The Terrible Hypocrisy of England and America ın Geopolitics

[El Kabong]

Why is it not America's fault that for decades they've propped up dictators, overthrown democratically elected governments and installed dictators etc etc in the Middle East? I thought Americans were supposed to believe in personal responsibility? Are you saying Americans can't be held responsible for their actions?

Who's responsible for the other 1% Kirkland?

[Kirkland Laing]

Why is it not America's fault that for decades they've propped up dictators, overthrown democratically elected governments and installed dictators etc etc in the Middle East? I thought Americans were supposed to believe in personal responsibility? Are you saying Americans can't be held responsible for their actions?

Who's responsible for the other 1% Kirkland?

The west in general. Now stop trying to change the subject and answer the questions you keep dodging. If you want to argue about just how much America is to blame for how it's hated in the Middle East fine, but give specific answers to these questions at the same time. Here they are again, for the third time :

Why is it not America's fault that for decades they've propped up dictators, overthrown democratically elected governments and installed dictators etc etc in the Middle East? I thought Americans were supposed to believe in personal responsibility? Are you saying Americans can't be held responsible for their actions?

[El Kabong]

The west in general. Now stop trying to change the subject and answer the questions you keep dodging. If you want to argue about just how much America is to blame for how it's hated in the Middle East fine, but give specific answers to these questions at the same time. Here they are again, for the third time :

Why is it not America's fault that for decades they've propped up dictators, overthrown democratically elected governments and installed dictators etc etc in the Middle East? I thought Americans were supposed to believe in personal responsibility? Are you saying Americans can't be held responsible for their actions?

The US has had friends that get a bit too comfortable in power, it's true but what would you have the US do Mr. Charts & Graphs? We could help overthrow the "dictator" but that's meddling....Well we could stop trading with them and levee sanctions against them, but that "hurts their citizens", we could let them vote and if that "vote" turns out to support the guy who has been in charge forever then what should we do? If we take action we're meddling if we don't take action then we're heartless, so Kirkland (and you are the PERFECT person to ask) how does the United States win in such a situation? Given your view I don't see a "winning scenario" but I also know that's exactly what your kind wants because for some reason you think perhaps the world would be better off without the United States.

Did I dodge your question? Will you continue barking at me in attempt to gain further insights on this topic or are you mollified? I certainly hope you got what you wanted out of this answer because I'm done reading your bullshit because here's the deal you want me to take 100% of what you post as the Gospel truth and yet I supply facts and statistics and ask questions and you don't believe my facts, pooh pooh my statistics, and never answer my questions.....so I'm done debating you.

[TitoFan]

The US has had friends that get a bit too comfortable in power, it's true but what would you have the US do Mr. Charts & Graphs? We could help overthrow the "dictator" but that's meddling....Well we could stop trading with them and levee sanctions against them, but that "hurts their citizens", we could let them vote and if that "vote" turns out to support the guy who has been in charge forever then what should we do? If we take action we're meddling if we don't take action then we're heartless, so Kirkland (and you are the PERFECT person to ask) how does the United States win in such a situation? Given your view I don't see a "winning scenario" but I also know that's exactly what your kind wants because for some reason you think perhaps the world would be better off without the United States.

Did I dodge your question? Will you continue barking at me in attempt to gain further insights on this topic or are you mollified? I certainly hope you got what you wanted out of this answer because I'm done reading your bullshit because here's the deal you want me to take 100% of what you post as the Gospel truth and yet I supply facts and statistics and ask questions and you don't believe my facts, pooh pooh my statistics, and never answer my questions.....so I'm done debating you.

Fuck, I'm gonna quit typing the same shit over and over again, and just cut and paste previous posts until I get some kind of response. Or do you (Lyle) only discuss foreign relations with Kirk?

.....this looks suspiciously like one of those retarded Liberal "Blame America first" arguments.


I guess if the US & England had just gotten rid of Saddam earlier then we would be loved? No? Maybe if we kept Saddam longer we would be ok over there? No? Well maybe if we rebuilt their country we would be seen in a better light? No? Well maybe if we gave them top teir trade status? No?.....are you getting the "no matter what we do they won't like us" vibe yet Give them money & they hate us, don't give them money & they hate us, keep their leader & they hate us, get rid of their leader & they hate us.....any of that getting through

You know what all your scenarios have in common, Lyle?
They all involve U.S. intervention.

Just maybe... if the U.S. would not intervene in other countries' issues that do not present a threat to U.S. citizens... some of this hatred would not exist. Anticipating your response, you'll surely mention problem areas like North Korea, for example. But surely you are aware that North Korea right now is not viewed favorably by the global community, because it IS perceived as a threat to other countries.

The trick here, one so "skillfully" practiced by George W, is to learn to separate those issues to require U.S. intervention, from those that don't. Historically, the U.S. intervenes way too much. Cut that to a minimum, and the hatred will naturally decrease.

[VictorCharlie]

Anybody hear something?

[El Kabong]

You guys ask the same questions with tiny little differences. Tito from now on I'll answer your questions because Kirkland is irrational in his debates.

[TitoFan]

You guys ask the same questions with tiny little differences. Tito from now on I'll answer your questions because Kirkland is irrational in his debates.

You and Kirk get into some heavy-duty arguments, with multiple charts, figures, and whatnots being zinged back and forth. I tend to keep my arguments more generalized.

On U.S. foreign policy, my only point is that sometimes the best policy is no intervention at all. It is my humble opinion that the U.S. needs to pick and choose a little bit better where it intervenes and for what reason. This way, the U.S. won't be faced with choices about whether or not to leave "X" dictator in power, whether or not to use military force, when to leave and when to stay... and numerous other decisions, which yes... are usually unpopular no matter WHAT they are.

This is a delicate balancing act. We are no longer in the days of the Cold War. We no longer have the specter of the Soviet Union aiming their missiles at us. There are less instances where the U.S. "has" to intervene to protect Americans' way of life. There might be some instances where political and economic interests are skewed to seem like national security concerns.... and this is exactly what gets us in trouble with the rest of the world.

Yes, the U.S. is still the world's greatest superpower. But it's no longer a matter of "who cares what the rest of the world thinks." Thinking like that is not generally acceptable among great and open minds.

We can no longer afford fiascos like the search for the famous WMD. The world's not that stupid, and it offends other countries' leaders that the U.S. would think that.

[Ghost]

Anybody hear something?

Elevator Music?

[Kirkland Laing]

The west in general. Now stop trying to change the subject and answer the questions you keep dodging. If you want to argue about just how much America is to blame for how it's hated in the Middle East fine, but give specific answers to these questions at the same time. Here they are again, for the third time :

Why is it not America's fault that for decades they've propped up dictators, overthrown democratically elected governments and installed dictators etc etc in the Middle East? I thought Americans were supposed to believe in personal responsibility? Are you saying Americans can't be held responsible for their actions?

The US has had friends that get a bit too comfortable in power, it's true but what would you have the US do Mr. Charts & Graphs? We could help overthrow the "dictator" but that's meddling....Well we could stop trading with them and levee sanctions against them, but that "hurts their citizens", we could let them vote and if that "vote" turns out to support the guy who has been in charge forever then what should we do? If we take action we're meddling if we don't take action then we're heartless, so Kirkland (and you are the PERFECT person to ask) how does the United States win in such a situation? Given your view I don't see a "winning scenario" but I also know that's exactly what your kind wants because for some reason you think perhaps the world would be better off without the United States.

Did I dodge your question? Will you continue barking at me in attempt to gain further insights on this topic or are you mollified? I certainly hope you got what you wanted out of this answer because I'm done reading your bullshit because here's the deal you want me to take 100% of what you post as the Gospel truth and yet I supply facts and statistics and ask questions and you don't believe my facts, pooh pooh my statistics, and never answer my questions.....so I'm done debating you.

You don't have to take any action to overthrow dictators, you just have to stop sending them billions of dollars of weapons and "domestic security" equipment and letting the dictators violently repress, torture and imprison hundreds of millions of people while still literally holding their hands.








But then if you did that maybe these guys would do oil deals with Chinese and Russian companies instead of American ones. So obviously America is going to do what's best for its oil companies and other companies with big business deals paid for by oil money. But don't try and dress that up as wanting to "help" people because it's offensive nonsense. You're literally holding hands with mass-murdering tyrants so your corporations can make big profits.

[El Kabong]

So Obama has changed that? I mean why else show pictures of only W unless you're some sort of hyper partisan jackass.

[Kirkland Laing]

So Obama has changed that? I mean why else show pictures of only W unless you're some sort of hyper partisan jackass.

No, Obama hasn't changed that at all. It's just that since guys like the one in the bottom picture started getting overthrown by popular uprisings and imprisoned he's been careful to avoid getting his photograph taken with any of the remaining ones.

But there is a good reason for using the Bush photographs. Bush was this guy -- from his second inauguration speech on the White House lawn :


So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.
This is not primarily the task of arms, though we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary. Freedom, by its nature, must be chosen, and defended by citizens, and sustained by the rule of law and the protection of minorities. And when the soul of a nation finally speaks, the institutions that arise may reflect customs and traditions very different from our own. America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way.
The great objective of ending tyranny is the concentrated work of generations. The difficulty of the task is no excuse for avoiding it. America's influence is not unlimited, but fortunately for the oppressed, America's influence is considerable, and we will use it confidently in freedom's cause.


and, hilariously,




We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation: The moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right. America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women welcome humiliation and servitude, or that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies.
We will encourage reform in other governments by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people. America's belief in human dignity will guide our policies, yet rights must be more than the grudging concessions of dictators; they are secured by free dissent and the participation of the governed. In the long run, there is no justice without freedom, and there can be no human rights without human liberty.



All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.
Democratic reformers facing repression, prison, or exile can know: America sees you for who you are: the future leaders of your free country.
The rulers of outlaw regimes can know that we still believe as Abraham Lincoln did: "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it."



and so on.


So you agree America should change its policy of propping these scumbags up in order to make money?

[VictorCharlie]

Tito,

I couldn't agree more we should have told France to go it alone but basically the called in their favor. We pulled the NATO mutual defense card for Afghanistan and they basically said you owe us on this one. The really glaring part about the whole thing is US military strength has basically allowed our NATO partners to become practically useless for any real combined effort. I'm not saying a British Para is a watered down version of our 82nd or Rangers but the fact that NATO couldn't handle Libya w/o us (our technology) is very telling. If it were up to me I'd pack up our shit and bring it home then tell the world they can go it alone for a while.

[El Kabong]

No, Obama hasn't changed that at all.

Oh well that's nice to read at least you're not in denial over that.