|
|
| |||||||||||
| From | Message | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 Seems there is a bit of misconception in this question. Guatemala had a leader ( Noriega) that was involved in narcotics being sent into the US and was arrested and tried for the crime. Chile has not been invaded by this country. In Vietnam there was again Communist aggression which was being helped by Communist China. The US tried to defend the South from the aggression, but there were no definable enemies, because the North Vietnamese would infiltrate the US controlled areas, would act friendly during the day and kill American soldiers by infiltration. Consequently the American soldiers did not know who the enemy was. It became unbearable to them because they would have the the very same help (people) during the day, would kill them at night. US was compelled to abandon those people from the South because of public pressure demanding the return of our troops since there seemed to be no end to the struggle. Iraq instigated the war by invading Kuwait, and the US pushed them back into their country, but then our allies misinformed the US that Saddam Hussein had Nuclear weapons, and President Bush used this information to use selective attacks on that country. In the opinion of many American citizens that was a mistake. After that leader was arrested, and put to trial, the US has been trying to help Iraq to become independent, but there has been interference from ISIS, and the US has had to maintain support for the Iraq government. At present, it has been reported that there has been some success in pushing out some of these meddling intruders, but there is still a strong presence of ISIS there. |
||||||||||
|
stalhandske 12-Jul-17, 00:04 |
Misconceptions? 2) <Chile has not been invaded by this country.> Right, I never said that. But the breaking of Allende's regime and the take-over by Pinochet was aided and supported by the US 3) In Vietnam there was a corrupt regime in the south supported by USA. Admittedly, the north were communists. But have a look today at this now united country! 4) Ohh, it was the allied that misinformed USA about nuclear weapons in Iraq? Who was it, then, that earlier equipped Saddam Hussein with weaponry in his war against Iran? Sometimes, it would be good to have an unbiased "look in the mirror". |
||||||||||
|
I do not like to look at myself in the mirror, I am old and worn. But ohh, yes, I try to be unbiased, and if the United States has invaded Germany, Japan, or any other country, please be fair, and make a list, but just name the country, and if it has been invaded by this country, I bow to you in a humble gesture of submission for forgiveness.. My interpretation of Invasion. An armed force, or it's commander to enter a country or region so as to subjugate or occupy it. If a country is defended from a tyrant to liberate it's people, and then allow those people to elect a leader, and govern themselves, it has not been invaded, the word for that would be LIBERATED. At the time the US had sided with Iraq, the US had reason to regard Iran as an adversary, because the Ayatollah Khomeini had taken the US Embassy Americans as prisoners, and refused to release them unless a handsome ransom was paid to them. |
||||||||||
|
Invasion vs liberation Cuba? Bay of Pigs? Not US soldiers but cuban exiles trained and funded by the CIA and sanctioned by the President. |
||||||||||
|
stalhandske 12-Jul-17, 02:39 |
people to elect a leader, and govern themselves, it has not been invaded, the word for that would be LIBERATED.> So for example Guatemala was liberated from the freely elected J.A. Guzman in 1954 and replaced by the military dictator C.C. Armas? Which was followed by 36 years of civil war with 200,000 dead civilians. Right, USA did not invade the country but supported the military junta and trained its army. The opposition against Salvador Allende in Chile was strongly supported financially by the USA (Allende was supported by the USSR). The Nixon regime organized secret operatives in Chile in order to destabilize Allende's government. en.wikipedia.org Vietnam was liberated? Well, it is now. |
||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
|
stalhandske 12-Jul-17, 04:53 |
....is a golden aim, but better for whom? Or better from whose ideological point of view? My rather naive notion is that, as a rule, countries should not interfer with other sovereign countries' "affairs", and definitely not "invade them". Such meddling almost always has bad results even though the motives might sound good initially. |
||||||||||
|
If you have never seen the film "Charlie Wilson's war" I would recommend it. Basically the story in a nutshell right there. |
||||||||||
|
I see your point but there is surely a limit to this? Regime change for its own sake might be best avoided but should we stand idle and allow, say, a genocide, for fear of meddling? |
||||||||||
|
US Invasion Before that H. W. Bush invaded Panama to capture a man who had violated US law. Not sure how many civilians we killed, probably fewer than 500. en.m.wikipedia.org Before that Ronald Reagan invaded Grenada, as military action makes a president look strong, fierce, and resolute. en.m.wikipedia.org Obama technically invaded Pakistan, conducting a military raid against a private individual, killing maybe three people. I forget the exact number. He was an international terrorist, and the invasion lasted only a few hours, but a military operation involving boots on ground without the knowledge and consent of the host nation is best described as an invasion. Kennedy's Bay of Pigs fiasco was already brought up. Jimmy Carter invaded Iran, a nation Reagan later traded arms for hostages, causing quite a scandal. We invaded Vietnam, and North Korea before that. I am likely overlooking a few just since WWII. A great piece on US military action was written on US foreign policy by General Smedley Butler, "War is a Racket." |
||||||||||
|
stalhandske 12-Jul-17, 07:08 |
This is, of course, a very good question. In my opinion the answer to that, and to related situations, is that interference is then allowed but should be sanctioned by the UN. |
||||||||||
|
My Conservative Friends But by God, we had a moral duty to respond to Saddam's killing of Kurds ten years after the fact. Which is surprising because we fomented rebellion, promising the Kurds succor and support, and inexplicably relaxed Bush's billion dollar no fly zone to permit Chemical Ali to quell the rebellion with gas munitions we had sold Iraq. We are so morally superior, praise Jesus. We could have continued that no fly zone for a thousand years for what the younger Bush squandered. No fooling--a thousand years. |
||||||||||
|
And if one of the permanent members vetoes any UN action (as it would have in Syria, or going further back, Kosovo, or even potentially North Korea)? Is that then just hard luck? |
||||||||||
|
Assasinate Kim Jong Un ? |
||||||||||
|
stalhandske 12-Jul-17, 13:12 |
This is of course the problem with the UN, but then it will be the vetoing country that takes the responsibility |
||||||||||
|
So we get to watch while people are murdered in their thousands (or millions), safe in the knowledge that it wasn't our fault? Seems like abdication of responsibility to me. |
||||||||||
|
Here is some food for thought about something, and this thought came to me to put on paper: I named it "Live and Let Live" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A good friend of mine, by name of Steve wrote this, and called it the flip side to my poem; LIVE AND LET LIVE "Live and let live", I said to myself, As they waved the red flag with a smile "Live and let live", though I wasn't myself, I shouldn't stop them, that's not my style. "Live and let live", they cad dress in black shirts They can march to a drum down the street No-one should stop them, it's just a parade (And the uniforms look pretty neat) The man called me mate, but I didn't donate Though I listened while he told his views On the the homos and niggers and others he hates But most of all it was the Jews But I'm not a Jew and I'm not even gay So I don't really mind what they do "Live and let live", I thought to myself Though out loud I said "Good for you!" When they came in the night for him over the road And they bundled him into a car "Live and let live", I said to myself Rather him than me, by far I said "Live and let live" when they burned down the mosque And they stripped all the imams outside And they beat them with sticks then they dragged them away While the women and children cried "Live and let live" is a wonderful phrase And I couldn't agree with it more But now the street's empty except for my house As I wait for the knock on my door. Some people made comments about how beautiful this poem was, and I myself thouth it was exceptionally well written as the flip side to my poem. stalhandske 27-Feb-16, 07:58 @obsteve THAT was a very touching "poem" - fantastic stuff - I wish I could even come close to that in English. chaz- 27-Feb-16, 08:38 obsteve... ... very moving ... saintinsanity 27-Feb-16, 14:12 What did you do, Steve? What did you do? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I submit this poem from Steve, because I thought it somewhat fits the discussion here |
||||||||||
|
stalhandske 12-Jul-17, 21:15 |
itchy Right again, of course. The problem is where to put the "limit", because the obvious danger here (as we have seen numerous times in history) is that a "righteous" country intervenes physically not so much for the humanistic reasons (albeit they are the official ones), but for selfish or egoistic or "I know what is right" reasons. I guess "common sense" is the only answer. Perhaps, if the procedure fails in the UN (for purely political reasons), the decision can be taken by a group of countries, not just one? |
||||||||||
|
Is it more human to kill thousands of innocent victims when invading country, or let millions suffer decades when we try to do things right way? I see this same kind of problem as euthanasia. I understand risks and problems if we choose this way, but are those risks bigger than profit we can archive? And when I say profit I mean it as victory of humanity, not in economy way. |
||||||||||
|
Don't bite more than one can chew. Is it more human to kill thousands of innocent victims when invading country, or let millions suffer decades when we try to do things right way? ----------------------- There were times when US could do nothing when millions of people were killed or starving to death. This happened in former Soviet Union and China. Under Stalin's rule and collectivization over 20 million of people were killed and starved to death. In communist China over 40 million got the same fate when China introduced commune system, Great leap forward and in Cultural Revolution. Both countries have nuclear weapons and US cannot fight and win the nuclear war. Our hands are tied. Saddam Hussein was a tyrant who killed thousands of his own people. Bush simply thought that by removing Saddam, Democracy would flourish and Iraq would be peaceful and prosperous. The opposite is true that you can see what is happening nowadays in Iraq and Syria. The situation is worse nowadays than when Saddam was in power. Millions of people were killed, displaced and fled as refugees. The analogy is similar. How can you guarantee that US invasion and preemptive strike of NK will work ? The situation may get worse similar to Iraq war. US should use wait and see approach first unless the US is attacked. |
||||||||||
|
Let us remember That fellow that is sending out all those things that are just so that the world can see that he has power. HE IS NOT TRYING TO COMMIT SUICIDE. He loves himself too much, and is enjoying his position in power, but he wants to "flex his muscles", so he can gain respect through intimidation. If Trump is "shaking in his boots" right now, he has accomplished what he wants. We need a strong President that can stand up, and declare that we will retaliate, and not a president that wants to hide behind other countries that have shown to be our enemies in the past. I am sure they are all enjoying the show. Junk Man Ching, or whatever his name is, is like a chihuahua dog that snarls and shows his teeth when a larger dog gets near. I wish we could have a president that would MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, not one that is driving America into the ground by going around visiting our worst enemies, like a dog with the "tail between his legs," and causing a great embarrassment to this country which was great before this president. |
||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
|
I can John Kasich, Jeb Bush and several others come to mind. Reasonable,compassionate, (for conservatives any way) leaders. Certainly not 'Criminals' like we have leading Conservatives now. |
||||||||||
|
I can't help People of USA has spoken. Trump beat against all odds and beat all of his opponents by his nasty behavior and or good luck. He even beat most of the polls which favored HRC. Jeb Bush appears nice but he is always under the shadow of his brother president Bush who haunted him during his presidential campaign. People don't like another Bush who handled the Iraq war badly. It was a big mistake to invade Iraq. Kasich appears to be nice and honest similar to president Carter but people don't like the way that he conducted the foreign policy. US was humiliated by Iran. Now we are left with Trump. Did you see any gross mistakes that he made ? US economy appears to be stable and slightly improving as evidenced by record high level Dow Jones stock market. Unemployment rate is low. Regarding foreign policy, so far there are no real challenges or tests for Trump to solve. We are just speculating what Trump will do in real life scenarios in 3 hot spots in the world. 1. If N. Korea attacked SK and hostilities break out in Korean peninsula. 2. In Ukraine. If Putin becomes more aggressive and war spreads beyond her border. Refugees flood western Europe. 3. In middle east. It appears that ISIS will be defeated soon but religious war will continue between Sunnis and Shia Muslims will continue. I love your wishful thinking and opinions but I can't help. |
||||||||||
|
ace-of aces writes: This is not true, the people of the USA voted for Hillary, by popular vote in millions. I thought she would have been the lesser of two evils, but not because of gender. Please do not give credit to Trump for what Obama left established. What Trump is doing is very childish, twitting and twerping, and calling names. In answer to the gross mistake he has made in my opinion, is running for president. In doing so, he deprived a better person for doing a better job than pointing his finger at Obama, and trying to tear down all Obama has done in trying to make himself look good. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have heard that the stock market is similar to the same condition it was just before it historically crashed. But this is just something I heard, it is not my opinion |
||||||||||
|
US intervention in North Korea Iraq, Syria, Congo, Lybia, Afghanistan (I just met a guy who has worked there for a charity during 6 months)... my list is not exhaustive ( in ex Yugoslavia it worked but it was a UN operation). Is it reasonable to interfere in North Korea (it's not only a question of legitimacy) ? |
||||||||||
|
US intervention in NK How is this possible? How can someone ask this question? Perhaps I did not realize that the US had interfered, or did not see any indication of intervention. Would you please enlighten me as to the extent of this intervention? Thanks for your response in advance. |
||||||||||
|
Why Donald Trump was elected ? E-W said : This is not true, the people of the USA voted for Hillary, by popular vote in millions. I thought she would have been the lesser of two evils, but not because of gender. -------------- youtu.be I am sick of hearing this. Democrats are still licking their wounds from HRC's loss. They blamed everybody except herself. I am not a big fan of DT either but I believe he is the lesser of the two evils. In my previous message, I don't deny the fact that Trump was just lucky by winning with the electoral votes. HRC won by 3 million popular votes. Why it happened like that ? When you toss the coin, you have a fifty percent equal chance of getting head or tail. If so, under the same system Democrats have the same chance as GOP in any elections. Obama won twice by both electoral and popular votes. Democrats were expecting that HRC would repeat the same outcome of success similar to that of Obama. My question is, " What went wrong to HRC ? There are two kinds of American voters 1. urban and 2. rural. Rural Americans are hard working white Americans who are struggling to make the ends meet. They are losing their jobs to overseas and to strict EPA regulations. Trump promised to change all that and " Make America Again. " Rural voters were swayed by Trump's rhetoric and promise. Both urban and rural voters trust Obama who is very honest, sincere and compassionate. Both voted for him. HRC has a credibility problem ( a liar ). They were thinking that she was using them just to get elected and after election she would forget all her promise. Moreover, she would enrich herself with family business enterprise, Clinton Foundation. So. majority of the urban voters did not vote. The alternative was Trump but the urban voters did not like him either. The voters turnout was very low' that is over 50 percent. Stal can correct this figure if I am wrong. These are true facts of the last presidential election and don't believe in other fake facts. |
||||||||||
|
stalhandske 14-Jul-17, 20:34 |
US intervention in NK |
||||||||||
|
Should US intervene in another Korean war ? |
||||||||||
| |||||||||||
