring the world and pretending that the only cause of strife is the US, and another mistake is considering all reasons for war to be the same. I'm glad, for example, of the Afghan campaign - it was entirely justified, and I say that unapologetically. Was the Russian invasion of Georgia? You tell me.

I never said anything of the kind so see no point in answering this.

I'm well aware of what other non Western nation do though.

[Coito ergo sum]

Will people stop quoting really inapt analogies. This is a Western country here we expect certain standards of countries like this we wouldn't expect from others.

I don't think that's justified. There has never been less war among western countries than other countries. Western countries are quite good at warmaking, that's why the English, French, Portuguese, Dutch, Spanish, and Italians all had huge empires until very recently. There was war on the European continent as recently is 15 years ago.

And yeah it still sounds like pointing out wrongs somehow makes your wrongs better doesn't it?

No. It's the fact that some ONLY want to talk about the wrongs of the US and bury the wrongs of others under the rug that makes the US's "wrongs" seem unique.

Oh look he done it too, like somehow that clears your name.

No - no name clearing. But, I certainly don't need to sit still for the judgmental finger pointing of those who perfected the practice of conquering other countries, incorporating them into Empires, stealing their national treasures and resources, and then later pretending that such things never happened.

It's a very weak argument at the best of times and usually just serves as a diversionary tactic to take the focus of your own wrong doing. I murdered him yes, but many human beings have committed murder. I mean come on?

Why can't we talk about someone else's actions? This is a thread about the LIbyan War. The US didn't want to intervene. It was the British and the French that led the way. The US dragged its feet, and only entered after the British and the French put pressure on the US in the public sphere, asking "doesn't the US care????" And, then it was brought to the UN Security Council, where the US was forced to either participate or to veto/abstain which would have left its allies out to dry.

How many Western nations exactly have invaded other countries since WWII anyway, it's not exactly the done thing is it?

A lot - 1953 Operation Ajax led by the Brits in Iran. British military operations in Kenya in the 1950's against the Mau Mau.Britain in Cyprus in the 1950s. US actions in Cuba in the early 60s, small US invasions in Panama and Grenada. US activities in Dominican Republic and Guatemala. US, Britain and 35 other countries in Iraq. All of NATO in Afghanistan. NATO action in Serbia/Kosovo/Bosnia-Herzegovnia in the 1990s. UN War in Korea. US and several other countries in Vietnam. France in Vietnam and other locals in Southeast Asia in the 1940s and 1950s. UK and the Falklands War in the 1980s. Australian and New Zealand military action against Fijians in the 1980s. Australian deployment to East Timor about 5 years ago. UN Persian Gulf War in 1991. 2004 French war in Ivory Coast. Yugoslavia vs Slovenia. UK/France/Japan in Vietnam in 1945-46. Netherlands/UK in Indonesia 45-49. French Indochina War - ended 1954 with their horrible defeat at Dien Bien Phu. UK/Australia/New Zealand in Malaya from 1948 to 1960. France's defeat by Tunis in Tunis' war of independence (from France).France's defeat by Algeria in Algerias war of Independence (from France). UK/France/Israel defeat of Egypt in the Suez Crisis. Spain/France defeating Morrocco in 1958. Congo's war against the Belgians in 1960-1966. There's more...


Non-western: Turkey invaded Cyprus in 1974. India in the Maldives in 1988. Britain and Australia in Indonesia in 1964. Pakistan incursions into India several times, and Kashmire, and India's similar actions. Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Hungary, Poland, Czechosolovakia, Kyrgystan, Turkmenistan, etc. South African military actions (I think like 10 different ones). Indonesian incursions into East Timor in the 1970s. Russian invasion of Georgia. Arab and Israeli wars and invasions (like 5 or so over the last 60 years). Iran vs Iraq in the 1980s. Turkey vs. Iraq in 1978. Israel vs. Hezb'Allah in Lebanon a few years ago. African Union's invasion of Anjoun (in the Comorros). Djibouti v Eritrea. Eritrea v Ethiopia. Armenia v Azerbaijan in 2010. China's invasion of Tibet. Indian invasion of Goa (owned by Portugal) in 1960s. This list goes on and on...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_wars

The mistake is ignoring the world and pretending that the only cause of strife is the US, and another mistake is considering all reasons for war to be the same. I'm glad, for example, of the Afghan campaign - it was entirely justified, and I say that unapologetically. Was the Russian invasion of Georgia? You tell me.

I never said anything of the kind so see no point in answering this.

I'm well aware of what other non Western nation do though.

You just want to focus on what the US does.

[Seth]

It seems that sandinista will see every single example of military action by the US since WW2 as always unwarranted and with no motives whatsoever other than maintaining its power and economic interest. In addition, he sidesteps the reasonable argument from Ian that, simply by dint of its position in international affairs, it is required to "express a view" on virtually every issue, and feel some pressure to back up its views. Clearly, this is a great over-simplification.

However, I detect some defensive over-simplification on the other side. The US is not immune from valid criticism about some of its military adventures and cynical support for appalling national rulers over the past 65 years. The standard response that it was only reacting to "defend the free world against totalitarianism" is not a valid justification in every case, and the rather self-righteous flavour of some US rhetoric about its role as a knight in shining armour in international affairs is not always appreciated in international circles.

Indeed. But generally speaking the intent of our interventions has been honorable, if on occasion things have not turned out as we might have wished. The core dispute here is, of course, the dispute between democracy and totalitarianism, and the tendency of certain segments of the political left to seize upon any extraterritorial military action by the US as a convenient excuse to rant and rave about supposed American imperialism because it's convenient to do so for their own political purposes. There are segments of the world political community that simply hate the United States and everything it stands for, Marxists being chief among them, and dictators being right there at the top.

The Marxists (and their aligned ilk) dislike the US because it's not a Marxist state, and as it's the most powerful and economically successful nation on earth, it stands as an intolerable factual repudiation of everything Marxists and other radical leftists stand for and are trying to accomplish in their worldwide plan to institute first revolutionary Marxist socialism and eventually utopian Communism everywhere. They cannot stand the fact that capitalism actually does work, even when it's under attack by Marxists and Progressives, and they are constantly trying to run it down using false propaganda and indoctrination and they must, perforce, bitterly oppose anything the US does, even if what it's doing is otherwise universally recognized as both reasonable and necessary, because to admit that the US, and it's political and economic system are superior to their vague revolutionary ideals and addiction to proletarian equality of outcome would be seen as "counterrevolutionary" and a betrayal of the Marxist ideology.

It's pure political theater, and as we see here in this thread, and in literally every other thread that our resident Marxists participate in, they are utterly unable and unwilling to debate the merits and details of THEIR political plan for everyone on the planet, but instead they are doggedly pursuing a classic Alinsky smear campaign against both the United States and anyone who has the temerity to defend the US.

It's not in the least bit surprising, because that's all they are intellectually capable of. We've seen time and time again the level of intelligence that comprises the bulk of Marxist so-called "thought," and it's not particularly high.

But that's to be expected, because there are only two kinds of people who can hold firm beliefs in Marxism; the quite literally delusional and insane proletarian drone who simply parrots Marxist propaganda and chants like a brainwashed devotee of Chairman Mao, and the corrupt Marxist intellectual elite, who are busy manipulating the credulous proletarian foot-soldiers and cannon-fodder of mainstream Marxism proletarianism and know full well that they dare not actually stand the Marxist dialectic up before rational reasonable people of wit and intelligence because each and every time they do, no matter where they do so, their idiotic ideology is easily deconstructed and destroyed by even those of moderate intelligence who have the wit to ask even simple questions about how Marxism proposes to actually make economies and societies work, in the real world, as opposed to the delusional fever-dreams of the seething proletarian sea of ignorance and stupidity.

The fact remains that the US stands as a shining beacon of hope and freedom throughout the world, which is why the US has to build fences to keep people who want to flee here from totalitarian regimes of every political stripe OUT, as opposed to the classic practice of Marxists and Communists of building fences to keep people IN. Therefor I need make no apology for the United States, which is indeed an exceptional nation filled with exceptional people who have created something unique in human history. It also happens to contain a fair number of malcontents, seditionists, traitors, revolutionaries, radicals and other criminal elements, but that's true of every nation. We just try to keep them from becoming a danger to the public and generally ignore them, sometimes at our own peril.

And dictators hate the US simply because we are a direct threat to them, because we hate dictatorships and totalitarian regimes, and because we are willing to use both economic and military force to free oppressed people from such dictatorships, including the dictatorship of the proletariat when necessary.

[Aos Si]

You can talk about whatever you like I'm not here to make excuses for my governments actions. I feel no responsibility for them and I deplore their part in operation Ajax. I tend to feel that I shouldn't defend my country when it does the wrong thing. If you really want to have a go at my nation go for it, I'll probably join in when it warrants it.

I don't want to bury anything under anything will you quit with the straw men, you're just making stuff up now, all I want is when you do wrong you admit it. It's healthier to admit the truth than go on making excuses for your country when it screws up. Why you feel you should act as an apologist for your nations mistakes is beyond me.

No - no name clearing. But, I certainly don't need to sit still for the judgmental finger pointing of those who perfected the practice of conquering other countries, incorporating them into Empires, stealing their national treasures and resources, and then later pretending that such things never happened.

What the hell has my nations actions, many of which I deplore got to do with it? Do you think I'm trying to make out my nation is perfect? Hell fucking no, it's because we have been a colonialist asshole, we know one when we see one. All I can say is when we did it it was something every nation in the civilised world was doing from Europe to Korea to Timbuktu. Your doing it is anachronistic. Doesn't make up for what we did at all, nor would I care to excuse it, nor should I even need to.

I don't know of us ever pretending things didn't happen? What are you referring to? Or do you mean back then?

[Coito ergo sum]

You can talk about whatever you like I'm not here to make excuses for my governments actions. I feel no responsibility for them and I deplore their part in operation Ajax. I tend to feel that I shouldn't defend my country when it does the wrong thing. If you really want to have a go at my nation go for it, I'll probably join in when it warrants it.

I don't want to bury anything under anything will you quit with the straw men, you're just making stuff up now, all I want is when you do wrong you admit it.

I admit when I think the US does wrong.

I don't know why, however, you get to feel no responsibility for your country's actions, but I have to admit it when I do wrong (even though it's not me, it's my country).

The point I was making, though, was not that you are personally responsible, but that you were well-pleased to lambaste the US, and then when I pointed out that the US wasn't, by far, the only country that does those things, you said "well that doesn't matter." Well it does - because it's not as if the US is any more deserving of mention in that regard than many other countries, and if we can talk about the US's wrongs, then we can talk about other countries' wrongs. Moreover, this is a Libya thread and the US is not taking the lead in Libya, we were dragged in after being very hesitant. The gung ho parties were France and the UK, et al.

It's healthier to admit the truth than go on making excuses for your country when it screws up. Why you feel you should act as an apologist for your nations mistakes is beyond me.

I'll have to ask you where I have been an apologist at all. Pointing out the defalcations of another country is not apologetics toward the US.

No - no name clearing. But, I certainly don't need to sit still for the judgmental finger pointing of those who perfected the practice of conquering other countries, incorporating them into Empires, stealing their national treasures and resources, and then later pretending that such things never happened.

What the hell has my nations actions, many of which I deplore got to do with it?

Precisely the same as my nations' actions has to do with it.

Do you think I'm trying to make out my nation is perfect? Hell fucking no, it's because we have been a colonialist asshole, we know one when we see one.

I only know that in a thread where the UK and France are spearheading an attack on Libya, you want to talk on the US and you claim it's irrelevant to talk about the UK and France.

All I can say is when we did it it was something every nation in the civilised world was doing from Europe to Korea to Timbuktu.

So, now what other nations do IS relevant?

Look - don't act like this is in the past tense for you folks. Britain and France were both involved in Afghanistan, as was the rest of NATO. And Britain was shoulder-to-shoulder with the US in Iraq, and I thank your nation for that. British boots were on the ground in Iraq. And, British and French forces were involved in the Persian Gulf War. And, Britain and France are at the forefront of the Libyan excursion. And, France is spearheading the Ivory Coast miliitary operations, as it did in the 1990s too.

What, exactly, is "past tense" about your country's involvement?

Your doing it is anachronistic. Doesn't make up for what we did at all, nor would I care to excuse it, nor should I even need to.

Calling Iraq and Afghanistan "colonial" is not accurate.

I don't know of us ever pretending things didn't happen? What are you referring to? Or do you mean back then?

I'm referring to your suggestion that we ought not mention the conduct of countries other than the US.

[sandinista]

It has the same necessity as pointing out that the US behaved badly. Moreover, he asked the question, and my guesses were in response to that question. Unless it was intended rhetorically, and the context didn't seem to be that, a question implies a request for an answer.

It was not rhetorical and you never did provide any sort of list for comparison.

Oh, I don't know. A rose by any other name.... there are dozens of examples of countries invading other countries since the end of WW2. Whether one considers them "colonial" invasions, is another matter. Heck, Eritrea invaded Ethiopia - colonial? Certainly conquest.

But...that's is not what I am talking about. I'm talking about one country invading, occupying bombing, etc many countries over the period of the last 60-65 years. How many other countries did Eritrea invade or bomb?

The mistake is ignoring the world and pretending that the only cause of strife is the US

No one thinks the US is the ONLY cause. That's ridiculous and no one has ever said that. The fact is, the US is a main cause of strife throughout the world. History has shown that clearly.

I'm glad, for example, of the Afghan campaign - it was entirely justified

Not at all justified.

Western countries are quite good at warmaking

And that make it OK or "good"? What does that have to do with anything?

No. It's the fact that some ONLY want to talk about the wrongs of the US and bury the wrongs of others under the rug that makes the US's "wrongs" seem unique.

balony. What makes the US "wrongs" unique is the hypocrisy and pure amount of them.

Why can't we talk about someone else's actions? This is a thread about the LIbyan War. The US didn't want to intervene.

And for that...so far(time will tell), I would commend the US. It's a first, and a good step. I started talking about the US because Ian brought it up. Thats why we're talking about the US. Go back a page.

You just want to focus on what the US does.

There's nothing wrong with that. Some people will focus on what the middle east does, some will focus on Africa, some on Russia, some even focus on the Soviet Union. So what?

I admit when I think the US does wrong.

What interventions, bombings, coups, occupations etc do you think were wrong (post ww2). I'm not asking for a big explanation, and I know it's a complicated question, just curious.

and then when I pointed out that the US wasn't, by far, the only country that does those things...

Wrong. The US BY FAR has invaded, occupied, bombed, etc and caused more deaths and atrocities against other countries than any other country on the planet. This IS an empire we're talking about.

I'll have to ask you where I have been an apologist at all. Pointing out the defalcations of another country is not apologetics toward the US.

It is if you have a false equivalents, like you seem to have judging from the two above quotes. That' being an apologist.

Calling Iraq and Afghanistan "colonial" is not accurate.

Imperialist would be more appropriate.

[Coito ergo sum]

It has the same necessity as pointing out that the US behaved badly. Moreover, he asked the question, and my guesses were in response to that question. Unless it was intended rhetorically, and the context didn't seem to be that, a question implies a request for an answer.

It was not rhetorical and you never did provide any sort of list for comparison.

Read again. You asked a question, and I answered it, exactly.

Oh, I don't know. A rose by any other name.... there are dozens of examples of countries invading other countries since the end of WW2. Whether one considers them "colonial" invasions, is another matter. Heck, Eritrea invaded Ethiopia - colonial? Certainly conquest.

But...that's is not what I am talking about. I'm talking about one country invading, occupying bombing, etc many countries over the period of the last 60-65 years. How many other countries did Eritrea invade or bomb?

At least one. But, Eritrea is very small. The UK invaded/bombed Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq (twice), and Vietnam (1946), Egypt in the 1970s, Falkland Islands/Argentina, Kosovo, Serbia, Yugoslavia, Iran 1953 (Ajax), Indonesia (1964), Cyprus - 1956, With the UN Korea in the 1950s, Sierra Leone in 2000, Iraq No-Fly Zone bombings from 1993 to 2003. Need more?

The mistake is ignoring the world and pretending that the only cause of strife is the US

No one thinks the US is the ONLY cause. That's ridiculous and no one has ever said that. The fact is, the US is a main cause of strife throughout the world. History has shown that clearly.

I don't think it has been demonstrated. Would you suggest that the level of strife would have been less had the US not been around to oppose some less savory countries, like the Soviet Union?

I'm glad, for example, of the Afghan campaign - it was entirely justified

Not at all justified.

More than justified - an imperative.

Western countries are quite good at warmaking

And that make it OK or "good"?

No.

What does that have to do with anything?

It's in response to what the other gentleman said - that these days western European countries don't engage in this sort of thing. They not only do, they're quite good at it.

No. It's the fact that some ONLY want to talk about the wrongs of the US and bury the wrongs of others under the rug that makes the US's "wrongs" seem unique.

balony. What makes the US "wrongs" unique is the hypocrisy and pure amount of them.

Hypocrisy is unique the US?

And, I've already demonstrated that the "amount" of US interventions is not significantly greater than certain other countries.

Why can't we talk about someone else's actions? This is a thread about the LIbyan War. The US didn't want to intervene.

And for that...so far(time will tell), I would commend the US. It's a first,

Hardly a first. The US was lambasted by anti-Iraq War folks for a good 5 years for not opting to intervene in other countries' affairs that also harbored dictators and tyrants.

and a good step. I started talking about the US because Ian brought it up. Thats why we're talking about the US. Go back a page.

I wasn't referring to you. It was the other guy who reached for my throat, rhetorically, when he wanted to limit discussion to the US.

You just want to focus on what the US does.

There's nothing wrong with that. Some people will focus on what the middle east does, some will focus on Africa, some on Russia, some even focus on the Soviet Union. So what?

So, for that same reason I didn't appreciate this fella taking me to task for daring to discuss a country other than the US.

I admit when I think the US does wrong.

What interventions, bombings, coups, occupations etc do you think were wrong (post ww2). I'm not asking for a big explanation, and I know it's a complicated question, just curious.

Well, we were not talking about coups, etc., but as far as coups go I will suggest that the US actions with respect to Chili were wrong. That's one. I also don't much like what I know about Nicaraguan activities. I will also suggest that Johnson's escalation of the Vietnam War was wrong, especially the way it was done with the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and all.

I strongly support the NATO war in Afghanistan in 2001, and I supported and support the Iraq War. I supported the UN Persian Gulf War (I've seen a lot of folks on the left revising their position on the Persian Gulf War, because of their position on the Libyan campaign, too). In hindsight I think the UN Korean conflict was ill advised.

and then when I pointed out that the US wasn't, by far, the only country that does those things...

Wrong. The US BY FAR has invaded, occupied, bombed, etc and caused more deaths and atrocities against other countries than any other country on the planet. This IS an empire we're talking about.

I'll leave it to you to support your claim -- and not an empire.

I'll have to ask you where I have been an apologist at all. Pointing out the defalcations of another country is not apologetics toward the US.

It is if you have a false equivalents, like you seem to have judging from the two above quotes. That' being an apologist. [/quote]

I've made no equivalents.

Calling Iraq and Afghanistan "colonial" is not accurate.

Imperialist would be more appropriate.

What's your definition of "imperialist?"

[sandinista]

The UK invaded/bombed Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq (twice), and Vietnam (1946), Egypt in the 1970s, Falkland Islands/Argentina, Kosovo, Serbia, Yugoslavia, Iran 1953 (Ajax), Indonesia (1964), Cyprus - 1956, With the UN Korea in the 1950s, Sierra Leone in 2000, Iraq No-Fly Zone bombings from 1993 to 2003. Need more?

Still not even close in comparison or amount of murders committed by troops. Not even close. Which has been my point all along.

http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossma ... tions.html

I don't think it has been demonstrated. Would you suggest that the level of strife would have been less had the US not been around to oppose some less savory countries, like the Soviet Union?

Of course it would have. There would have been millions less murdered by US bombs all over the planet. The Soviet Union wasn't going around the world bombing people.

More than justified - an imperative.

Neither.

It's in response to what the other gentleman said - that these days western European countries don't engage in this sort of thing. They not only do, they're quite good at it.

Good has nothing to do with it.

Hypocrisy is unique the US?

Of course not, canaduh is pretty bad at the moment. Though it is not unique to the US, they do excel at it.

And, I've already demonstrated that the "amount" of US interventions is not significantly greater than certain other countries.

Actually, it is, much more significant. Throw in UN vetos and the picture gets even bleaker.

Coito ergo sum wrote:Why can't we talk about someone else's actions? This is a thread about the LIbyan War. The US didn't want to intervene.

And for that...so far(time will tell), I would commend the US. It's a first,

Hardly a first. The US was lambasted by anti-Iraq War folks for a good 5 years for not opting to intervene in other countries' affairs that also harbored dictators and tyrants.

I meant a first where the US didn't go all gung ho about bombing. Lambasting well deserved.

Well, we were not talking about coups, etc., but as far as coups go I will suggest that the US actions with respect to Chili were wrong. That's one. I also don't much like what I know about Nicaraguan activities. I will also suggest that Johnson's escalation of the Vietnam War was wrong, especially the way it was done with the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and all.

I strongly support the NATO war in Afghanistan in 2001, and I supported and support the Iraq War. I supported the UN Persian Gulf War (I've seen a lot of folks on the left revising their position on the Persian Gulf War, because of their position on the Libyan campaign, too). In hindsight I think the UN Korean conflict was ill advised.

Coups are part of the story. A big part. So, Chili was wrong, of course Nicaraguan was wrong. We agree on that. Panama? Grenada? El Salvador? Escalation of Vietnam, how about involvement at all?

What's your definition of "imperialist?"

Same as the dictionary.

The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.

[Seth]

Of course it would have. There would have been millions less murdered by US bombs all over the planet. The Soviet Union wasn't going around the world bombing people.

Oh really? Can you say "Afghanistan?" How about "Cuba?" Or "Grenada?" or perhaps "Congo" or "Rhodesia" or "Georgia" or "Ukraine" or "Belarus?"

Only an idiot would attempt to deny the Soviet Union's participation, direct and indirect, in the spread of global communism and the fomentation and monetary and military support of Marxist revolution world wide, on literally every continent, beginning in about 1920 and continuing right through the dissolution of the Soviet empire.

[Coito ergo sum]

The UK invaded/bombed Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq (twice), and Vietnam (1946), Egypt in the 1970s, Falkland Islands/Argentina, Kosovo, Serbia, Yugoslavia, Iran 1953 (Ajax), Indonesia (1964), Cyprus - 1956, With the UN Korea in the 1950s, Sierra Leone in 2000, Iraq No-Fly Zone bombings from 1993 to 2003. Need more?

Still not even close in comparison or amount of murders committed by troops. Not even close. Which has been my point all along.

http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossma ... tions.html

Limit your list, please, to post-WW2. If you want me to go back to the mid-1800s for the UK and other European powers, you might not like how the list comes out.

I don't think it has been demonstrated. Would you suggest that the level of strife would have been less had the US not been around to oppose some less savory countries, like the Soviet Union?

Of course it would have. There would have been millions less murdered by US bombs all over the planet. The Soviet Union wasn't going around the world bombing people.

LOL - they just militarily conquered and annexed Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Turkmenistan, Uzbekhistan, Afghanistan, Kyrgistan, Georgia, Ossetia....never bombed anyone....they also supplied planes and bombs to the North Vietnamese, North Koreans and other countries around the world. They're the ones who sold Qadafi all his arms, and sold Hussein most of his arms, and sold Iran most of their arms after the Ayatollas came in....no, the Soviets/Russians never bombed anyone....

More than justified - an imperative.

Neither.

Both.

It's in response to what the other gentleman said - that these days western European countries don't engage in this sort of thing. They not only do, they're quite good at it.

Good has nothing to do with it.

It may have nothing to do with whatever point you're thinking of, but it had everything to do with what he and I were talking about.

Hypocrisy is unique the US?

Of course not, canaduh is pretty bad at the moment. Though it is not unique to the US, they do excel at it.

Seems quite a common trait of humanity and governments.

And, I've already demonstrated that the "amount" of US interventions is not significantly greater than certain other countries.

Actually, it is, much more significant. Throw in UN vetos and the picture gets even bleaker.

You'll need to demonstrate it. And, by that I mean you'll have to do better than limit me to post-WW2, and then proceed to go back 150 years with your link.

Coito ergo sum wrote:Why can't we talk about someone else's actions? This is a thread about the LIbyan War. The US didn't want to intervene.

And for that...so far(time will tell), I would commend the US. It's a first,

Hardly a first. The US was lambasted by anti-Iraq War folks for a good 5 years for not opting to intervene in other countries' affairs that also harbored dictators and tyrants.

I meant a first where the US didn't go all gung ho about bombing. Lambasting well deserved.

Certainly not a first where the US didn't go all gun ho about bombing. The US didn't go all gung ho about bombing a host of other countries, hence the lambasting for not intervening in many other places.

Yes, I can see your point. We should be lambasted for intervening, and it is also well-deserved that we be lambasted for not intervening. No matter what the US does, it's deserving a basting of lamb.

Well, we were not talking about coups, etc., but as far as coups go I will suggest that the US actions with respect to Chili were wrong. That's one. I also don't much like what I know about Nicaraguan activities. I will also suggest that Johnson's escalation of the Vietnam War was wrong, especially the way it was done with the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and all.

I strongly support the NATO war in Afghanistan in 2001, and I supported and support the Iraq War. I supported the UN Persian Gulf War (I've seen a lot of folks on the left revising their position on the Persian Gulf War, because of their position on the Libyan campaign, too). In hindsight I think the UN Korean conflict was ill advised.

Coups are part of the story. A big part.

Yes, but you do tend to mix different things. A coup is not an occupation. And, a coup is not an invasion. If you're talking about coups then say coups. Don't start out by taking about invasions, colonialism and occupation, and then when I address that, follow up and add "coups" into the mix.

So, Chili was wrong, of course Nicaraguan was wrong. We agree on that. Panama?

Panama? Not wrong.

Grenada?

Not wrong.

El Salvador?

I don't have enough understanding of that subject.

Escalation of Vietnam, how about involvement at all?

Well, that's why I made the distinction. The involvement at all was not wrong. If the Chinese and the Russians can support their chosen regime in Hanoi, then the US can certainly support the Saigon contender. After all, isn't that the argument folks are making about Libya? I've heard folks on here that on all other issues are very liberal, and they said "it's perfectly legal to decide that one side of a civil conflict is the lawful government and support that side" (words to that effect). That's how folks are justifying British and French (and US) intervention in Libya - we are protecting the rebels who are looking to depose a tyrant. But, I digress.

About Vietnam, let's not forget that the French occupied Vietnam from about 1885 to 1954 when they were humiliated by the Viet Minh at Dien Bien Phu. The US then sort of moved in to help out the French and the French exited. The US saw the communist north's attempt to conquer the south as an expansion of Soviet Communism, so we opted to help the South. I don't think it's a bad idea that we helped the south. And, unless you're going to go on record as opposing the Soviet and Chinese assistance of the north, I don't get how you can oppose US and French assistance to the South.

So, we come to the escalation - the problem with the escalation is that it was effected more for political face-saving than actually to win the war. Johnson was sort roped into it by a series of reports and he was backed into escalating in 1964 and 1965. The bombings were stupid back in the Johnson years, and the way the US waged the war did not, in my understanding, give much of a chance of anything more than a stalemate, which the US was bound to lose.

What's your definition of "imperialist?"

Same as the dictionary.

The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.

That's not what the US does.

[Coito ergo sum]

Of course it would have. There would have been millions less murdered by US bombs all over the planet. The Soviet Union wasn't going around the world bombing people.

Oh really? Can you say "Afghanistan?" How about "Cuba?" Or "Grenada?" or perhaps "Congo" or "Rhodesia" or "Georgia" or "Ukraine" or "Belarus?"

Only an idiot would attempt to deny the Soviet Union's participation, direct and indirect, in the spread of global communism and the fomentation and monetary and military support of Marxist revolution world wide, on literally every continent, beginning in about 1920 and continuing right through the dissolution of the Soviet empire.

When it comes to the Soviets, only direct bombings count. When it comes to the US, we count everything, including economic and political influence on up.

[laklak]

Come on CES, just admit the U.S. is the most barbaric bunch of War-Monger Oppressor Running Dog Imperialist Criminals ever to befoul the planet. Why, just look at what they're doing to this poor North Korean woman!