[quote]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. 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).
[/quote]
Wait, didnt you originally say the Americans were there to liberate the Vietnamese?
[quote]lixy wrote:
A powerful video of Iraqi kids tossing rocks at a US convoy. You guys managed to alienate even small children. Keep up the good work!
One where bored US soldiers give a 1$ bounty to the winner of an improvised kiddie death match.
And footage of Americans beating the hell out of Iraqi kids and teenagers.
Anyone wondering why you’re not exactly popular?[/quote]
I don’t care how old they are…if your getting hit by rocks your going to retaliate and if you don’t your a dumbass. Oh yeah…we are popular we saved europe from becoming a huge extermination camp… once again america steps up to save someone.We probably won’twin this war because we can’t fight it the way soldiers are truly trained.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Isn’t that a good reason to intervene? [/quote]
No. The only good reason to intervene is self-defense. What’s next? Overthrowing democratically elected governments just 'cause they’re not on your side? Oh wait, you’re doing that already…
[quote]vladsmicer wrote:
Wait, didnt you originally say the Americans were there to liberate the Vietnamese? [/quote]
The use of surrounding quotes around the word liberate multiple times should have tipped you off about the sarcastic nature of the comment.
This country is fairly new compared to yours…europe in general has conquered nations for no reason… launched crusades…and led huge exterminations of ethnic groups. Look back to your past before you judge our present and thank god “WE” gave you your freedoms in “45”
[quote]billy martin wrote:
I don’t care how old they are…if your getting hit by rocks your going to retaliate and if you don’t your a dumbass. [/quote]
An adult confusing your with you’re may also qualify for the label.
If you like shooting at kids throwing rocks, I recommend joining the Israeli army.
Geez…can’t you Americans have a dialog without dragging WWII into it?
[quote]lixy wrote:
billy martin wrote:
I don’t care how old they are…if your getting hit by rocks your going to retaliate and if you don’t your a dumbass.
An adult confusing your with you’re may also qualify for the label.
If you like shooting at kids throwing rocks, I recommend joining the Israeli army.
Oh yeah…we are popular we saved europe from becoming a huge extermination camp… once again america steps up to save someone.
Geez…can’t you Americans have a dialog without dragging WWII into it?[/quote]
See, this is where you could say something like, “If you like suicide bombing in the middle of civilians, join Hamas or one of the other Palestinian groups.” Just trying to help…
Oh, and you could even use the opportunity to call out Palestinian efforts to raise their children as martyrs. They may become less inclined to throw rocks at heavily armed members of an opposing military force. Just a thought.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Isn’t that a good reason to intervene?
No. The only good reason to intervene is self-defense. …[/quote]
So if your neigbor is being murdered you cannot fight his attacker?
Can you at least defend your children or must they defend themselves?
[quote]billy martin wrote:
Oh yeah…we are popular we saved europe from becoming a huge extermination camp… once again america steps up to save someone.
[/quote]
Billy, Billy, Billy, I very much doubt you have ever saved your pet hamster, let alone a human being. You can’t get credit for saving Europe.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Isn’t that a good reason to intervene?
No. The only good reason to intervene is self-defense. What’s next? Overthrowing democratically elected governments just 'cause they’re not on your side? Oh wait, you’re doing that already…[/quote]
If a country is being attacked, and you are helping that country, doesn’t that come under “self defense”?
So, Iran is wrong by funding Hezbollah with cash, advisors and weapons?
Overthrowing democratically elected governments? Oh, like Syria killing 2 presidents in Lebanon?
Hey, Lixy,
This was your original post:
You can’t “liberate” people against their will. Didn’t you learn anything from Vietnam?
I believe you were talking about the US liberating Iraq. When asking about Vietnam, one would logically assume you meant we were trying to liberate Vietnam. If not, why compare the two? I agree with Zap, the arguement makes no sense.
Since you can’t get past your anti-US propaganda to figure out why the US was involved in Vietnam, and since I know why we were fighting there, this is a dead issue as far as I’m concerned.
next…
[quote]lixy wrote:
Geez…can’t you Americans have a dialog without dragging WWII into it?[/quote]
Hey, you started the talk about Vietnam. Can’t you have dialog without faulty, anti-american, KGB inspired, propaganda involved?
Crap, next Lixy will be saying the US started the AIDS virus in a military lab.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
So if your neigbor is being murdered you cannot fight his attacker?
Can you at least defend your children or must they defend themselves? [/quote]
Fetch a globe, look up Iraq and tell us how much of a neighbour it is to the US. Seriously, try to do that.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
So, Iran is wrong by funding Hezbollah with cash, advisors and weapons? [/quote]
Absolutely.
Exactly.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
So if your neigbor is being murdered you cannot fight his attacker?
Can you at least defend your children or must they defend themselves?
Fetch a globe, look up Iraq and tell us how much of a neighbour it is to the US. Seriously, try to do that.[/quote]
I thought you were talking about the US protecting South Vietnam from North Vietnamese agresssion. You keep changing the subject.
You said “No. The only good reason to intervene is self-defense.”
In fact there are many good reasons to intervene.
You don’t have a problem with us coming over to your continent and protecting you, setting up bases to continue protecting you - on our dime no less, do you? I haven’t seen you bitch at all about the bases in Germany. You know, the one’s that Europe could not afford to build to keep the Russians on their side of the alley?
But when it comes to another continent - it’s just wrong?
Your hypocrisy is astounding.
Yes - I said hypocrisy. I don’t care how you slice it - you are benefiting from the same type of action in Europe, but fake this disdain for american policy when it is not in your direct interest.
Left to your own devices, you would have sat by and allowed the extermination of the jews. I think that is all that needs to be said about you and your Euro-centric yammering.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
You said “No. The only good reason to intervene is self-defense.”
In fact there are many good reasons to intervene.[/quote]
Ok, back up a second. I think we can all agree that no country will engage major military resources in a purely altruistic manner. Based on that, the only good reason to intervene would be self-defense.
And I remind you that the war on Iraq (which happens to be the topic of the thread) was not in self-defense. It was an act of aggression.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
You don’t have a problem with us coming over to your continent and protecting you, setting up bases to continue protecting you - on our dime no less, do you? I haven’t seen you bitch at all about the bases in Germany. You know, the one’s that Europe could not afford to build to keep the Russians on their side of the alley?
But when it comes to another continent - it’s just wrong?
Your hypocrisy is astounding.[/quote]
I’d complain about any country’s prolonged military presence on foreign soil. I can distinctly remember a dozen posts (at least) where I “bitch about” American troops in over a hundred countries.
That you missed them is not my responsibility. In fact, I started a thread about the controversial bases in Poland and Czech Republic in which I harshly condemned the US’ unilateral withdrawal from the treaty.
And how often do you Americans have to play the WWII and Hitler card? Here’s a newsflash for you: That war didn’t give you a free pass to go fucking up other countries. Keep your troops at home to do what the military of a modern civilized nation is supposed to do; Protect its territory!
[quote]lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
You don’t have a problem with us coming over to your continent and protecting you, setting up bases to continue protecting you - on our dime no less, do you? I haven’t seen you bitch at all about the bases in Germany. You know, the one’s that Europe could not afford to build to keep the Russians on their side of the alley?
But when it comes to another continent - it’s just wrong?
Your hypocrisy is astounding.
I’d complain about any country’s prolonged military presence on foreign soil. I can distinctly remember a dozen posts (at least) where I “bitch about” American troops in over a hundred countries.
That you missed them is not my responsibility. In fact, I started a thread about the controversial bases in Poland and Czech Republic in which I harshly condemned the US’ unilateral withdrawal from the treaty.
And how often do you Americans have to play the WWII and Hitler card? Here’s a newsflash for you: That war didn’t give you a free pass to go fucking up other countries. Keep your troops at home to do what the military of a modern civilized nation is supposed to do; Protect its territory![/quote]
Your hypocrisy screams even louder. I haven’t seen a post from you condemning anything we have done on your side of the old iron curtain. I wasn’t referring to new bases in Poland. Of course you would bitch about that - it has no direct benefit to you.
It figures, though. The incessant euro-bitching about everything the U.S. does is nothing but an attempt at compensating for your inability to take care of yourselves.
I have no problem with disagreement with our policy - but to reap benefits from the exact same policy while decrying it in other countries just marginalizes anything you might have to say on the subject.
Spoiled, selfish children should never be listened to. Were there a way to shut them up, I’d be a millionaire.
[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]
Kroby, while I’m sure they are there by invitation, the US does exert coercion through economic means and so forth. People, including Canada, pays a price when it does not toe the US line on things like Iraq, for example.
Please don’t equate my comment with me having a problem with US bases worldwide, but do realize it is naive to assume that people are really willing to piss off the US and deal with trade issues and political interference that are likely to result.