Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
HisMajestyTheKing

Evil Empire: USA

262 posts in this topic

Since the beginning of the 20th century the US has been bent on exploiting the world for it's own good, in a different but equally disgusting way like the European colonial powers of the time.

A few examples:

WWI

Let Europe burn in flames and then, 3 years after the war started and numerous European and Commonwealth citizens have died, after years of selling arms to fuel the conflict and getting filthy rich of it, send in troops to finish of the Germans who have defeated the Russians and may actually win the war. With Germany in control of mainland Europe, a potential market evaporates making an intervention paramount. Claim the US came to "help" Europe which is nothing but a cynical joke.

WWII

Pretty much the same story. No help for Europe except selling arms to the British and USSR so they can keep the Germans at bay but NEVER send in troops until attacked itself and the situation looks REALLY bleak for the UK/USSR. Europe and East-Asia have been bleeding for years without US intervention. Same reasons - a big market will disappear with a victorious Germany and really, one doesn't want a superpower spanning from the Atlantic, across Siberia to the Pacific, now does one?

Marshall Plan & Cold War

"Give" Europe lots of money so they can pay US companies to rebuild Europe and establish a firm base of power there to sell US products and keep the USSR at bay. Europe plays the buffer between US and USSR for 50 years and buys loads of US/USSR weapons, depending on whose side a particular country is on. The USSR crumbles, the USA expands its economical power into Eastern Europe, invites former Warsaw Pact nations into NATO and starts meddling more and more into EU business. Basically it wants to sell EU subsidized arms to Eastern Europe.

Vietnam

About as dirty as it gets. Aid a dictatorial regime fight against rebels, a large number of whom aren't close to communists, use weapons of mass destruction (what do you call Agent Orange?), destabilize the entire region through illegal covert ops from neighbouring countries and keep the war going for years and years without really going for the kill. In the end pull out like a cowardly dog because no-one wants you there anymore, even the people who you're supposed to help.

South America

Most of it has been or is in civil war since WWII, fueled by the US. Democratically elected governments (Nicarague for example) are toppled through illegal blockades (Managua), bribery of various officials and economic pressure. Keeping dictators in power through massive military and/or monetary aid, disregarding what the people want or need.

Israel

No need explaining I think.

Gulf Region

Can't establish a permanent military presence here because nobody likes the US. Various governments may favor the US but the people don't.

Iraq is an ally until it nationalizes it's oilfields, then falls in disgrace. Iran's sjah is friendly to the US, gets heavy support and buys billions upon billions worth of US arms. The US doesn't care the sjah's secret police tortures nd murders people happily. stinker happens when religious fanatics led by ayatollah Khomeini overthrow the sjah's government and establish a fiercely anti-western islamic state.

Iraq becomes an ally of opportunity again. Arms are sold to Iraq. Iraq invades Iran without reason, probably urged to do so by the US. US sells massive amounts of arms to Iraq, possibly even to Iran (!!) and keeps the conflict going for years, until the country is in shambles. Gives/sells virii and formulae of chemical weapons (sometimes called "weapons of mass destruction") to Iraq.

Late '80s. Kuwait starts pumping more oil, dropping the price of oil roughly by 20%. Considering Iraq's only source of income is oil and that it needs lots of money to rebuild after the war, the Iraqi's are rather pissed. Threat of an invasion looms, a fact of which the US is well aware but doesn't do a thing about except preparing for a military counterstrike. No prevention of a war but preparing to fight one instead.

Iraq invades Kuwait and the US promptly starts sending in troops to "defend" Saudi Arabia from IRaqi attack which is kind of funny considering that there isn't a sizeable Iraqi force even near Saudi Arabia.

US pushes for war instead for a diplomatic solution and gets what it wants. Iraqi positions are bombed into oblivion, vital military AND civilian infrastructure is destroyed. What remains gets overrun. Kuwait is free in 24 hours, southern Iraq is taken in another 24 hours and then the offensive grinds to a halt. Why? Rebellion threatens to overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime and the US doesn't want that. The only country that can seriously counter Iran on the one hand and a boogie-man, a fine excuse for keeping troops in the Gulf, on the other, can not become a democracy. It would make a massive US military force in the region unnecessary. Thousands upon thousands of rebels get killed by the Iraqi military while the US stands watching.

Total embargo, which is maintained mainly because the US vetoes the lifting of it, kills somewhere between 1 and 1.5 million Iraqi's.

A few thousand US citizens get killed when airliners crash into the Twin Towers. Perfect excuse to invade Afghanistan (which isn't much better of now than before) and a lame-ass excuse for invading Iraq. Offensive doesn't go as planned, there is more resistance and "coalition" troops dare not enter "liberated" cities to restore order because they fear huge losses in closed quarter combat (sorry, they fear many citizens will die if fighting in the cities erupts). Nothing is done to restore sanitation and order. Nothing.

The typical US tactic of letting a situation rot and then charge in, guns blazing and pretend to be the gallant knight in shining armor.

It's getting late so I probably forgot lots of stuff left and right.

Break out the flamethrowers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are you all surprised it is only American capitalism at its finest.

the rich get richer the poor get poorer and the American dream goes on and on.

What will these people do when they control everything in the world for every day fun, Maybe decide who lives or dies so that their investment is secure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

King brings up some good points, but this is an endless discussion world wide. No matter what a country does - Let it be the United States in this case - people are going to see more sinister reasons for said action. I am currently takin an AP American History class, and in this class I have read books both published in the States and abroad that each offer their own opinion on actions that have been undertaken.

Counter-points

World War I

Until World War I, the United States had abided the words of one of its founding fathers George Washington which summerized as do not form any alliances with European Nations. Maybe that is why we did not get into War until 3 years of conflict had gone about. Yes, arms were sold (To Britain primarily) and also American citizens did take heat before an official declaration of war was issued. Through those three years our civilian merchant vessels were sunk countless times, ending who knows how many lives. If that wasn't bad enough, German forces sunk (off the top of my head) two seperate Ocean Liners. We continued our neutrality till two things happened: The Russian Revolution which established a democratic nation in Russia (for a short period) and The Zimmermann Telegram which told Mexico to ally itself with Germany to reclaim the land its lost territories: Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. Oh, and Germany started up renewed unrestricted submarine warfare even though they promised not to in the Sussex pledge.

World War II

Why didn't we get into this war earlier....could it be that the United States was in a depression which left 25% of the nation un-employed? Of coarse not. While Germany and Italy were going through facism, the US was going through a period of Isolationism, were we did not want to get drawn into another foreign war. That is why we did not join the League of Nations. Second, after World War I we demobolized our military so we couldn't have jumped at a moments notice to aid Europe if had wanted to. When Germany broke the Munich agreement in 1939, the US did not sit idle. By September of 1941, President Roosevelt had ordered all United States Naval Vessels to attack German Ships on sight. 3 months before Pearl harbor.

Marshall Plan & Cold War

What is there to say? Communism versus Capitalism. Democracy vs Dictatorship. The USSR was scared pantless of the US and we were to. The Marshall Plan gave away $12 billion over four-years no-strings attached and they became self sufficient.

Vietnam

Political war, we f-ed up. Had no reason to be there, and we bit the bullet.

Israel

We back them up because they are slightly out-numbered. Take this up with the United Nations. They decided to place the country right there, not us.

Gulf Region

We wanted to get rid of Saddam, well the military did. Politcally though we couldn't. That total embargo and subsequently enforced no-fly zones could have been a past history of random chemical attacks on the Kurdish populations.... We invaded Afghanistan because the government was harboring a known terrorist and was aiding him. We don't take lightly to that.

With all our faults, we are still the longest lived country on one form of government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since the beginning of the 20th century the US has been bent on exploiting the world for it's own good, in a different but equally disgusting way like the European colonial powers of the time.

A few examples:

blah blah blah

Remind me what Belgium has *ever* done to help *anyone*? The least you could do is stop making crappy beer and exporting seafood that makes people ill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since the beginning of the 20th century the US has been bent on exploiting the world for it's own good, in a different but equally disgusting way like the European colonial powers of the time.

A few examples:

blah blah blah

Remind me what Belgium has *ever* done to help *anyone*? The least you could do is stop making crappy beer and exporting seafood that makes people ill.

who needs enemies when you are getting this typ of help from the white house and the arrogance of his cronies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since the beginning of the 20th century the US has been bent on exploiting the world for it's own good, in a different but equally disgusting way like the European colonial powers of the time.

A few examples:

blah blah blah

Remind me what Belgium has *ever* done to help *anyone*? The least you could do is stop making crappy beer and exporting seafood that makes people ill.

Typical supercaff comment. If you don't agree with what I say, use ARGUMENTS, not childish one-liners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for world war ll: the U.S. also had his hands full with Japan.

As for Kuwait pumping up more oil and having the price dropped, i think they had the right to do so.

The U.S. may not interfere internationally, but Iraq may? Because that is what Saddam was doing. He wanted to take over Kuwait for oil, other countries (maybe) would be next.

François

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HMTK, if it wasn't for the courageous US military you and the rest of the european population would be either dead or speaking German right now. I'm proud we're doing the work that none of the rest of you euro-trash pussies are too goddamn chicken to do. Why don't you go eat some French food.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As for world war ll: the U.S. also had his hands full with Japan.

As for Kuwait pumping up more oil and having the price dropped, i think they had the right to do so. 

The U.S. may not interfere internationally, but Iraq may? Because that is what Saddam was doing. He wanted to take over Kuwait for oil, other countries (maybe) would be next.

François

WWII had been going on for a few years before Japan attacked PEarl Harbor.

Destabilizing another country by effectively taking away most of it's income through price-gouging is "a right"? Come on... More likely the US pressed the Kuwaiti government to lower prices - but this is mere speculation on my part.

And the US is invading Iraq why? And which country will be next?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The US is invading Iraq because some terrorists flew planes into the world trade center and we declared war on terrorism. Saddam Hussein runs his country like a terrorist, and he pays rewards to the families of suicide bombers in Isreal. He's a despot. A murderer. Leave him alone long enough and you'll have another Hitler on your hands. The only reason his people are fighting us is because they fear Saddam and the few who are loyal to him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which country will be next? How about Syria? We are not against all dictators, we are against dictators who protect and encourage criminal terrorists and the havok they wreak on the world.

Pakistan is ruled by a dictator, but he has helped us capture senior Al-Qaeda members. He governs his country with some semblence of law and order.

The people of Iraq will thank us one day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh? What idiocy is this. The Belgians' make "crappy beer"?! This from an AMERICAN? Supercaff, take some Valium. You've completely lost the plot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to respond to 'supercaffeinated'

Do you know about gray? It's the color between black and white. It is the knowledge that there are numerous sides to any action you take. If I joke about someone I know that there can be several ways that he/she takes it.

like it, be hurt, be annoyed or be neutral. But the thing I would like to point out is that your actions effect other parties. They do! And it can be in various ways. Some ways you dont know about.

Freeing iraq is a great thing, if they want it. Bombing Baghdad is a great thing, if you have the opinion that sacrificing innocent people for the freedom of the entire iraqi people is justified. But what if you think the balance flips the other way ?That it is not worth it ?! Then you're faced with an ignorant US government who don't give a stinker about other parties. 'We're righteous and we don't have the brain capacity to think otherwise'.

Please note that I don't protest against the fight against Saddam. I do protest against the fight in the conditions that are currently the case:

- Very little support from Arab countries

- No support by the UN

- A war of 2 (mostly) nations against Iraq, no international coalition exists that actively supports this war

Are you helping someone if that someone hates it when you try to?

I think the US underestimated the consequences. No better I think the Bush administration never thought about consequences.

Mad11max

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HMTK, if it wasn't for the courageous US military you and the rest of the european population would be either dead or speaking German right now.  I'm proud we're doing the work that none of the rest of you euro-trash pussies are too goddamn chicken to do.  Why don't you go eat some French food.

I always knew that some Americans were arrogant fools it is obvious your history books did not inform you of the incredible sacrifice the Russian people made, Without them it would have made very little difference if Americans were helping or not Because the Normandy landings would have been a catastrophic disaster for the simple reason the Germans would have had a five to one superiority at least.

let me tell you one time for all time, the American military did not win the ww2 by itself or anything like it. its industry was of course a great help for the simple reason the country wasn't under attack or invaded,let me also put to rest a few other points the U.S. did not have the first jet engine and it wasn't in outer space first, it did however produced the first atomic weapons with a great deal of help from non U.S. scientists, and the only reason they got into outer space was because they had German help.besides all that you might say America is somehow surviving But I cannot say for how much longer when you have such an arrogant fool sitting in the white house who got there by default.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fubbar and Her Majesty- The USA did not win WW2 by itself. It's just obvious that you would all be dead or speaking German if we had not entered the war. BTW, why is the "location" missing on so many posts? Are those people afraid that we might be able to judge their comments by their location (although terminal dumba$$ is not location specific) or are they not proud of their "location?" Either way, I sure would enjoy meeting some of you face-to-face just to see if there is anything to you other than hot air!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me start by saying that a number of your points are well-taken, HMTK. However, I feel that you have painted a one-sided view, and indeed, some of what you said is just vitriole over the current events, without much balanced reason to it.

Personally, I tend to ascribe to the "realpolitik" concept that Europeans seem to be so fond of, so to me it makes sense (not that it's right, but it makes sense) that the US would always try to play for its own advantage, and maintain status quo. As would and do ALL nations. You indict the US for things that all nations practice, but without the impact that US hegemony is able to attain. If you want to hold the US to a higher standard than the rest of the world (where are your bitter condemnations of Russia over Chechnia, or government oppression in Belarus, or opression of religious groups in China, or China's attempts to exercise imperial authority over Taiwan?), that's fine with me; I hold it to a higher standard myself. But at least admit that you are doing it.

Since the beginning of the 20th century the US has been bent on exploiting the world for it's own good, in a different but equally disgusting way like the European colonial powers of the time.

You will note my emphasis added. I'm just going to demonstrate the faulty logic or premises some of your examples employ.

A few examples:

WWI

Let Europe burn in flames and then, 3 years after the war started and numerous European and Commonwealth citizens have died, after years of selling arms to fuel the conflict and getting filthy rich of it, send in troops to finish of the Germans who have defeated the Russians and may actually win the war.  With Germany in control of mainland Europe, a potential market evaporates making an intervention paramount.  Claim the US came to "help" Europe which is nothing but a cynical joke.

Getting filthy rich?

1) Quite a few US vessels were torpedoed bringing supplies to Britain.

2) You don't suppose that the British, French, etc. actually paid for the arms we sent, do you? We gave money, supplies, and weapons, but did not by any means get rich on them.

In addition, you act as if we should somehow not have "let Europe burn in flames." At the time, we hardly thought the war over there was our affair. Remember, back then, the US was not the hegemon that it currently is. We were an emerging economic power, but our military was actually less capable than Europe's, for the most part. We were not prepared for massive world-spanning military engagements, and, as another poster mentioned, part of our founding wisdom was to "avoid foreign entanglements." So you can understand that interfereing in a European war was rather not something we were necessarily prepare to do either militarily or psychologically.

We entered the war for our own reasons, little doubt about that. But blaming the US for being late and criticizing our motivations as if we had a moral imperative to aid Europe in their bloody war upon which we reneged until the very end seems to me to be a bit one-sided. Don't you think?

WWII

Pretty much the same story.  No help for Europe except selling arms to the British and USSR so they can keep the Germans at bay but NEVER send in troops until attacked itself and the situation looks REALLY bleak for the UK/USSR.  Europe and East-Asia have been bleeding for years without US intervention.  Same reasons - a big market will disappear with a victorious Germany and really, one doesn't want a superpower spanning from the Atlantic, across Siberia to the Pacific, now does one?

The American people did not want to be involved in a war. We were not terribly prepared for one, either -- just look at our submarine fleet. A bunch of creaky old S-boats and such, mostly modern as of WWI. IIRC, our planes were not much better (but I'm not too familiar with that part of the war, so I may be wrong). Our "gato" submarines -- the workhorses of our war with Japan -- did not have substantial deployment until later in the war.

Marshall Plan & Cold War

"Give" Europe lots of money so they can pay US companies to rebuild Europe and establish a firm base of power there to sell US products and keep the USSR at bay.  Europe plays the buffer between US and USSR for 50 years and buys loads of US/USSR weapons, depending on whose side a particular country is on.  The USSR crumbles, the USA expands its economical power into Eastern Europe, invites former Warsaw Pact nations into NATO and starts meddling more and more into EU business.  Basically it wants to sell EU subsidized arms to Eastern Europe.

Yeah, because by going through Europe, the money we gave them was used far more efficiently to pay US companies than it would have been if kept at home. Middlemen ALWAYS increase efficiency, especially when the middlemen are governments. I should have remembered.

Oh, so now it's "EU business." First we have to help, now we're meddling? Perhaps you'd care to explain this seeming contradiction?

Yes, the US absolutely took advantage of both the cold war and its end to further our political and econonmic power. As every nation was scrambling to do. It would have been nice if we could've used that time to effect some really positive changes.

Vietnam

About as dirty as it gets.  Aid a dictatorial regime fight against rebels, a large number of whom aren't close to communists, use weapons of mass destruction (what do you call Agent Orange?), destabilize the entire region through illegal covert ops from neighbouring countries and keep the war going for years and years without really going for the kill.  In the end pull out like a cowardly dog because no-one wants you there anymore, even the people who you're supposed to help.

Well, I'm not as familiar with this war as Tannin and some other members, but it seems to me that you are forgetting that the French only left because they were getting their asses kicked, and couldn't maintain the position, and the rest of Europe thought that war needed fighting (as far as I've read, anyway, which is limited). We only left because we were getting our asses kicked and accomplishing nothing. But you criticize our war for supporting a dictatorship, and then criticize our "cowardly dog" withdrawal? Make up your mind. Bear in mind also the "domino" theory that was widespread at the time and many believed and feared (though we with the advantage of hindsight can dismiss).

South America

Most of it has been or is in civil war since WWII, fueled by the US.  Democratically elected governments (Nicarague for example) are toppled through illegal blockades (Managua), bribery of various officials and economic pressure.  Keeping dictators in power through massive military and/or monetary aid, disregarding what the people want or need.

I feel that the worst indictments of the US can and should be made over our treatment of policy towards South/Central America. We treat is as some sort of personal toy set -- set up dictators or governments, try to collapse them when they backfire, interfere with sovereignty pretty much everywhere, and generally fail to improve the conditions of countries that are some of our closest neighbors.

Israel

No need explaining I think.

Nope, not much explaining needed. Wait...where is our advantage? That's something I *really* don't get about the Israel situation. Why in the hell is my country sending them my tax dollars to subsidize a crushing occupation?

Gulf Region

...

Offensive doesn't go as planned, there is more resistance and "coalition" troops dare not enter "liberated" cities to restore order because they fear huge losses in closed quarter combat (sorry, they fear many citizens will die if fighting in the cities erupts).  Nothing is done to restore sanitation and order.  Nothing.

So...what do you think would acutally happen if the US went in to "secure" the cities, eliminating Saddam loyalists so we could bring in food and water and restore order?

Yeah, you bet we'd lose a lot of troops. But if places like Somalia have taught us anything, the true losers would be the civilians of those cities.

But, of course, lacking many necessities, Iraqi civilians living in those cities will surely suffer. So what do we do, HMTK? What is the solution? you make it sound so simple -- surely you have the answer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couple of points that I will like to verify since I see some students here:

1. WW I US did not trade with germany, this violated the neutral position that US had in this war. US favored Britain because britain needed more resources. US reporters that were from Britain exagerated actions by the germans both during WW I and WW II. BRITAIN was buying so much stuff from the US it owed billions of money, where germany didn't need as much as Britain did. My opinion is US was wrong you don't pick sides because you are going to get more money from Britain and they have the same values that we have.... US should be a peace keeper to force 2 nations not to fight or else they will both suffer the consequences.

2. If you think in part that we are not in IRAQ for oil then you really have a problem with reality IRAQ has +300 trillion dollars in oil. While I agree sadam needs to be taken out, I think it shouldn't be us I have a cousin that is at war right now and I don't tell him how I feel because I'm afraid he will have 0% support from the familly I just lie and tell him that his cause is just because I want him to go over there with a clear mind, but it is killing me that his own mother can't lie and give him some relief by telling him that whats his doing is right.

3. We all have to agree that colonization or any type of occupation is just plain evil, I'm guessing this people will not like that, serously how are they going to calm down their babies their wifes when they hear bombs blowing up next door. DO you know how horific it is to hear this bombs going off, do you know how it feels to have to calm your kids and wifes down and not be able to do crap about it. Even if the mayority do want to get rid of sadam they will hate us for bombing and occupation. If you hear how loud a gun sounds when you fire it, imagine a 2000 pound bomb how scared them kids are going to be, this is just sad I really hope this administration gets its profit from the oil, gets the weapons of mass destruction and gets out quickly. One thing I'm sure this war will bring more terrorist and hate from the muslim world. Why wouldn't it bring more terrorist you think they care their religion tells them that dying is good, plus their living conditions are really shitty and then we have to go and bomb their neighboors and change their way of living mann who are we to judge... Who are we to tell others are wrong if no one has launched a pre emptive strike on us unless we do something to them like:

embargo

blockades

occupation

supporting and selling arms to other countries that occupy

I support the troops they singed in to protect us regarless if they like their assingments or not!

I do not support the war or the administration in the handling of this matter.

I did vote for bush because of his good policy on education and crime, but I hate his policy on polution (why does he care about the oil wells creating polution if he doesn't care of polution in his own state texas which is one of the most poluted states in the US, and he said no to the plan that THE WHOLE world agreed on to reduce polution) . Its weird that this administration botht he president and vice president are rich from oil business I know vice president totaled up 75 million in oil business. Like I said before if you don't think that part of the motive of war is oil you need a reality check. If you think that sadam is good you also need a reality check, and if you think the US should be the judge of the world and have everyone live the way we se fit you also need a realty check :)

GBA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don't understand how all these conversations come back to the talks of oil. By the year 2014 it has been mandated that half the cars on the road (US) need to be hydrogen-fueled, or along the lines of that. And if that is not true, California will be the first state to specify that standard because they tend to lead the pack on those issues. So incase we all plan on buying gas-guzzlers till then, drop the excuse on oil. If we were just looking for cold cash, why don't we take it to Japan or some other industrialized nation for their massive electronics based corporation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Europeans suffer from an inferiority complex because they have been in a long decline as an economic and military power. Their economic conditions will become even more acute as we Americans start to pull troops out of Europe. Europeans desire to create a huge welfare state is accelerating because of strong socialist and pacifist forces such as The Green Party gaining power in govts., particularly in Germany. For decades now Europeans have lost their desire to work and many prefer to go on welfare. Also, Europeans care more about where they will spend their 6 weeks summer vacation that just about anything else.

Europeans have always hated Jews. Now they have joined with Muslims (the 21st century Nazis) and both have combined their hatred for Jews. Why does Europe have such a high concentration of Muslims (France has 20% Muslim population)? Many European countries used to have colonies whereby they exploited the Muslim populations to extract huge profits while the poplation suffered (sounds like Iraq today!) Europe's generous welfare benefits have attracted Muslims who prefer to go on welfare. Does it shock you to know which goup has the highest percentage of is people on welfare? Yes, about 50% of the European Muslim population is on welfare.

Europe joining with the Muslims will be a death wish for Europe. Muslims have nothing to offer (besides oil) except terrorism, hate, intollerance, poverty, oppression, etc. European Muslims, in the coming years of European secular economic decline, will start to resent the 'European infidels' and start to destroy Europe with homegrown Muslim terrorism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah. At least a few more coherent replies.

Yes, my post was rather extreme but I though this would be better than some lame-ass "the USA is not being nice" post.

I'm just fed up with the hypocritical bull coming from the Bush and Blair governments, the knight-in-shining-armor image they paint of themselves. The US did this to save the world, did that to help country thus-and-so. Sure, it was better to have the US as an ally than living under the nazi jackboots or with the Hammer and Sickle flying on our soil. I think most Europeans are grateful to the soldiers who put their lives on the line here, who died here, but Americans always want to rub our collective nose in it - WE SAVED YOUR ASS you (in general) say. Only the noble part of it is told, never the pragmatic. I don't think I stated anywhere that the US should have entered the war earlier. If I did or you think I did, we have a misunderstanding between us. The US was well entitled to a neutral position but the self-congratulating pisses me off.

Countries do what they do for their own, usually selfish reasons. I NEVER stated ANYWHERE that the US is the only country that exploits others, NEVER. Each and every European colonial power abused, murdered and pillaged in it's colonies, Belgium included. But that's in the past. I thought we had become more civilized than half a century ago.

Do I hold the US to a higher standard than other countries? Yes and no. Not compared to Western Europe - we're both trying to create an image of just and peaceful societies. I DO hold the US (and W Europe) to a higher standard than the likes of Russia or China. Why? Because the US claims it's the shining beacon of democracy, truth and freedom.

So what do we do, HMTK? What is the solution? you make it sound so simple -- surely you have the answer?

It's always so simple in theory :(

The Bush administration happy fellowed up by not getting the UN behind his war. Preparations could have been made to get in humanitarian aid ASAP, to establish refugee camps in neighbouring countries, basically do everything to avoid the disaster which is looming now.

A UN approval - which would have been relatively simple to get with some more patience - would also have been a clear signal that the world cared. Now it looks like just another war of conquest. I truly believe that that is one of the prime reasons that a rebellion against Hussein is slow in the coming.

As I have said a few times in other threads - I think the removal, even by force, of the current Iraqi regime is JUST but it's the way that it's being done that is flawed. For whomever else will use the excuses Bush used?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

geckert

please go somewhere else with your racism :roll:

FYI I don't feel inferior to anyone - I'm quite happy with who I am.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RE the oil argument:

It ain't the amount of oil in terms of dollars, at least, not in the way you might think. We're not looking to steal the oil; we simply don't need the oil that badly. At the moment, the problems with oil supply in Venezuela (assuming they have not yet been resolved? our wonder "IRAQ, 24/7, need it or not" media haven't bothered reporting on this for a while) are a far greater problem to our oil supply than any Iraq issue. And besides, the US doesn't get that much oil from Iraq. What's more, for those of you who think Cheney/Bush are just in it to line the pockets of their oil compnay buddies, consider that increases in the price of oil are very good for these folks -- why would the administration want to dump a whole buttload of Iraqi oil on the market, making it cheaper?

The only decent argument I've seen regarding oil in Iraq is that of the so-called "petro-dollar." Basically, the argument goes that the US dollar is an extremely strong currency primarily due to its hegemony in the oil market: oil is bought and sold in dollars, so countries have to keep stockpiles of dollars around to purchase their energy.

There is a great deal of consideration given to moving oil (at least some of it) over to the Euro, which is a stable currency of the same general value of the dollar, as well as a number of other reasons.

Obviously, our economy would suffer tremendously if the dollar were to decline sharply (think Argentina), which it is theorized would happen if the US lost its petro-dollar hegemony.

This all makes sense in the context of our attack of Iraq if you know that Iraq switched its oil selling currency to the Euro. To prevent OPEC from thinking the Euro is a perfectly valid, and perhaps even beneficial alternative to the dollar, we invade Iraq and change oil sales back into dollars.

This would also explain a great many of the European governments' reluctance to attack, and extreme distaste at a US attack (aside from the fact that war is incredibly unpopular domestically). If the Euro gained hegemony, EU countries would reap all the benefits that the US had.

This has been the most convincing argument I've seen about oil. Personally, I still think my president is just a militant reactionary with no skill for diplomacy who thinks he is increasing his country's safety.

I don't think I stated anywhere that the US should have entered the war earlier.

Sorry, but "Let Europe burn in flames and then, 3 years after the war started and numerous European and Commonwealth citizens have died" implied to me that you thought the US should have helped sooner. What exactly did you mean by it, if not that?

I thought we had become more civilized than half a century ago.

So did I. But then Bush entered office, and proved how wrong I was....

It's always so simple in theory 

The Bush administration happy fellowed up by not getting the UN behind his war. Preparations could have been made to get in humanitarian aid ASAP, to establish refugee camps in neighbouring countries, basically do everything to avoid the disaster which is looming now. 

A UN approval - which would have been relatively simple to get with some more patience - would also have been a clear signal that the world cared. Now it looks like just another war of conquest. I truly believe that that is one of the prime reasons that a rebellion against Hussein is slow in the coming.

As it turns out, not even simple in theory.

Having the UN behind us would not have enabled us to ship goods into the cities any faster -- the reason we can't is because of armed resistance, not lack of supplies.

I also doubt that fanatical Iraqi soldiers would have not fought us just as hard if the UN had been behind it. I doubt also that citizens would be significantly more likely to revolt against their crushing dictator. If you can explain how it would, I'm willing to listen, but I don't see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote: 

I don't think I stated anywhere that the US should have entered the war earlier. 

Sorry, but "Let Europe burn in flames and then, 3 years after the war started and numerous European and Commonwealth citizens have died" implied to me that you thought the US should have helped sooner. What exactly did you mean by it, if not that? 

The US did not intervene for 3 years in WWI. In 1917 US troops start fighting alongside, British, French, Belgians, ... Americans always like to pretend they did the fighting, American troops died in huge numbers (they did indeed but not to the extent as some would like to claim) and won the war on their own. I resent that. Belgium and northern France were devastated after 4 years of war, our population brutalized by the Germans (the nazi's were actually friendlier on average than the German Imperial troops of WWI) and this basically gets ignored. The same with the price we're still paying - mustard gas shells and conventional ammo still surface, luckily only rarely with serious consequences. Homes destroyed, entire villages gone. None of this do I blame the US for but you have to admit that whatever toll the USA paid, it was Europe that bled.

Having the UN behind us would not have enabled us to ship goods into the cities any faster -- the reason we can't is because of armed resistance, not lack of supplies.

They could have been already in place or close by. The armed resistance is there because the "coalition" is only now starting to do something about it.

I also doubt that fanatical Iraqi soldiers would have not fought us just as hard if the UN had been behind it. I doubt also that citizens would be significantly more likely to revolt against their crushing dictator

A UN sanctioned invasion would imply support of most muslim nations. For some reason or other this is important. You also should not forget that the US under Bush Sr. f*cked the Kurds and Shi'ites both ways when they were called upon to rise against Hussein and then left out in the cold. I doubt they trust the US very much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0