Kids Throwing Rocks at US Troops

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
181

[quote]kroby wrote:
You seem to be under the impression that those bases are on foreign ground without their expressed request. They are there by invitation. Security and economic considerations to the host country are the reasons that there are bases around the world. When a request to depart their lands comes, the base and all it’s personnel evacuate.

What was your point, unbending?[/quote]

Listen here baby, the French were in Morocco by invitation as well. On paper, they had authorization to be there from the king (he got a shiny bike for signing that! True story.) Because of the chaotic situation in Algeria, and the growing concern of the common French people that their country is on an imperialistic enterprise, they chose to call Morocco a “protectorate” rather than a “colony”.

At the end of the day, the nuance was merely semantical. You can dress up a cactus in pretty lace and put pink ribbons on it, it won’t sting any less.

182

[quote]lixy wrote:
kroby wrote:
You seem to be under the impression that those bases are on foreign ground without their expressed request. They are there by invitation. Security and economic considerations to the host country are the reasons that there are bases around the world. When a request to depart their lands comes, the base and all it’s personnel evacuate.

What was your point, unbending?

Listen here baby, the French were in Morocco by invitation as well. On paper, they had authorization to be there from the king (he got a shiny bike for signing that! True story.) Because of the chaotic situation in Algeria, and the growing concern of the common French people that their country is on an imperialistic enterprise, they chose to call Morocco a “protectorate” rather than a “colony”.

At the end of the day, the nuance was merely semantical. You can dress up a cactus in pretty lace and put pink ribbons on it, it won’t sting any less.[/quote]

The WEST tried to civilize all of Africa and look at Africa today. Thugs and murderers run most of the countries, only South Africa has any sort of literacy or industry.

Africa is reverting to its tribal past. Hell, they’ll probably re-introduce legal slavery there. Americans are warned today that NO COUNTRY in all of Africa is safe for travel, by our State Department.

Idi Amin and Robert Mugabe — the future of Africa.

183

[quote]kroby wrote:
unbending wrote:

Military Bases World Wide:

"The US Military has bases in 63 countries. Brand new military bases have been built since September 11, 2001 in seven countries.

You seem to be under the impression that those bases are on foreign ground without their expressed request. They are there by invitation. Security and economic considerations to the host country are the reasons that there are bases around the world. When a request to depart their lands comes, the base and all it’s personnel evacuate.

What was your point, unbending?[/quote]

The bases are there where they are, but they are also in some cases the cause of heated political strife in the host country. Some parties do see the US military bases as outposts of an Empire. I don’t know what undending’s point was, but that is how I understood it.

And the bases can well be seen as outposts. Undeniably US as an empire does differ greatly from it’s predecessors, but as you pointed out, there are reasons why the US funds these bases. I find it to be self-evident, that your government funds these bases out of self-interest. The benefits for the host country are something, that promote the realization of americas self-interests.

And that is the way it goes, I don’t critisize. It’s great that empires evolve, but there is no way going around it, only empires and occupiers keep permanent military bases on foreign soil.

184

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

Idi Amin and Robert Mugabe — the future of Africa.[/quote]

Half their future died in 2003.

185

[quote]lixy wrote:
Did you ask the North Vietnamese what they wanted? Ally my ass. You went in with the idea that they can’t be trusted to know what’s good for them. [/quote]

A question out of curiosity: Would you ever support using force to change a political situation somewhere?

For example, I’m pretty sure you’ll agree that stopping Nazi Germany was a good thing.

Would you support, as another example, fomenting and supporting a revolution in Saudi Arabia to topple the House of Saud? Or an attack on North Korea to remove Kim Jong-il and his brutal, oppressive regime?

Should these things only occur when the people themselves rise up and revolt? Personally, I think that is the best case, and most of history show that lasting changes came from within. But with today’s technology, where it’s a lot easier to keep large population in check with less men, does there come a time when outside intervention is required?

If you do have a threshold where you’d support intervention to help/rescue/liberate a people, what is it?

186

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
lixy wrote:
kroby wrote:
You seem to be under the impression that those bases are on foreign ground without their expressed request. They are there by invitation. Security and economic considerations to the host country are the reasons that there are bases around the world. When a request to depart their lands comes, the base and all it’s personnel evacuate.

What was your point, unbending?

Listen here baby, the French were in Morocco by invitation as well. On paper, they had authorization to be there from the king (he got a shiny bike for signing that! True story.) Because of the chaotic situation in Algeria, and the growing concern of the common French people that their country is on an imperialistic enterprise, they chose to call Morocco a “protectorate” rather than a “colony”.

At the end of the day, the nuance was merely semantical. You can dress up a cactus in pretty lace and put pink ribbons on it, it won’t sting any less.

The WEST tried to civilize all of Africa and look at Africa today. Thugs and murderers run most of the countries, only South Africa has any sort of literacy or industry.

Africa is reverting to its tribal past. Hell, they’ll probably re-introduce legal slavery there. Americans are warned today that NO COUNTRY in all of Africa is safe for travel, by our State Department.

Idi Amin and Robert Mugabe — the future of Africa.

[/quote]

We have had this chat before,HH…but what the hell.

Africa WAS civilized before the white man came.Once again ,just because one doesn’t have the first clue about how that civilization functioned or
what its value structures are,doen’t mean it wasn’t.The west was here to plunder,and giving the locals education was just in order to have a work force that could operate within the colonial powers structures.No more,no less.

187

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
The WEST tried to civilize all of Africa and look at Africa today. Thugs and murderers run most of the countries, only South Africa has any sort of literacy or industry. [/quote]

Do you want thanks for trying to civilize the savages? Here’s the unanimous response you’ll get: Fuck off!

[quote]Africa is reverting to its tribal past. Hell, they’ll probably re-introduce legal slavery there. Americans are warned today that NO COUNTRY in all of Africa is safe for travel, by our State Department.

Idi Amin and Robert Mugabe — the future of Africa. [/quote]

I disagree. Consistent efforts have been made in the past decades to bring those countries up to date. The number of steps in the right direction far outweigh any actions that may bring the countries to the past. It’s still far from a great place to be, but it’s getting there. Portraying it as a place going downhill is disingenuous.

188

[quote]lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
We weren’t there to “liberate” Vietnam. We were there to stop a Communist infiltration of the north. We were standing by an ally.

Did you ask the North Vietnamese what they wanted? Ally my ass. You went in with the idea that they can’t be trusted to know what’s good for them. [/quote]

We knew what NV wanted. To invade and conquer the South. Like fools we fought most of the war on the south side of the border.

189

[quote]lixy wrote:

Listen here baby, the French were in Morocco by invitation as well. On paper, they had authorization to be there from the king (he got a shiny bike for signing that! True story.) Because of the chaotic situation in Algeria, and the growing concern of the common French people that their country is on an imperialistic enterprise, they chose to call Morocco a “protectorate” rather than a “colony”.

At the end of the day, the nuance was merely semantical. You can dress up a cactus in pretty lace and put pink ribbons on it, it won’t sting any less.[/quote]

No, you’re wrong. Did the French require Algeria to pay them for their presence? See, that’s what a colony of an empire does. The colony pays a tithe, tax, whatever you want to call it.

That’s what the Pharaoh did, that’s what Rome did, that’s what the UK, Spain, Portugal and France did to their protectorates, colonies, whatever you want to call them. They (royalty) subjugated the foreign entity. That is what it means to be an empire.

This isn’t nuance or dressing a wolf in sheep’s clothing. This is correct terminology.

The US does not subjugate foreign entities. They do not pay a tithe or bring gold to Washington DC. In fact, The US pays the foreign entity for it’s presence.

That’s the most backwards “empire” in the history of man. You may not like the US’ presence anywhere other than on US soil, but don’t call the US an empire. It doesn’t fit the bill. Hegemony, yes. Empire, no.

190

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
We knew what NV wanted. To invade and conquer the South. Like fools we fought most of the war on the south side of the border.[/quote]

BS. You never cared one bit about what the North Vietnamese wanted. You just didn’t want your the friendly guys in charge of the South to fall.

191

[quote]pookie wrote:
If you do have a threshold where you’d support intervention to help/rescue/liberate a people, what is it? [/quote]

It’s self-evident that I’ll support using violence against a regime if said regime presents a threat to you (i.e: self defense). If a country’s violation of international law costs human lives (guess who I have in mind when I say that?), then I’ll also support violence against it. The threshold is hard to quantify, but put it this way: If you manage to convince 90% of the world countries that it’s the right thing to do, then I’m probably gonna be Ok with it.

The case of Saudi Arabia is a good one. I am obviously appalled by those sleazebags oppressing their people and giving my religion a bad name. I would very much like them to stop gouging themselves with public money at the expense of their citizens, though not enough to condone foreign intervention. The US however doesn’t want them gone because they don’t know the power to lie in the hands of the Saudi people. They prefer having to deal with a corrupted bunch. Any Arab/Muslim country which holds democratic elections will lead a regime that’s isn’t pro-US. Hence, the US giving aid to the dictators to maintain the status quo that’s in their favor.

192

[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
We knew what NV wanted. To invade and conquer the South. Like fools we fought most of the war on the south side of the border.

BS. You never cared one bit about what the North Vietnamese wanted. You just didn’t want your the friendly guys in charge of the South to fall.[/quote]

They fell to invasion from the North. I don’t understand your post.

193

[quote]kroby wrote:
No, you’re wrong. Did the French require Algeria to pay them for their presence? See, that’s what a colony of an empire does. The colony pays a tithe, tax, whatever you want to call it. [/quote]

You must have missed the part where Morocco didn’t pay taxes to France. You also don’t seem to be aware of the even sneakier versions after corporations started exerting a lot of power on goverments.

An empire doesn’t necessarily involve raising flags and collecting taxes. You may wanna brush up on the broader meanings of the term.

194

[quote]lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
We weren’t there to “liberate” Vietnam. We were there to stop a Communist infiltration of the north. We were standing by an ally.

Did you ask the North Vietnamese what they wanted? Ally my ass. You went in with the idea that they can’t be trusted to know what’s good for them. [/quote]

Exactly which war are we talking about here?

195

[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
We knew what NV wanted. To invade and conquer the South. Like fools we fought most of the war on the south side of the border.

BS. You never cared one bit about what the North Vietnamese wanted. You just didn’t want your the friendly guys in charge of the South to fall.[/quote]

Why are you automatically on the side of the North Vietnamese? Pol Pot was a Communist. He threw out our “friendly guys” in Cambodia. Are you saying that Pol Pot’s regime was better because he was anti-american? Or that we should have sat down and talked to Pol Pot to see “what he wanted?” How would that have helped matters?

196

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
BS. You never cared one bit about what the North Vietnamese wanted. You just didn’t want your the friendly guys in charge of the South to fall.

They fell to invasion from the North. I don’t understand your post.[/quote]

The point is that it is anti-American. After that, there is no point.

197

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
BS. You never cared one bit about what the North Vietnamese wanted. You just didn’t want your the friendly guys in charge of the South to fall.

They fell to invasion from the North. I don’t understand your post.

The point is that it is anti-American. After that, there is no point. [/quote]

Exactly. You intervened because the pro-US regime was in danger, not because you cared about what the people of the North wanted. The same stands for pretty much every country you bombed or invaded in the last 50 years (God knows there are many on that list).

It’s never been about freedom, democracy or any of the other bullshit reasons. You can only fool yourselves with that argument.

198

[quote]unbending wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Translation: “I look like a terrorist, act like a terrorist, speak like a terrorist. Those filthy Americans might use those things to violate my rights.”

Headhunter, you don’t happen to have a white robe and hood do you?[/quote]

Oh man, I missed this one!! Yeah, I got those things. The Brotherhood passed 'em out when we restarted everything down at Stone Mountain, Georgia. They are family heirlooms.

199

[quote]lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:

Exactly. You intervened because the pro-US regime was in danger, not because you cared about what the people of the North wanted.
[/quote]

Isn’t that a good reason to intervene?

The people in the North were in their own country. They invaded the South, a separate country and government. We knew what the people in the North wanted. They wanted to take over the South with a Communist government.

There was a similar situation going on in Cambodia. What do you think about the people we were trying to bomb there? Once they took over, they killed everyone they could get their hands on. Yeah, great people to talk and get a good understanding with.

You hate us because of the casualties caused by the war, but what about the millions who died after our influence was driven from Indochina? Were their deaths were ok, because anti-americans were doing the killing? How could you look at Pol Pot’s regime and even argue against why we were there?

Maybe kids wouldn’t be throwing stones at US troops today if we all got together 50 years ago to see what the Axis Powers wanted.

200

[quote]lixy wrote:
It’s never been about freedom, democracy or any of the other bullshit reasons. You can only fool yourselves with that argument.[/quote]

Or you could not know anything about the Vietnam war or what was at stake.