Anti-Colonialism and American foreign policy

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Post Reply
bcglorf
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:58 pm

Unbreable to who?

Post by bcglorf »

Skipjack wrote:As I said, Saddam was unbearable once he did not fullfill his purpose anymore. He was, for a while, actually supported by the US and other western nations, because he was against Iran.
Proof of point: Saddam is gone, Iran becomes the next unbearable evil on the map.
Your statement makes the gross mistake of looking at Saddam through western eyes. He was unbearable to the Iraqi people from the day he took power. He was unbearable to every single one of his neighbors the moment they understood his true nature, some took longer than others. I don't care how long it took America to feel the same, I'm glad somebody finally did what needed doing. Hundred's of thousands of Iraqi's are buried in Iraq's desert's as proof that Saddam was unbearable a long time before America thought so. They are also testament to the necessity of outside aid, like America gave, to move Iraq into a post-Saddam world.

If you think America's method was ugly, take a look back at the earlier attempts that failed. Take a good long time to ponder just how ugly even a successful internal overthrow would've been. The main difference is the country would've continued to be even more broken and decayed before the dam burst.

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Re: Needed?

Post by chrismb »

bcglorf wrote: Your going to go with international law? Seriously?
Yeah. Sure. If it keeps the debate 'hot'.
bcglorf wrote:Saddam's annexing of Kuwait was a violation of international law.
Ah, yes. The ol' wild west "do wrong unto those who do wrong". Nice.

"Takes a crime to catch a crime", as the police around my neck o' th' woods seem to think!
bcglorf wrote:It was a violation so gross that it effectively dissolved and eliminated a UN member state.
Not sure how long you've been watching these boards and my previous comments, but I did have relatives who were working in Kuwait at the time, so there is little you can tell me on this subject.
bcglorf wrote:And as a consequence the international community did what exactly? They made him give it back?
Quite right. Or would you prefer he kept it?
bcglorf wrote:The American no-fly zone over northern Iraq was an overt act of war and a violation of international law. A mighty proud moment in America's history too, do you really think it would be better they'd abandoned the Kurds and abided by international law?
eh!? It was a UN sanctioned mission!
bcglorf wrote:If international law is the standard, then surely your complaints about America's conduct are completely redundant, surely we can trust the international community to deal with America's violations of international law as effectively and completely as the dealt with Saddam's.
You mean like the international arrest warrant that's out for those CIA operatives who abducted a suspect in Italy.

What is so completely bizzare is that you seem to be saying "C'mon then, we're up for it!!!" and then you moan and say you don't understand when a load of bearded crazies accept your invitation!

ladajo
Posts: 6204
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »

Chris,
What would have been your solution?

Obviously you recognise with clarity that the US, partner nations and UN were wrong. So just as obviously you must have the right answer you are dying to tell us all.

What is it?

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

ladajo wrote:Chris,
What would have been your solution?

Obviously you recognise with clarity that the US, partner nations and UN were wrong. So just as obviously you must have the right answer you are dying to tell us all.

What is it?
I'm not really dying to tell you, but there is the hint!

Just wait for the guy to die. Time fixes everything.

MSimon
Posts: 14332
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

chrismb wrote:
ladajo wrote:Chris,
What would have been your solution?

Obviously you recognise with clarity that the US, partner nations and UN were wrong. So just as obviously you must have the right answer you are dying to tell us all.

What is it?
I'm not really dying to tell you, but there is the hint!

Just wait for the guy to die. Time fixes everything.
Ah. His sons now temporarily deceased would have been worse. Something to look forward to I suppose. Ya gotttah wonder though why the Brits of 70 years ago were in such an all fired hurry to oust the Austrian Corporal.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

ladajo
Posts: 6204
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Post by ladajo »

Brilliant.

Oh, I guess, then, we should have just gone ahead and let him do as he pleased while we waited for him to die?

Re-start the war with Iran,
Re-annex Kuwait (I love that word annex, it just sounds so proper and kind),
Continue internal genocides against whomever he felt, especially the ones who counldn't defend themselves,
Continue to fund and support various international terrorist groups, (one of my favorites, the cash dividend program for palistinian martyr's famillies),
Annex Saudi, and Bahrain, put the squeeze on the UAE, annex Oman, Yemen. And then finally, once he had all that wrapped up, he would surely be in position to deal with those damnation persians across the Arabian Gulf...once and for all. Oh, not done yet, we can't forget annexing Syria, Lebanon, and then nuking or biological weapons against Israel.

Yes, you are entirely correct, waiting people like him out is the best course. It certainly worked out for the Cambodians and Jews, didn't it?

bcglorf
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:58 pm

Now or later?

Post by bcglorf »

chrismb wrote:
ladajo wrote:Chris,
What would have been your solution?

Obviously you recognise with clarity that the US, partner nations and UN were wrong. So just as obviously you must have the right answer you are dying to tell us all.

What is it?
I'm not really dying to tell you, but there is the hint!

Just wait for the guy to die. Time fixes everything.
Yep, that worked just great in dealing with Kim Il-Sung, didn't it. Who's the head of state for North Korea now? Oh yeah, it's STILL Kim Il-Sung, they've now happily moved from dictatorship to necropolis. Even if you question the authority of Kim Il-Sung's deity, the lot of the people there and the threat to neighboring states hasn't been reduced by his death.

In your crystal ball, what exactly does Iraq look like when Saddam eventually dies? You do recall that he had children, and that he had pretty carefully pruned the power structure of the country to include only those blood thirsty and brutal enough to follow his orders. I don't see much reason to assume Saddam's natural death would be followed by a more moderate Baath party. Neither did it seem likely that Saddam wouldn't continue to curse us with a long natural life, and to use it to continue to commit crimes against humanity at every opportunity.

Sorry, I think simply waiting for Saddam's death is a lot harder to hold up as a preferable path. The economic ruin and sectarian violence would also all still be there, even if you could make a case for the Baath party falling with Saddam's natural passing(which I dare say is anything put likely).

CaptainBeowulf
Posts: 498
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:35 am

Post by CaptainBeowulf »

You Brits would be in decent shape if the citizens felt they owned the country. Better yet if you were proud of your contribution to world civilization. India alone should be eternally grateful. And the seed you left in China - Hong Kong - transformed that nation. And your unruly child - we Americans - well I'm 3rd generation Eastern European and I'm a proud offspring of the British Empire and the Magna Carta.
I agree with MSimon. Furthermore, I'm half Brit with Brit citizenship, and I'm sad that the UK seems to have lost its way.

I also have some ancestry from the Baltic. Some of them escaped across Europe as refugees late in WWII. Fortunately the Germans were too disorganized towards the end of the war to catch all the refugees and throw them into slave labor factories, so they made it to Anglo-American lines and ended up in a displaced persons camp for a bit. They were bombed repeatedly by the RAF, RCAF, and USAAF (who were after German industrial and military targets in the towns refugees were passing through). Despite that, they never evinced any uncertainty as to who the good guys were. They understood that in war, there is collateral damage. The Allied air forces had to hit German targets. When you've been subjected to Soviet and Nazi occupation, it becomes very clear who the good guys are.

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Post by djolds1 »

olivier wrote:Image
Then maybe Europe does not want to be mistaken for a second grizzly. :lol:
BTW, bears are beautiful animals. I have seen many in the wilderness and enjoyed it.
Bears are beautiful, and so are supernovas. You just need to be careful while in direct physical proximity of one. Grizzlies are a good analogue for the American character. We prefer to be left alone, will gut you in a heartbeat if you annoy us, and every once in awhile kill small animals (Iraq) for no discernible reason.
MSimon wrote:I had to look up canid. Not being a fancier myself. Thanks for the education.
:) De nada.
Vae Victis

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Post by djolds1 »

Skipjack wrote:The US tanks were mostly mass instead of class. The Sherman was inferior in almost every aspect. It could not even crack the Tigers armor.
Also, the Pentagon's asinine internal political squabble about "Tanks vs Tank Destroyers" kept American tanks armed with inferior cannon. The chassis of the Sherman was adequate in British service, with a cannon sufficient to mission kill German armor with one shot. For American crews in armor vs armor...
Vae Victis

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Post by djolds1 »

MSimon wrote:Saddam was not only a monster. He was also destabilizing (more than could be tolerated) the lifeblood of current civilization.
Disagree. The Iran vs Iraq balance of power in the region was actually stabilizing. The 2003 invasion kicked over that steady state.

That is not to say that Saddm did not deserve his dance at the end of a rope. He did.
MSimon wrote:And as some pointed out he was given a chance to mend the worst of his ways from 1991 to 2003. He was even offered "early retirement" in France if he would just leave before the balloon went up.
No way to trust it after the Pinochet Precedent of 2000. Still fresh in the minds of all dictators in 2003, still fresh in their minds today. Transnational self-righteousness deep-sixed an effective way of peacefully removing dictators and freeing their subjects from tyranny. Every dictator on Earth now knows his only way out is feet first into a 2 meter deep hole, either as a result of being murdered, or dying of old age. No comfy retirements in the Swiss Alps with 7 billion Euros and ten members of the Swedish Bikini Team as personal attendants.
Vae Victis

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Post by djolds1 »

chrismb wrote:You guys are just so.... American! Good for you. Must be nice to live in a country that you actually feel loyalty towards... and that you feel sure that you're always the good guys and the others are the baddies. Really, it is to be commended.
Your country is like your family, loved because it is yours, not because it deserves it.

Allegiance matters. If you do not feel that level of allegiance to your nominal nation, leave, find somewhere you love and would die for, and declare your allegiance to that locale.
Vae Victis

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Re: Needed?

Post by djolds1 »

bcglorf wrote:Your going to go with international law? Seriously?

Saddam's annexing of Kuwait was a violation of international law. It was a violation so gross that it effectively dissolved and eliminated a UN member state. And as a consequence the international community did what exactly? They made him give it back?

The American no-fly zone over northern Iraq was an overt act of war and a violation of international law. A mighty proud moment in America's history too, do you really think it would be better they'd abandoned the Kurds and abided by international law?

If international law is the standard, then surely your complaints about America's conduct are completely redundant, surely we can trust the international community to deal with America's violations of international law as effectively and completely as the dealt with Saddam's.

I'm unimpressed with that line of argument...
Strictly speaking, legally speaking :twisted: , the 1991 war never ended. There was an armistice, not a peace, revokable at will for any violation of the armistice terms (which Saddam's Iraq did almost every other day 1992-2003). No wrinkles under "international law" to resume hostilities at leisure.
Vae Victis

bcglorf
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:58 pm

Sad

Post by bcglorf »

No way to trust it after the Pinochet Precedent of 2000. Still fresh in the minds of all dictators in 2003, still fresh in their minds today. Transnational self-righteousness deep-sixed an effective way of peacefully removing dictators and freeing their subjects from tyranny. Every dictator on Earth now knows his only way out is feet first into a 2 meter deep hole, either as a result of being murdered, or dying of old age. No comfy retirements in the Swiss Alps with 7 billion Euros and ten members of the Swedish Bikini Team as personal attendants.

Words can not express my sadness(though Musharraf seems to be doing alright for himself).

CaptainBeowulf
Posts: 498
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:35 am

Post by CaptainBeowulf »

Also, the Pentagon's asinine internal political squabble about "Tanks vs Tank Destroyers" kept American tanks armed with inferior cannon. The chassis of the Sherman was adequate in British service, with a cannon sufficient to mission kill German armor with one shot. For American crews in armor vs armor...
Ah, the Sherman Firefly. Yes, quite effective - a shame U.S. tank crews didn't get them too. I believe some Fireflies even succeeded in knocking out Tiger Is.

I read that in the battle of the bulge, some of the American Shermans hid in the alleyways and sidestreets of towns while the German armor rolled down the main roads. The Sherman, being comparatively tall and narrow, was actually good at fitting into these sorts of tight spaces. Then, they hit the Germans in their weaker side armor as they drove past. So, there are ways to equal the score... I suspect in our war against the Soviets in 1945 alternate history scenario, the Russians would have gotten similar nasty surprises.

I suspect that Sherman Fireflies could have gone up against T-34/85s head-to-head, though. It would have just required the tank/tank destroyer squabble to be resolved quickly.

Post Reply