The Terrible Hypocrisy of England and America ın Geopolitics

[TitoFan]

I think you're taking it a bit too far, Miles. Nazi Germany invaded other countries, because Hitler wanted to expand Germany's borders. He wanted to create something similar to the Roman Empire. The Nazis also committed heinous crimes against humanity, particularly the Jews, through mass extinction, based solely on this warped sense of race superiority on the part of Hitler. But there was another thread on Nazi Germany, and frankly I don't want to go down that route.

The U.S., IMO, is guilty of meddling where it does not belong. But as far as I know, it is not trying to expand its borders by invading any other country. If that were the case, Mexico and Canada would be the first victims. What the U.S. is guilty of is pretending to know what is good for countries halfway around the world, including those cases where said country poses no danger to America, or its citizens.

But not all interventions have been unpopular with the rest of the world, either. I seem to remember that when Iraq up and invaded Kuwait, and the U.S. responded, global opinion was in favor of the U.S. at that point. Then the U.S. took it a step further and invaded Iraq, in an effort to displace Saddam Hussein. THAT was not so unanimously cheered by the rest of the world. And of course there was the foolish and artificial "hunt" for the WMD, which of course were never found. When 9/11 happened, surely the global community must have expected SOME response. And again, at least initially, the world's countries we're solidly backing the U.S. That is of course, until George W. failed to capitalize on this new wave of good will by being his usual bumbling self.

But again, as with all arguments, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. No... the U.S. does NOT have to be involved in every issue outside its borders, as Lyle and others might feel. But there ARE legitimate interests that the U.S. must protect in the name of national security.

The REAL problem, as I have stated before, is that "in the name of national security" is a funny phrase, in that it can be distorted, misinterpreted, played with to serve political interests, etc, etc. And THIS is why I posted what I posted before.

But I agree with you on the drone strikes. Many of these are completely reprehensible. Keeping one U.S. pilot safe at home, weighed against killing scores of innocent civilians, well.... I don't want to stir up any shit, but I think this one is a slam dunk. It's not like the jet fighters of today are as vulnerable as the old fighters of WW-II. Again, back in the days of Iraq, I don't recall too many casualties involving jet fighter pilots. And those faced heavy fire from the Iraqis. You remove the human element from these strikes... you risk more innocent casualties. There's no other way to put it.

I don't mean to ramble (although that's exactly what I'm doing), but bottom line is this:

The world needs open and objective minds. Sometimes we are guilty of extremist beliefs, which cloud our better judgement and produce these broad, mostly inaccurate statements. If we're rational and leave our emotions out of it, we'll see that the truth always lies somewhere in the middle.

[VictorCharlie]

Due Process? What constitutes due process for military action? Nations do what is in their best interests and to expect anything else is naive.

[TitoFan]

That was in response to Miles, I gather.

[brocktonblockbust]

KILL LISTS, ındefınıte detentıon, ıncarceratıon wıthout trıal, warrantless wıretappıng, NDAA, suspensıon of Habeus Corpus, dismissal of Posse Comıtatus, ınvadıng Lıbya wıthout Congressıonal approval, ınvadıng Iraq despıte 3 out of 5 members of UN Sec Councıl votıng agaınst the ınvasıon, "goıng ıt alone", etc etc.

[El Kabong]

KILL LISTS, ındefınıte detentıon, ıncarceratıon wıthout trıal, warrantless wıretappıng, NDAA, suspensıon of Habeus Corpus, dismissal of Posse Comıtatus, ınvadıng Lıbya wıthout Congressıonal approval, ınvadıng Iraq despıte 3 out of 5 members of UN Sec Councıl votıng agaınst the ınvasıon, "goıng ıt alone", etc etc.

The United States has to be willing to "go it alone" because in some situations it is needed, HOWEVER, we should pick our battles more carefully. As soon as we got involved in Egypt & more so with Libya and we made 0 attempt to help the Green Revolution in Iran it showed weakness on our part and we came off as meddlers.

The "reasons" we got involved so heavily in Libya is due to our Allies Italy & France who get oil from Libya and who gets called out for intervening The United States as per usual.

Egypt was fucking disgusting. I don't give a flying fuck what Mubarak did in his country all I know is that the guy kept the peace with Israel and that made our job all the easier for the past 30 years. And now we have the Muslim Brotherhood in power....oh, what a refreshing progressive change ....I'm sure they won't call for the destruction of Israel, I mean it's only part of their agenda to destroy "Zionism".

The warning I would give people is that the people "behind the curtain" of Islam in politics are counting on the good intentions of the socialists/leftists in America and elsewhere around the world. Sure they'll promise to be more advanced in their politics and be nicer to women and prisoners and so on, but once they get enough power they'll turn on those lefties and only the hardcore no drinking no dancing no fun Islamists will be around and well it's going to dishearten quite a few liberal idealists who thought "things would be different". You side with such groups at your own peril, the Gigi Ibrahim's (one of the "famous" bloggers of the Tahir Square demostrations) of the world will find out the truth about who they support and what they think of "Women's Rights" soon enough.

[El Kabong]

Pakistan Parents Killed Daughter for Eyeing Boy - ABC News

".....Oooooh how Progressive of them, gee I wish my country could be more like that" - said nobody ever

[TitoFan]

HOWEVER, we should pick our battles more carefully.

Yes Lyle... excellent. Good to hear you agree on that point.

The "reasons" we got involved so heavily in Libya is due to our Allies Italy & France who get oil from Libya and who gets called out for intervening The United States as per usual.

But here's my point. Let Italy and France fight their own battles. If it's Italy's and France's oil at stake, and they feel like invading or fighting Libya..... let them. This is where the U.S. needs to stay out.

The warning I would give people is that the people "behind the curtain" of Islam in politics are counting on the good intentions of the socialists/leftists in America and elsewhere around the world. Sure they'll promise to be more advanced in their politics and be nicer to women and prisoners and so on, but once they get enough power they'll turn on those lefties and only the hardcore no drinking no dancing no fun Islamists will be around and well it's going to dishearten quite a few liberal idealists who thought "things would be different". You side with such groups at your own peril, the Gigi Ibrahim's (one of the "famous" bloggers of the Tahir Square demostrations) of the world will find out the truth about who they support and what they think of "Women's Rights" soon enough.

Yes, you might be right on all counts. No one is turning a blind eye on civil right atrocities in some sectors of the Islamic world. However... the U.S. cannot take upon itself the role of policeman for the rest of the world. Let the global community condemn these acts. Let them take the lead. If and only if the global community requests help from the U.S.... THEN we can act. Again, it's a fine line to walk.

[Gandalf]

Due Process? What constitutes due process for military action? Nations do what is in their best interests and to expect anything else is naive.

International consensus, not commiting acts of aggression. Iraq was a grab for oil and it failed. It was an obvious breach of international law and Bush and Blair are still yet to be held account for their crimes. They are obvious crimes. Fabricating evidence, war of aggression, acts of terror and torture etc.

Nations should do what is in their own interests, but force has no relevance to such an argument. That is criminal and abusive.

[VictorCharlie]

Due Process? What constitutes due process for military action? Nations do what is in their best interests and to expect anything else is naive.

International consensus, not commiting acts of aggression. Iraq was a grab for oil and it failed. It was an obvious breach of international law and Bush and Blair are still yet to be held account for their crimes. They are obvious crimes. Fabricating evidence, war of aggression, acts of terror and torture etc.

Nations should do what is in their own interests, but force has no relevance to such an argument. That is criminal and abusive.

International consensus? You are truly naive but hey if you got mob rule anything is cool. There is no international law governing when a military action is allowed or not. Obviously force has a lot relevance considering history.

[VictorCharlie]

GB is just killing it tonight.

[Gandalf]

I think you're taking it a bit too far, Miles. Nazi Germany invaded other countries, because Hitler wanted to expand Germany's borders. He wanted to create something similar to the Roman Empire. The Nazis also committed heinous crimes against humanity, particularly the Jews, through mass extinction, based solely on this warped sense of race superiority on the part of Hitler. But there was another thread on Nazi Germany, and frankly I don't want to go down that route.

The U.S., IMO, is guilty of meddling where it does not belong. But as far as I know, it is not trying to expand its borders by invading any other country. If that were the case, Mexico and Canada would be the first victims. What the U.S. is guilty of is pretending to know what is good for countries halfway around the world, including those cases where said country poses no danger to America, or its citizens.

But not all interventions have been unpopular with the rest of the world, either. I seem to remember that when Iraq up and invaded Kuwait, and the U.S. responded, global opinion was in favor of the U.S. at that point. Then the U.S. took it a step further and invaded Iraq, in an effort to displace Saddam Hussein. THAT was not so unanimously cheered by the rest of the world. And of course there was the foolish and artificial "hunt" for the WMD, which of course were never found. When 9/11 happened, surely the global community must have expected SOME response. And again, at least initially, the world's countries we're solidly backing the U.S. That is of course, until George W. failed to capitalize on this new wave of good will by being his usual bumbling self.

But again, as with all arguments, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. No... the U.S. does NOT have to be involved in every issue outside its borders, as Lyle and others might feel. But there ARE legitimate interests that the U.S. must protect in the name of national security.

The REAL problem, as I have stated before, is that "in the name of national security" is a funny phrase, in that it can be distorted, misinterpreted, played with to serve political interests, etc, etc. And THIS is why I posted what I posted before.

But I agree with you on the drone strikes. Many of these are completely reprehensible. Keeping one U.S. pilot safe at home, weighed against killing scores of innocent civilians, well.... I don't want to stir up any shit, but I think this one is a slam dunk. It's not like the jet fighters of today are as vulnerable as the old fighters of WW-II. Again, back in the days of Iraq, I don't recall too many casualties involving jet fighter pilots. And those faced heavy fire from the Iraqis. You remove the human element from these strikes... you risk more innocent casualties. There's no other way to put it.

I don't mean to ramble (although that's exactly what I'm doing), but bottom line is this:

The world needs open and objective minds. Sometimes we are guilty of extremist beliefs, which cloud our better judgement and produce these broad, mostly inaccurate statements. If we're rational and leave our emotions out of it, we'll see that the truth always lies somewhere in the middle.

Again I strongly disagree with you Tito. You falsely trumpet the naive and indoctrinated belief that the USA has some kind of pursuit of nobility on its mind, when most of the evidence points in quite the opposite direction. Do your research on Reagan and his covert operations in central America in the 1980's. Keeping it in modern times alone just look at which nation has most tried to restrict due international process in the UN with the veto. The US is the guilty partner by far. Russia tails far down in the list. Then if the US gets angry with France for vetoing Iraq they get angry and say 'do it our way or you will suffer' offering incentives for the likes of Russia to commit terrorist acts in Chechnya just as long as they support it. These are mafia tactics and this is America.

America didn't give a shit about the people of Iraq whatsoever. It was just another in the grand imperial design. First you have manifest destiny and wipe out the natives, and then you embark it on a global scale and have military bases spread throughout the empire. It is no trick of the imagination. Iraq was an illegal war based on Nuremburg Principles and furthermore it had little international support. Most in the world were against it and regarded America as a menace. Other 100, 000 deaths, continued torture, bombings and uncertainty are testament to how immoral it all was. And let's not forget how poor the US made Iraq with sanctions which only really affected the general population. America has never cared about the people of Iraq.

It isn't a system designed to care. It is a psychopathic war machine that has to justify that ridiculous military spending in some way. And Romney thinks it needs more!