and the alternative? Stay out of the country and watch the soviet union support a leader of their choice? The cold war was fought using a policy of containment and detente that often resulted in such things that you mention. Was there a better way? I can't answer that.we're great at installing tinpot dictators in murderous regimes in other countries when they do what we want, then as soon as they decide they don't have to listen to us, we go and wipe them out.
If I'd wanted to attack you I might have called you petty and childish. But I didn't.
Last edited by Grateful Heart; 04-09-09 at 04:31 PM.
Honduras - Never cared enough to learn about that one. The same people what were wetting their pants over the United States rescuing Nicaragua were upset over the Honduras. Excellent evidence that the US was doing the right thing there, too.
Panama - Yep, Bush overstepped his authority as president.
Iraq - The Gulf War was acceptable. The 2003 invasion was not. Pick one.
Lebanon - Home to terrorists and villainous scum. IMO we shouldn't have interfered at all and let the Israelis kick ass all over.
Somali - Agree fully. Bush should have let those people starve. Then again, it was the Rapist President that turned the mission from simple emergency relief to "nation building".
Georgia - You mean Sherman's March to the Sea? That was an essential effort to bring the war the South started to a close. OH! You mean Russia's invasion of Georgia in 2008. That was Russia, not the United States.
Phillipines - You mean our acquisition of the archipelego from Spain, our learning curve, our defense of the Philipines and liberation thereof from the Japs in WWII, or subsequent dealings with them, including those under Reagan and later in which we treated them as a fully sovereign state?
Haiti - Our Rapist President had no business getting the US involved. As it turned out, those efforts were 100% wasted and were performed only to mollify assorted racist factions in the US congress, special interest groups, and the media.
Columbia - Drugs shouldn't be illegal, and then we wouldn't care what was happening in Columbia. as it is, we shouldn't be getting involved. I mean, putting Americans in a war zone merely to stop other Americans from getting white powder to suck up their noses? What's the point of that?
arab-Israeli conflicts - We'd be less concerned if we were smart enough to drill our own damn oil and thus become independent of the stuff the arabs are sitting on. Then again, it's the US the prevents Israel from wiping out the arabs that refuse to stop breeding terrorists.
Grenada - Intervention was warranted, we didn't need another Cuba in the pleasant islands to the south of us. Last time I checked, there were Americans on that island, correct? Not only that, the legal government requested our assistance, if I can remember that far back.
Cuba - Our relations with Cuba are driven by one thought, and one thought only....well, two thoughts....keeping cheap cuban sugar off our shores and making sure only the well connected can get Havana see-gars. Really, the best thing to do with Cuba is....establish sensible diplomatic and trade negotiations with them. The sugar lobby will no more allow Obama to do this than they allowed any of his predecessors to.
The second post was a serious argument supported by historical events which was enitely seperated and unrelated to the first post.
The perceived hypocrisy that you falsely believe exists does nothing to address the arguments. Try again.If I'd wanted to attack you I might have called you petty and childish. But I didn't.
You are wasting your time and mine.
Leaving it a mess was bad, but as destabalized as the middle east is I don't see any other alternatives to taking action.Reagen era: despite the fact that we opened the door to Israel who then made a mess of things and then we stood by and watched as the mess we created created a civilian slaughter?
Yes it does, many brave service men suffered because of an optional intervention, plus, we were supporting the U.N., this wasn't of our doing.So that proves something?
When they put missles in our neighbors borders, especially because of the harsh nature of our relationship at the time, it became our business.true. But in hindsight it appears we were a bit too arrogant in addressing Russias concerns.
True, however Egypt and Israel have a neutral relationship today at worst, and Egypt is friendly to us now, so it's a water under the bridge situation. The middle eastern tension starts much before those conflicts however, even before WWII, however the M.E. problem really escalated because of the U.N. and it's territorial divide from the Nazi holdings post-war, it took decades to wash up on our shores, but it is here now and it must be dealt with.Nasir and Egypt were our ally until we took an unflinching pro-israeli stance in the 6-day war. Nasir did the only rationale thing and opened his arms to the Soviets. By failing to moderate our approach we poisoned our relationship with the Arabs. Such disdain is still present today and we are reaping what we sowed.
I never said we are perfect, however Cuba rightfully shouldn't get a dime legally from us until the cancer and his brother are no longer in control of that country, when a more representative government is in Cuba we can talk to them, however, I see no other solutions to the current embargo, painful as it is for both sides.so we can do no evil? All is fair? We've failed PATHETICALLY with Cuba. I don't know if another strategy would work better but I do know our goals have not been achieved.
Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.
In a previous post you described two enemies of the U.S., communism and terrorism, as 'intentionally vague.' By that did you mean that the communist USSR, for instance, or the terrorist group al qaeda, were or are 'intentionally vague' in their ideologies and opposition to the U.S.? Or are you suggesting that our leaders have been 'intentionally vague' about these enemies?
Was there anything 'vague' about Khrushchev's promise "Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will dig you in."?
Was there anything 'vague' about the events of 9/11?
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsqX6PmlYAw&feature=channel_page"]YouTube - Sean Hannity on Obama's Arrogant Speech in France[/ame]
Last edited by Cilogy; 04-09-09 at 06:38 PM.
The question isn't about what the Russians do, it's about how the United States acts. Regardless of Russia's actions, our responsibility for our actions is our own, we can't blame them and say two wrongs make a right. The fact is, both the US and USSR spent a great deal of the Cold War propping up sympathetic regimes and trying to impose their pet political systems worldwide in the bizarre belief that their way is automatically the best for everyone, screw the wishes of the native population. The Russians wanted to oppose capitalism and force communism on everyone they could, the U.S. wanted to do the opposite and both sides were utterly blinded by their irrational hatred of the other that they did some really idiotic things. That's why we ended up supporting the Taliban, because they were fighting the Russians and the enemy of our enemy must automatically be our friend. That's why we supported the Shah in Iran. That's why so many of these tinpot dictators that we've propped up have come back to haunt us in the end, we spent a lot of years trying to get them damn Russkis at every turn.Originally Posted by scourge99
Maybe if we had stopped to think about what we were doing along the way, we wouldn't have made so many mistakes.