The Best Reason Now To Be An Expat In Argentina...

[John.St]

What if you defend people without using violence?

A beautiful theory, but it is possible only if your opponent is reasonably civilized.

It worked for e.g. Gandhi in India - but it would not have worked, had the British simply killed him immediately after he started his movement.

It absolutely did not work in Iraq, Libya, Liberia, Rwanda, ex-Jugoslavia, ... long list

It absolutely does not work in Syria, North Korea, China/Tibet, Congo, ... long list

 

[John.St]

Agree in the last sentence, the thing is as Dirtboy said some people are abusing of the war tool, ergo, IMO they are the tyrants which you must fight against. There was only one Hitler, the rest, the inmense rest of wars (Vietnam, Korea, Kosovo, Africa, Lybia, Israel, interventions as Guatemala, Granada, dictatorships all over the western hemisphere) the huge inmense majority of interventions were not against Hitler, (some) there were against democratic governments. So in some level you must believe in these actions/interventions to provide your body.

Let us not forget, that the wars in South Korea and South Vietnam were to defend these two countries against invasions from North Korea and North Vietnam.

South Vietnam became a stinker because of timid politicians and ended by South Vietnam being conquered by North Vietnam and forced to become communist.

How would you like to live in North Korea? The South Koreans don't want it either.

Guatemala was a stinker, but it was not a US invasion as such, it was a CIA operation planned and performed by a corrupt US secretary of state, John Foster Dulles, who together with his corrupt brother, CIA Director Allen Dulles, had been working for a law firm with close ties to United Fruit. Helped by the anti-communist doctrine current at that time they pursuaded Eisenhower to support a exile invasion. Here I've got you in a cleft stick, Matias, because had Arbenz let the Guatemalan armed forces fight it out, they would have won easily, but he chickened out instead of defending what he believed in.

Granada was probably a stinker (difficult to assess, political case).

Africa?
Libya: The Libyans were undoubtedly happy to live under their Great Dictator, that's probably why they rebelled and started a civil war.

Elsewhere in Africa: Is it OK to let e.g.the Arab population in Somalia slaughter the black population?

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Stay away from Africa!!! Why didn't you intervene in Africa???

Israel - let's see: The only democracy in the Middle East, created by a unanimous UN decision, these past 15-20 years doing its best to lose support from the rest of the world. How would Argentina treat Uruguay, if Uruguayans fired a couple of hundred rockets into Argentina every month?

 

[John.St]

Interesting you give this example Jhon st.
The foreign policy of germany under Hitler was to invade those territories they need for its resourses.
The US seems to be doing the same. There weren's massive destruction weapons at Irak, but it was full of oil...

It is a complete misunderstanding that the war in Iraq was fought to conquer the oil. If it were, why hasn't the USA grabbed the Iraqi oil?

 

[John.St]

... No one is black and white.

Only:

 

[John.St]

How about that Affordable Care Act? Anyone have any opinions on that?

Absolutely prefer Affordable Care Act to Obamacare - it's so much more American

 

[sleslie23]

The point of war is not to kill the enemy. The point of war is to achieve a particular objective.

Excellent point. However, do you really think most wars, especially recent ones the US has involved itself in, are about defending against enemies? War is profitable. One only need look at the work history of those making the decisions to go to war to figure that out. Of course there are a lot of warm bodies willing to contribute life and limb, blinded by the rhetoric of defending the constitution and besting foreign threats.

 

[Matiasba]

Let us not forget, that the wars in South Korea and South Vietnam were to defend these two countries against invasions from North Korea and North Vietnam.

South Vietnam became a stinker because of timid politicians and ended by South Vietnam being conquered by North Vietnam and forced to become communist.

How would you like to live in North Korea? The South Koreans don't want it either.

Guatemala was a stinker, but it was not a US invasion as such, it was a CIA operation planned and performed by a corrupt US secretary of state, John Foster Dulles, who together with his corrupt brother, CIA Director Allen Dulles, had been working for a law firm with close ties to United Fruit. Helped by the anti-communist doctrine current at that time they pursuaded Eisenhower to support a exile invasion. Here I've got you in a cleft stick, Matias, because had Arbenz let the Guatemalan armed forces fight it out, they would have won easily, but he chickened out instead of defending what he believed in.

Granada was probably a stinker (difficult to assess, political case).

Africa?
Libya: The Libyans were undoubtedly happy to live under their Great Dictator, that's probably why they rebelled and started a civil war.

Elsewhere in Africa: Is it OK to let e.g.the Arab population in Somalia slaughter the black population?

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Stay away from Africa!!! Why didn't you intervene in Africa???

Israel - let's see: The only democracy in the Middle East, created by a unanimous UN decision, these past 15-20 years doing its best to lose support from the rest of the world. How would Argentina treat Uruguay, if Uruguayans fired a couple of hundred rockets into Argentina every month?

I dont agree in general in what you say, but the question is, what is the US doing around the globe, since, lets say, 60 years? what have they have to do in Vietnam, and why? because you are the world police? because you think you have athority to impose and overthrow governments? what has the US to do in Koreas internal political problem? why the US must intervene? why you have to be there? is Argentina there? or Brazil? or the rest of the countries that have no particular interest (economic or political interest in a specific way of government)?
Why dont just let the countries be, autodeterminate what they want? you will always have conflict, in every country, in every society, just watch Argentina with the Ks. I think you must respect this, these internal issues, these divisions, etc, respect sovereignty. Dont try to control everything, like they do. I truly think that this is why people hate america (ojo, not the people, their policies) in a lot of countries

 

[John.St]

. Without all the efforts to force the petrodollar on most oil trading countries then the 17 trillion would REALLY have to be paid.... That's what the middle east invasions are all about. Not the oil itself.

Hm!

There wasn't any 17 trillion US$ debt before George Wingnut's wars.

When he took over from Bill 'but I didn't inhale' Clinton, the coffers were overflowing with cash.

Under Clinton, the United States had a projected federal budget surplus for the first time since 1969. http://web.archive.o.../historical.pdf

The Congressional Budget Office reported budget surpluses of $69 billion in 1998, $126 billion in 1999, and $236 billion in 2000. http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43904

 

[John.St]

I dont agree in general in what you say, but the question is, what is the US doing around the globe, since, lets say, 60 years? what have they have to do in Vietnam, and why? because you are the world police? because you think you have athority to impose and overthrow governments? what has the US to do in Koreas internal political problem? why the US must intervene? why you have to be there? is Argentina there? or Brazil? or the rest of the countries that have no particular interest (economic or political interest in a specific way of government)?
Why dont just let the countries be, autodeterminate what they want? you will always have conflict, in every country, in every society, just watch Argentina with the Ks. I think you must respect this, these internal issues, these divisions, etc, respect sovereignty. Dont try to control everything, like they do. I truly think that this is why people hate america (ojo, not the people, their policies) in a lot of countries

Why does the bloody police arrest highway robbers? it isn't their money that is robbed. Stay away and let decent criminals do their job.

 

[EdRooney]

The recent "debate" over intervention in Syria and Libya illustrates much of this. One side wanted to invade, the other side just wanted to bomb the bejeezus out of them. That's the extent of the spectrum. The option that Matías mentioned of not attacking other countries doesn't even enter into the conversation.

I see pacifist positions like Tex's refusal to fight ever as being utterly impossible to defend morally. But then look at what Dirtboy said: he would fight to defend the US its people or its assets or its allies. And this was in response to my having given a very abridged list of countries where the US military has committed unrestrained atrocities. Look at that list again: when did Iraq, South Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Panama or anyone else attack the US its assets, people or allies? And I didn't even list half of the countries the US has attacked. And in every attack there are always atrocities committed by the troops. So much so that it makes the ROE look kind of ornamental. Hell the Japanese Empire had ROE too.

There are cases of wars that could even be classified as humanitarian interventions, but the US has never fought in any of them. Instead it is consistently guilty of the international crime of aggression, what the Nuremberg court referred to as " the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."