Ok MR. High & Mighty, how about some real world examples. Let’s assume you are the HMFIC, and you get to make the decesions:
It’s 1979, do you assist the Mujahadin (not knowing what we know today)or let the USSR annex Afghanistan? Keep in mind the Soviets already have a loyal, oil-rich ally in Iran immediatly to the west.
It’s 1986, the Iran-Iraq war has been going on for 6 years, and Iraq is loosing ground. Do you sell arms to Saddam Hussein (not knowing what we know today), or do you watch him lose, therby giving militant Muslims control of 1/3 the world oil supply.
It’s 1984, do you support the Contras, or do you let the Soviets get a foot hold in the western hemisphere via their puppet Sandinistas. Keep in mind that they were building a 10,500’ airstrip (big enough to accommodate a Soviet strategic bomber) at Punta Huete (roughly 200 miles south of Texas), even though Nicaragua had little or no Air Force. Also keep in mind what could have resulted from the Cuban missle crisis.
Oh, and the fate of they entire world hangs on your decesions.
If I were the high and mighty fucker in charge I’d attach conditions to any help I was forced to provide.
I’d probably also work to find the root of the matter, which in the cases you provide would be US vs USSR relations.
–
So, how many long range bombers had easy access to the USSR via european or asian bases during the period in question? Is it a suprise they wanted this ability also?
[quote]vroom wrote:
So, how many long range bombers had easy access to the USSR via european or asian bases during the period in question? Is it a suprise they wanted this ability also?[/quote]
Vroom’s at it again.
This isn’t a damn playground vroom. Not everyone gets the same number of cookies and the same amount of punch. I can’t believe you are actually blaming the U.S. for the Soviet aggression. That is whacked - even for you.
[quote]vroom wrote:
If I were the high and mighty fucker in charge I’d attach conditions to any help I was forced to provide.[/quote]
Yea, the POTUS telling some mujahadine we’ll only help if they fight fair. I’m sure that’ll work. What happens if they don’t agree with your conditions? You don’t help, they lose, and in the process you lose too. The world isn’t as simple as you wish it to be.[quote]
I’d probably also work to find the root of the matter, which in the cases you provide would be US vs USSR relations.
[/quote]
Just knock on Gorbie’s door, sit down with him & work things out huh? Do you think you might be oversimplifying thing a little? [quote]
So, how many long range bombers had easy access to the USSR via european or asian bases during the period in question? Is it a suprise they wanted this ability also?[/quote]
No, it’s no surprise. Does that mean we should have allowed it? Hell, no.
Don’t be silly. I’m not blaming the US for anything. You don’t think it would be natural for an enemy to try to even the odds a bit?
You’d have to be delusional to think they would willingly sit around in a disadvantaged state. I’m not trying to say things should have been equalized to allow some harmonized bullshit utopia or anything. I don’t see how you take my statements the way you do.
I’m discussing realities, not trying to assign blame to anything. The things I’m saying are not left vs right statements, we don’t need to be fighting about it.
Don’t be silly. I’m not blaming the US for anything. You don’t think it would be natural for an enemy to try to even the odds a bit?
You’d have to be delusional to think they would willingly sit around in a disadvantaged state. I’m not trying to say things should have been equalized to allow some harmonized bullshit utopia or anything. I don’t see how you take my statements the way you do.
I’m discussing realities, not trying to assign blame to anything. The things I’m saying are not left vs right statements, we don’t need to be fighting about it.[/quote]
I disagree. You are blaming the U.S. for supplying weapons to dictatorships that were fighting enemies of the U.S.
It has nothing to do with “evening the odds up a bit”. Like I said - this is not a damn playground where everything is divided equally.
If you are going to follow this line of reasoning, then why is it wrong for the U.S. to try and maintain whatever advantage it might have over its enemy?
For someone that is not blaming anyone - you sure have awful pointy fingers.
I’m not even the one doing the pointing. All I’m saying is that it does make sense to understand that responsibility can flow past the party directly committing an act.
All the problems in the world are then tossed in my lap. When people don’t like the issues I point out or the directions I would look when attempting to deal with the situation, I get all kinds of issued heaped on me that I have nothing to do with.
The point I was making in the first place, was the the motivation and the reasoning behind the actions of the USSR shouldn’t have been hard to figure out. Knowing the motivations of others makes it a lot easier to find winning solutions to problems. Often, there are multiple acceptable solutions to an issue.
[Acceptable means you don’t get to bitch at me about kumba-ya, fairness, appeasement or other bullshit, because obviously those solutions are unacceptable. You may read them in what I say, but it is not there.]
Heck, we’ll never know if different effective paths could have been taken. Maybe I’d eventually have reached the same conclusions and done the same things. Before that though, I’d have looked at the situation creatively and at least tried to find other ways to come up with a win that had lower costs.
As for dealing with dictators, they have wants and needs as well. Anyone that really needs something or really wants something will be able to give things up to get it. What did these people want? Power? Security? Expansion? Money? All of the above?
Again, this is non-political material. It’s simply negotiation and diplomacy. You do realize that those words aren’t synonymous with weakness, don’t you?
[quote]vroom wrote:
Heck, we’ll never know if different effective paths could have been taken. Maybe I’d eventually have reached the same conclusions and done the same things. Before that though, I’d have looked at the situation creatively and at least tried to find other ways to come up with a win that had lower costs.
[/quote]
I’m glad to see you admit that possibility. My problem comes when folks like zeppelin assume that all avenues have not been explored, and that America is at fault for all things. Standing on their soapbox screaming that America is a terrorist org., etc. Nothing happens in a vacuum, and it has been my experience that what America does is generally in reaction to another countries action.
As for dealing with dictators, they have wants and needs as well. Anyone that really needs something or really wants something will be able to give things up to get it. What did these people want? Power? Security? Expansion? Money? All of the above?
[/quote]
vroom is now suggesting that we negotiate in good faith with all of the dictators of the world.
By gosh vroom, if you are not a liberal you sure as heck are doing a great impression of one!
[quote]vroom is now suggesting that we negotiate in good faith with all of the dictators of the world.
By gosh vroom, if you are not a liberal you sure as heck are doing a great impression of one![/quote]
Zeb, are you sure you are following the conversation?
We were discussing past actions. What I’m saying is that if we were going to sell weapons to dictators that we should try to maintain some leverage or control over them by knowing what motivates them.
That is hardly what you seem to be reading into my statements.
Finally, are you trying to tell me that republicans haven’t historically sold weaspons to dictators? Do you think any negotiations were involved in those transactions? How you can try to turn around and pin this on liberalism in some way is beyond me.
Why are you trying to politicize things that aren’t even political anyway?
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
Okay. Let’s take an example of U.S. responsibility of genocide by proxy.
In 1975 East Timor was invaded by Indonesia. Ford and Kissenger were in Jakarta on dec. 5th. They asked Indonesia not to invade until they left because it would be too embarassing. On the 7th Indonesia invaded. For weeks they just indiscriminately slaughtered people.
Proxy n., 1)The authority to act for another 2)a person empowered to act on behalf for another.
Did Suharto act with the authority of the US government? No. Was he acting on our behalf? No. Therefore your “genocide by proxy” claim is bullshit.
Has our gov’t supported some unsavory foreign leaders? Yes. In case you didn’t know, Geopolotics is dirty business. I’m sorry the world isn’t Utopia. Sometimes you are forced to choose the lesser of two evils, that is still indeed evil. Should our gov’t be held accountable for what it has done? Yes, as long as it is reviewed through the same lens as when it occured. But folks like you screaming “America committed genocide!” because of what Suharto did, or because the Contras took an eye for an eye, or Iraqi civilians have died, doesn’t really help the debate.[/quote]
Your apologetics are extremely weak and sad. It gives an insight into your moral intelligence or lack thereof.
Unfortuneately you’re wrong again in your notion of Indonesia acting alone. He was put in power by us and was our puppet. He acted with full knowledge and assurance by our govewrnment to carry out the genocide and to take over East Timor and their oil rich country. It was done by proxy. It could never have been done without the U.S. stamp of approval. Where do you think all the profits from the oil went? Go ahead and ignore the evidence to make you feel better about yourself and your government. But the grand fact remains the same. The U.S. was responsible for the genocide. Of course so was their puppet.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Just weighing in on this and for the record: I think Robertson was right on. And the fact that so many liberals on this site and elsewhere are so inflamed and frothing at the mouth over this issue confirms it for me.
It’s about time that the despicable, Death-to-America crowd, pricks of this world ala Chavez, Castro, Hussein, Bin Laden, Kim Jong-il, etc. felt the wrath of the nation they hate so much. [/quote]
It shouldn’t be about liberal or conservative it should be about what is right and wrong. Why can’t another nation choose their own form of governmnet even if it is more socialized in nature?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Just weighing in on this and for the record: I think Robertson was right on. And the fact that so many liberals on this site and elsewhere are so inflamed and frothing at the mouth over this issue confirms it for me.
It’s about time that the despicable, Death-to-America crowd, pricks of this world ala Chavez, Castro, Hussein, Bin Laden, Kim Jong-il, etc. felt the wrath of the nation they hate so much.
It shouldn’t be about liberal or conservative it should be about what is right and wrong. Why can’t another nation choose their own form of governmnet even if it is more socialized in nature?
Socialism and a people’s right to choose their own form of government is totally irrelevant to my point. But I do agree with your statement.[/quote]
Contrary indeed. It is germane to the point. Robertson called Chavez a strong arm dictator. Untrue. He’s been elected by landslides during the last 6 years. Just because he won’t play capitalist games and has the balls to stand up to the leviathan Exxon/Mobile, all the sudden he needs to be assasinated. He takes profits from his own counrties oil reserves and uses them for social programs to help the poor. How dare he!
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Just weighing in on this and for the record: I think Robertson was right on. And the fact that so many liberals on this site and elsewhere are so inflamed and frothing at the mouth over this issue confirms it for me.
It’s about time that the despicable, Death-to-America crowd, pricks of this world ala Chavez, Castro, Hussein, Bin Laden, Kim Jong-il, etc. felt the wrath of the nation they hate so much. [/quote]
Oh yes,
let?s fight islamic terrorism and issue fatwas at the same time!
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Just weighing in on this and for the record: I think Robertson was right on. And the fact that so many liberals on this site and elsewhere are so inflamed and frothing at the mouth over this issue confirms it for me.
It’s about time that the despicable, Death-to-America crowd, pricks of this world ala Chavez, Castro, Hussein, Bin Laden, Kim Jong-il, etc. felt the wrath of the nation they hate so much.
It shouldn’t be about liberal or conservative it should be about what is right and wrong. Why can’t another nation choose their own form of governmnet even if it is more socialized in nature?
Socialism and a people’s right to choose their own form of government is totally irrelevant to my point. But I do agree with your statement.
Contrary indeed. It is germane to the point. Robertson called Chavez a strong arm dictator. Untrue. He’s been elected by landslides during the last 6 years. Just because he won’t play capitalist games and has the balls to stand up to the leviathan Exxon/Mobile, all the sudden he needs to be assasinated. He takes profits from his own counrties oil reserves and uses them for social programs to help the poor. How dare he![/quote]
Yep! You’re right. I did a Google search for “benevolent, nice all-around guy” and shore nuf, there was a picture of Chavez.
He’s been elected by landslides during the last 6 years. [/quote]
So has Castro…for the last 40 years…and Saddam Hussein had the landslide thing figured out too…and Josef Stalin…and Kim Jong Il…
[quote]
Just because he won’t play capitalist games [/quote]
That stinker! That stick-in-the-mud! That party pooper!
Yeah, that’s pretty much the only reason we don’t like him…
All in all it bears repeating: “It’s about time that the despicable, Death-to-America crowd, pricks of this world ala Chavez, Castro, Hussein, Bin Laden, Kim Jong-il, etc. felt the wrath of the nation they hate so much.”
I really hope it takes more than having some foreign leader dislike America for it to be appropriate to go assassinate the leader or take over the whole country…
[quote]vroom wrote:
I really hope it takes more than having some foreign leader dislike America for it to be appropriate to go assassinate the leader or take over the whole country…[/quote]
