THIS is why we're intervening in Libya

[sandinista]

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.

You know...I was going to say "just skip up to 1945" but figured you would figure that out. Guess I was wrong

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....

Link me a list of post ww2 Soviet bombings in non Soviet Union countries.

sandinista wrote:

Coito ergo sum wrote:More than justified - an imperative.

Neither.

Both.

No.

sandinista wrote:

Coito ergo sum wrote: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.

More common among some than others.

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.

link already covered.

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.

Not true and you know it. When have I ever lambasted the US for NOT intervening militarily?

sandinista wrote:

Coito ergo sum wrote: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.

OK, I'll leave you in whatever land of illusions you come from. That is precisely what the US does and has been doing since the end of WW2.

[Seth]

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....

Link me a list of post ww2 Soviet bombings in non Soviet Union countries.

This is known as a false dilemma fallacy. As CES says, it's disingenuous and mendacious to try to limit your argument to "Soviet bombings in non Soviet Union countries" to bolster your equally fallacious argument that the US is nothing more than a bunch of warmongering imperialists.

The Soviet Union not only bombed its satellite states into submission, it starved and shot them into submission and then engaged in a well-known and thoroughly documented decades-long agenda of spreading communism worldwide by supporting, training, funding, arming, advising and augmenting Marxist revolutionaries and communist infiltrators, spies, agents and other terrorists intent on destabilizing and bringing down standing governments worldwide.

Most of the US efforts since 1920 were aimed at obstructing and preventing the spread of global communism, and it was Reagan who bankrupted the Soviet Union by inducing them to spend their treasure on military hardware in a vain attempt to counter our superior technology and willingness to oppose the tyranny of global communism.

Your arguments are false, mendaciously false, and pure, undiluted Marxist propaganda that can be ignored and reviled as such.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

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.

Certainly there are some segments who do, and will give no credit at all to anything the US did, being absolutist in their views.

However, there have indeed been dictators of the right in many countries (particularly in South and Central America, but also Greece in the days of the colonels, etc.) who have been supported by the US, even though they were the antithesis of democracy. If you want people to accept the many occasions in which the US has intervened for valid reasons, you must also accept the other side of the coin...

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

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.

Certainly there are some segments who do, and will give no credit at all to anything the US did, being absolutist in their views.

However, there have indeed been dictators of the right in many countries (particularly in South and Central America, but also Greece in the days of the colonels, etc.) who have been supported by the US, even though they were the antithesis of democracy. If you want people to accept the many occasions in which the US has intervened for valid reasons, you must also accept the other side of the coin...

Yes, it's true that sometimes the US lies down with pigs, but usually it's because the alternatives are much worse. The Shah of Iran may have been a despot, but he was less of a despot that the Ayatollahs. It's unfortunate that the overthrow of the Shah for "democratic" reasons lasted less than a month before the religious zealots co-opted the revolution and turned Iran into a much more brutal theocracy. Iran was far better off under the Shah, and at least at that time the US had some degree of influence on him in regards to human rights, because his regime was invested in the US. The same is essential true of Egypt and Mubarak, and even to Kadaffy and Libya.

What may come to pass in Egypt and Libya may be orders of magnitude more harmful, both locally in terms of civil rights of the citizens but also internationally in terms of global Islamic terrorism, may make both Mubarak's and Kadaffy's regimes seem like a benevolent dictatorship like that of Haile Selassie in Ethiopia.

It's hardly imperialistic for the United States to seek to secure strategic military resources in other countries by supporting regimes favorable to the US. That's called international geopolitics, and the Marxist/Leninists do exactly the same thing, and were in fact responsible for the deposing of Selassie in 1974... yet another example of Soviet communist imperialism.

The distinction is that the US generally does not move in, take over and permanently claim control of foreign nations like the Soviets did time and time again. We may go in and fight to establish democracy and oppose communism, but once democracy has been achieved, we pack up and go home, and engage in international diplomacy in order to build beneficial economic and political relationships with such nations.

The Soviets go in, support directly or indirectly the overthrow of the government, install a Soviet-directed puppet government, and exercise direct control over the nation ever after. This is part of the process of spreading global communism set forth by Lenin and Stalin, and it's nothing but imperialistic.

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

You know...I was going to say "just skip up to 1945" but figured you would figure that out. Guess I was wrong

I gave you the courtesy of listing out my answer, and not just throwing out a link for you to wade through. Please do the same.

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....

Link me a list of post ww2 Soviet bombings in non Soviet Union countries.

I listed the invasions. You think they didn't bomb anything in Czechoslovakia?

Moreover - why is it just "bombings" at issue when it comes to the soviet union, but when you talk about the US you want to include invasions, occupations, bombings, incursions, coups and even behind the scenes political intrigue that "helps" one side or another?

sandinista wrote:

Coito ergo sum wrote: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.

More common among some than others.

Yes, indeed. Perhaps, less common among places like the Soviet Union and Cuba, because basically they don't even pretend to be anything other than totalitarian dictatorships. The US can be schizophrenic, but at least eventually it often gets to the right thing. As Churchill said, "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing—after they’ve tried everything else." That's something you couldn't say about the Soviets - You couldn't count on them to do the right thing, ever.

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.

link already covered.

I provided lists previously for both the UK and the USSR. And, others.

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.

Not true and you know it. When have I ever lambasted the US for NOT intervening militarily?

Just now - you just stated in your previous post "rightly so" for the US not intervening in a host of other areas. Maybe you didn't mean to say that, but you did.

sandinista wrote:

Coito ergo sum wrote: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.

OK, I'll leave you in whatever land of illusions you come from. That is precisely what the US does and has been doing since the end of WW2.

You're the one in La La Land. Go ahead and list only the countries the US has made part of its Empire. This should be fun. I'm not talking about "coups" and "incursions" - who has been added to the American Empire?

[sandinista]

I gave you the courtesy of listing out my answer, and not just throwing out a link for you to wade through. Please do the same.

I prefer links, to get more info and to verify.

I listed the invasions. You think they didn't bomb anything in Czechoslovakia?

I know you listed, I wanted some links to verify and get additional info.

Moreover - why is it just "bombings" at issue when it comes to the soviet union

well...we can stick to bombings for now if you like.

I provided lists previously for both the UK and the USSR. And, others.

see above.

Just now - you just stated in your previous post "rightly so" for the US not intervening in a host of other areas. Maybe you didn't mean to say that, but you did.

Not sure what you mean.

[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.

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.

Oh my God? Are you just going to fling around straw men? Did you even read what I said?

[sandinista]

Oh my God? Are you just going to fling around straw men? Did you even read what I said?

You'll get used to it

[Seth]

well...we can stick to bombings for now if you like.

You'd like that, wouldn't you? Sorry, no sale. Imperialism doesn't occur just by the dropping of bombs. In fact it never does so, much more is required.

You wish to demean the United States while evading the moral culpability of Marxists and the Soviet Union for their far more egregious imperialistic aggressions by artificially limiting the debate.

Not gonna fly.

[Coito ergo sum]

I gave you the courtesy of listing out my answer, and not just throwing out a link for you to wade through. Please do the same.

I prefer links, to get more info and to verify.

Sure, me too. But, I post what I am saying, and then add the link to show the source. I don't just link to scads of information and say "go through it yourself and find what I'm trying to tell you."

I listed the invasions. You think they didn't bomb anything in Czechoslovakia?

I know you listed, I wanted some links to verify and get additional info.

UK intervention from WW2 to 1980: http://www.jstor.org/pss/424467 (at that point, it was "more than 30 times" - POST WW2), and since then we can add the Falklands, Persian Gulf War, Iraq No Fly Zone, Libya, Iraq 2003, Afghanistan....and more
Soviet War Crimes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes
List of Invasions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_invasions
List of Military operations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mi ... operations

Moreover - why is it just "bombings" at issue when it comes to the soviet union

well...we can stick to bombings for now if you like.

Gotcha - when we were talking about the US, it's a whole list of things...including coups and "influence." Now, you want to stick to "bombings."

I provided lists previously for both the UK and the USSR. And, others.

see above.

Provided.

Just now - you just stated in your previous post "rightly so" for the US not intervening in a host of other areas. Maybe you didn't mean to say that, but you did.

Not sure what you mean.

Very simple: I said the US was lambasted for NOT intervening in certain other places - and you said "rightly so."

You think it's justified that the US lambasted for intervening, and for not intervening. As long as the US is lambasted, it's "rightly so."

[Coito ergo sum]

Oh my God? Are you just going to fling around straw men? Did you even read what I said?

I did. I responded to exactly what you typed. You may have meant something other than what you typed, but that doesn't mean it becomes a straw man.

Please - tell me exactly what you think the straw man I've created is.

[Aos Si]

Oh my God? Are you just going to fling around straw men? Did you even read what I said?

I did. I responded to exactly what you typed. You may have meant something other than what you typed, but that doesn't mean it becomes a straw man.

Please - tell me exactly what you think the straw man I've created is.

You need to start reading what people say, apparently you have a reputation for straw manning. I suppose I'd better get used to it. Either reply to what I said or don't I'm not going to spoon feed you. You are a grown up I presume?

[Coito ergo sum]

Oh my God? Are you just going to fling around straw men? Did you even read what I said?

I did. I responded to exactly what you typed. You may have meant something other than what you typed, but that doesn't mean it becomes a straw man.

Please - tell me exactly what you think the straw man I've created is.

You need to start reading what people say, apparently you have a reputation for straw manning. I suppose I'd better get used to it. Either reply to what I said or don't I'm not going to spoon feed you. You are a grown up I presume?

According to whom? Sandinista? LOL

You've now descended, of course, into personal attack, obfuscation and evasion. I'll not be drawn into your game. Be responsible for the words you type, and stop trying to disown them.

[Aos Si]

Oh my God? Are you just going to fling around straw men? Did you even read what I said?

I did. I responded to exactly what you typed. You may have meant something other than what you typed, but that doesn't mean it becomes a straw man.

Please - tell me exactly what you think the straw man I've created is.

You need to start reading what people say, apparently you have a reputation for straw manning. I suppose I'd better get used to it. Either reply to what I said or don't I'm not going to spoon feed you. You are a grown up I presume?

According to whom? Sandinista? LOL

You've now descended, of course, into personal attack, obfuscation and evasion. I'll not be drawn into your game. Be responsible for the words you type, and stop trying to disown them.

no I am saying if you want a discussion with me and not someone else in your head, you need to talk to me. There is nothing personal in that, if you want to address my points fine. If you want to address someone elses points also fine but you don't need me here for that. I guess that's conversation over you are not interested in talking to me. Fine I have actually got better things to do for a change see ya later. I am assuming you are grown up so to give you the benefit of the doubt I have not just repeated what I said in a different way. That would be patronising.

Descending into personal attacks? so what if I was it would be a non sequitur to suggest that a personal attack somehow made a persons points invalid even if I had done what you accuse me of, which I'm not entirely sure I have, its entirely apt to establish a persons reputation if he is liable to repeatedly straw man arguments it is not really an invalid tactic to point that out, in any discourse whether it be formal debate or a pub slanging match. If I called you a dick you might have a reason to feel aggrieved, I think, otherwise I don't see what you are bothered about; its either true that you tend to straw man or you don't. So far in my experience that's pretty much the limit of what you do in any argument. Let's not play the ad hom card just yet, it's usually saved when your argument is going down in flames, like the pointless grammar nazi card. Because when you have no argument left an enormous derail into the conjugate of them is just what any thread needs.

I'm not playing any game read carefully what I said then what you answered, anyone with a half a brain can see you are not talking to me. You are waiting for a reply and then barely reading it and thus putting up repeated straw men.

[sandinista]

Soviet War Crimes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes

So, post ww2 wiki lists (which it should be noted at the top states: This article has multiple issues....not a good start) Hungarian Revolution (which involved some Soviet tank fire), Czechoslovakia (where, I guess 72 Czechs and Slovaks were killed) and Afghanistan. That's it. Not much of a comparison when we're talking millions murdered by the US. That's your retort?

Very simple: I said the US was lambasted for NOT intervening in certain other places - and you said "rightly so."

You think it's justified that the US lambasted for intervening, and for not intervening. As long as the US is lambasted, it's "rightly so."

Takes a lot to get through that noggin of yours doesn't it? The reasons the US is criticized for intervening are endless (do we really need to go through them?) the reason the are criticized for not intervening is the hypocrisy and lies. When the US "claims" it is intervening for humanitarian reasons or to prevent massacres or spread the creamy butter of freedom the obvious questions arise as to "why there and not here" etc. Obviously all those reasons are lies, propaganda. Which, of course, is the reason they choose one country to "help" over another.

According to whom? Sandinista? LOL

wtf is that supposed to mean?