deepak, ever hear of stalin. he might have been the SINGLE greatest killer in all of history. Somehow your going to say something nice about him arent you? 
later,
later,
How dare *YOU* criticize *THIS* war or *THESE* war plans
- Thread starter pxc
- Start date
Neutrality
Newcomer
Deepak said:
*sigh*
Deepak, what the hell are you on?
I want some............
-Neutrality-
chavvdarrr
Veteran
damn.
over and over again - black&white.
Some are white&fluff, others are black&dirty .............
Deepak says how he sees the things, and some of you say, he's dumb. But not saying WHY. because you're american? Just seeing such answers I can say he's not gonna change his POV.
That's not the way to discuss. Usually everyone gives his arguements, and answers questions pointed to him. Using insults like " you're dumb, you're left", does not help, even if it looks obvious for you.
IMHO, USSR were bad. Their way was not good way. But they were definetely not "evil empire" by design. Especially in 80's .Neither USA's way is best possible, but better maybe.
There is no way to determine for sure, if one takes in acount how different were both countries start positions after WW2.
And - someone in another discussion answered me that USA were the power that took the biggest part of winning WW2. that's just an example how watching too many times "saving Rayan" can twist so's mind. Or an indication how bad were his history-teachers. Should I call such man dumb? Obviously not. Some people seem to think their POV is the only possible truth.
then again, to fight "empire of evil" is fighting by all possible means, no matter the price.
over and over again - black&white.
Some are white&fluff, others are black&dirty .............
Deepak says how he sees the things, and some of you say, he's dumb. But not saying WHY. because you're american? Just seeing such answers I can say he's not gonna change his POV.
That's not the way to discuss. Usually everyone gives his arguements, and answers questions pointed to him. Using insults like " you're dumb, you're left", does not help, even if it looks obvious for you.
IMHO, USSR were bad. Their way was not good way. But they were definetely not "evil empire" by design. Especially in 80's .Neither USA's way is best possible, but better maybe.
There is no way to determine for sure, if one takes in acount how different were both countries start positions after WW2.
And - someone in another discussion answered me that USA were the power that took the biggest part of winning WW2. that's just an example how watching too many times "saving Rayan" can twist so's mind. Or an indication how bad were his history-teachers. Should I call such man dumb? Obviously not. Some people seem to think their POV is the only possible truth.
then again, to fight "empire of evil" is fighting by all possible means, no matter the price.
chavvdarr, some things are black and white. no matter how much you would like to muddy things up. USSR was an evil empire. There is no question about it. They had leaders that had no problem with killing millions of people, they might have sent millions more to the gulag. The gulag was not a summer camp, people died there for the not going along with the government. How simple is that, they were evil. Now in their demanted minds, they might have seen some reason for this, but i cant see reasonable people not seeing that this is bad.
Like I said the US did stumble from time to time in its war with the USSR. However the fact that they won, is worth the mistakes made.
The reason I did not like what deepak said was because his arguments were not reasonable. It was a basic bash US argument. Please give me a break!
BTW who do you think carried most of the fighting during WW2? The french.
later,
Like I said the US did stumble from time to time in its war with the USSR. However the fact that they won, is worth the mistakes made.
The reason I did not like what deepak said was because his arguments were not reasonable. It was a basic bash US argument. Please give me a break!
BTW who do you think carried most of the fighting during WW2? The french.
later,
epic.....
I am not bashing US....I am only trying to say that US is no goody-goody.....they are no better.....if Stalin killed millions....
I know this has repeated millions time....but...
Only US has ever used WMDs (ironically)......it nuked Japan killing hundreds of innocent civilians even when there was no need for it.....
It killed millions in Vietnam....
It has aided many non-democratic regimes...and continues to do so...infact many times it has conspired against democratic govts (in central america) if they went against US interests....
Osama was a creation of US not USSR....
Saddam was an US ally not so long ago////
Taliban was created by then Pakistani govt with the blessings of US....
ironically talibans were barbaric even before 9-11 but US never did anything...infact UNOCAL was trying to fix a deal with them in return for an OIL pipeline from central Asia.....
so basically all current TERRORISTS were US allies at one point of time....
So US is not so nice as they pretend to be......
I am not bashing US....I am only trying to say that US is no goody-goody.....they are no better.....if Stalin killed millions....
I know this has repeated millions time....but...
Only US has ever used WMDs (ironically)......it nuked Japan killing hundreds of innocent civilians even when there was no need for it.....
It killed millions in Vietnam....
It has aided many non-democratic regimes...and continues to do so...infact many times it has conspired against democratic govts (in central america) if they went against US interests....
Osama was a creation of US not USSR....
Saddam was an US ally not so long ago////
Taliban was created by then Pakistani govt with the blessings of US....
ironically talibans were barbaric even before 9-11 but US never did anything...infact UNOCAL was trying to fix a deal with them in return for an OIL pipeline from central Asia.....
so basically all current TERRORISTS were US allies at one point of time....
So US is not so nice as they pretend to be......
While the US isn't all roses, it certainly isn't the "friend of all terrorists" at one point or another.
The Pakistan that the US is "allied" to is Musharref, who, coincidentally, is not the one who spawned the Taliban. The Taliban supporters in Pakistan are left over from the previous regime. Musharref is doing his best to keep Pakistan relatively secular.
Hezbullah is definately the product of Syria and the Islamic Republic of Iran, neither one of which has ever been on the US's list of close friends.
The Pakistan that the US is "allied" to is Musharref, who, coincidentally, is not the one who spawned the Taliban. The Taliban supporters in Pakistan are left over from the previous regime. Musharref is doing his best to keep Pakistan relatively secular.
Hezbullah is definately the product of Syria and the Islamic Republic of Iran, neither one of which has ever been on the US's list of close friends.
To try to create a moral equivialancy between the US and the USSR is absolutely astounding. I am truly flabbergasted that there is anyone in the entire world who can not see the moral distinction between them. The only excuses I can find is a lack of knowledge regarding historical facts, lack of a careful consideration of those facts, or, in the worst case scenario, moral bankruptcy on the part of the person making the comparison. Deepak, I'm going to assume that you are a good person yourself and I'm guessing that you are simply unaware of some facts and haven't considered some ideas.Deepak said:
For example, consider the treatment of captured territory after WW2. Can anyone honestly say that, in the post WW2 period, Poland belonged to the Poles or Hungary belonged to the Hungarians? No, they belonged to the Soviet empire. Although the Red Army drove the Nazis out of Poland, they didn't liberate Poland. They set up local Communist Parties which were controlled by Moscow. They occupied Central/Eastern Europe for themselves, making Stalin the new master. When the people tried to escape Soviet influence, they paid a harsh price. (Hungary 1956; Czechoslovakia 1968)
Contrast Poland with France. After the war was over, France belonged to the French. As the US, British, Canadian, and Free French forces liberated Western Europe, they really did liberate Western Europe. And shortly after the war, when Europe couldn't even feed itself, the Marshall Plan and other assistance created a foundation upon which the Europeans built their current liberty and prosperity. (I hope the long term results of the current situation in Iraq will be just as good.)
I won't take time here to discuss any other examples, but, Deepak, I encourage you to re-examine the issue with an open mind. Perhaps you will gain a new perspective.
ZoinKs! said:
Hey! It is not as if only Soviets installed puppet regimes....US is no better....
who is Karzai...
who will be the next leader of Iraq (with blessings of US)...
The fact is US has always tried to destroy anti-US govts doesnt matter if they were democratic govts...they dont care.....
more latter...
Sigh, I can only inform those that want to be informed of the truth. I see that you and others dont care about the truth and would rather slam/bash the US. Well Im quiting this particular thread. Im tired of arguing the same things over and over again. Deepak please see some of my previous posts on the US helping osama, saddam in the past.Deepak said:
later,
*sigh* I will, for now at least, persist in my attempt to provide some enlightenment since it appears you are unaware of another set of facts.Deepak said:
The current leader of Afghanistan. He was elected by the people of Afghanistan through means of the Loya Jirga, the Afghani Grand Council. Doesn't sound like a puppet regime to me.
No one knows that yet. It's probably an issue Bush and Blair will discuss when they meet in Northern Ireland. Most likely, for 6-12 months after war's end, the "next leader" will be an interim government in which most internal affairs are handled by Iraqis while security and international affairs handled by the US and Britain and humanitarian assistance is handled by the UN. Eventually, the Iraqi people will elect a new governent which will replace the interim government. When the Iraqi military is rebuilt, they'll handle their own security as well.
This is what's happening right now in Afghanistan. An interim government made by the people of that nation was formed, and a national Afghani army is being assembled. This same process also happened in Germany and Japan, and I don't think either of them would appreciate being called "puppet regimes."
Contrast the examples above with Soviet behaviour. In 1956, Hungary tried to separate from Soviet influence. The result was 20,000 dead Hungarians and Hungary's prime minister was executed for treason. Or consider the USSR's response to the Solidarity movement in Poland during the early '80s. The USSR announced large scale military "exercises" near Poland's border and started mobilizing a million or so troops. Poland's leaders took the hint and crushed Solidarity.
Be more cautious when using the word "always." It doesn't "always" apply. There've certainly been times the US has done things it shouldn't have done, not done things it should have done, or left undone things it should have finished.
But this doesn't make the US a villain of the same caliber of the Soviet Union. (A case could be made that the US has been the world's single greatest force for good for the last two or three generations.) In the Cold War period, the Soviet Union was, as Reagan put it, "The focus of evil in the modern world." There's a vast gulf between the occasional errors of US foreign policy and the never ending struggle to sieze and hold on to others which characterized the communist Soviet empire.
To claim that the "US is no better" than the USSR is a sign of ignorance of the facts, not enough analysis of those facts, or moral illiteracy.
Deepak, I ask you to re-examine this issue with an open mind. On questions of morality, a vast gulf separated the US and USSR. You are currently on the wrong side of history.
Firstly, you are flat out wrong in every aspect on this first portion of your comment.
Example 1: 1987: Saddam used mustard gas (a weapon of mass destruction) on Kurdish Iranians.
Example 2: 1993: Aum Shinri Kyo cult releases Anthrax from rooftops in Tokyo (anthrax was improperly incubated, and no human lives were lost, only birds and other small animals died). They also executed two Sarin gas attacks in 1994 and 1995, killing 18 people and injuring thousands (who only survived due to the incompetent manner of releasing the gas). They were also implicated when police discovered a device containing Cyanide, which could have killed 9,000 people.
Example 3: Many countries, including the U.S., U.K., Russia, China, Pakistan, and India, have used nuclear weapons in testing.
A correct statement would have been "The U.S. is the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons on a populated region of enemy territory." An even more appropriate statement, which would reflect the context of the attack, would be to say that "The U.S. is the only nation to have ever successfully used nuclear weapons on a populated region of enemy terrority in order to force the enemy to surrender."
That is your (uneducated) belief, and not a fact, so please don't try and present it as one. It is also not a belief shared by the majority of the world. If you want to argue about the United States' mistakes with regards to Japanese in WW2, please use justified arguments, such as the confinement of Japanese Americans in California. The 200,000 Japenese civilians who lost their lives in Hiroshima and Nagasaki pale in comparison to the estimated 35,000,000 Chinese killed during the Japanese invasion between 1894 and 1945. There is also a difference in using WMD's to stop a war and prevent prolonged circumstances which would ammount to an even greater loss of life (U.S. bombing of Japan), as opposed to using them in genocide (Saddam gassing Kurds) or as terrorist attacks (sending Anthrax-filled letters to Americans).
Deepak said:
According to our Constitution, and the ideals of democracy, it's the right of the people to decide who should govern the country. The U.S. isn't appointing their leaders, just giving the Iraqi people the opportunity to decide for themselves. Of course, someone will get put in charge until the system is built, because someone has to be in control. If you want to view that as the U.S. deciding who should govern the country, it's your right to have that perception I guess.
Neutrality
Newcomer
Deepak said:
I could see your point if Saddam was CHOSEN by the people of Iraq to rule the country but since he is not your point is rather useless and irrelevant.
Little history lesson for you :
In 1991 just after the war the kurdish population in the north and the shia muslims in the south rebelled against Saddams regime. They failed and ended up with several hundred thousand killed. They showed that the Iraqi people HAVE the the will to change the regime but LACK the power to do so. For the majority of the Iraqi population the removal of Saddam and this war is something they have been hoping for for a long time now.
Deepak, I personally find it quite astounding that a person can come here and talk so much crap about some many things without knowing even the most basic facts.
-Neutrality-
Neutrality said:
There are people who dont like the US, period. And will misquote or misrepresent facts to suit their needs. They see the trees but not the forest. The US has made mistakes but that pales in comparisions to all the good it has done in the world.
I am saddened that such attitudes still exists around the world.
later,
Didnt want to come back to this thread but I could not believe the amount of nonsense coming out from some.
Crusher said:
Yep pretty much the reason we say they are unalienable rights, is because no one can give them away, and no one can take them, therefore anyone that takes them is wrong.
I will grant you the US has done many stupid things, and used bad arguments to say well the greater good and what not, but I truly believe that in this case it is much more justified, because we our giving our lives, not just weapons like in afganistan, and to other despot leaders. And because we are not out on some complicated game to prop up a pro-US regime that is despicable for debateable gains against the USSR. In Vietnam we did not like their democratically elected leader, so I also grant that at times we did not do what we should have, but until you see what happens now you won't know. Hopefully we will let them vote, and hopefully the election will go off in a manner that is actually fair.
Then we will see what happens.
I am pleased to see that you have (apparently) dropped the allegation that the US and USSR were morally equivalent.Deepak said:
And I think I now see some root causes of why you are/were so vehemently biased against the US. (My first guess had been that maybe all your teachers were Marxists, but I changed my mind when I realized you don't like the USSR either.) While some parts (maybe major parts) of my new analysis are likely wrong, I'll share my ideas in the next two paragraphs and let you correct any errors:
The cause of the bias against the US is emotional resentment, which in the US/USSR comparison clouded your judgement of the historical facts. The US has power and, from time to time, has been willing to use that power. The USSR once upon a time had power and, from time to time, was willing to use that power. Therefore you decided that the two nations were the same.
I don't know if it is the power itself, the way the power is used, or the fact that the power is used to influence others; but there's something about it which you find abhorrent. Please let me know if this analysis is anywhere close to the truth.
---
And now I'll briefly respond to some specifics of the post quoted above.
The US has decided that Saddam should not govern Iraq any longer. Is that a wrong decision? Should Saddam govern Iraq for years to come, die peacefully at an old age, and pass the power onto his son?
The US has decided that the people of Iraq deserve something better than Saddam Hussein's boot on their neck. The coalition has decided the people of Iraq deserve clean water, food, and the profits from their nation's natural resources. The US has decided that the people of Iraq deserve a chance: a chance for liberty, a chance for democracy, a chance for safety, and a chance for prosperity. They could have none of these things as long as Saddam remained in power.
I hope these benefits will be the long term result of the war. (Just like the liberty and prosperity of modern Europe and Japan were benefits of our victories in the Second World War and Cold War.) And I also think that war against Saddam's regime was the only way to give the people of Iraq a chance to gain those benefits.
ZoinKs! said:
IMO this is the kind of arrogant attitude US needs to abandon!
BTW why didnt US remove Saddam in 91 war itself....? They had a chance then!
Kurds were gassed in 88....why suddenly US remembered it in 2003 and decided to punish Saddam...?
US attacked Iraq this time becoz of *non-compliance* of resolution 1441 (?)....that means Iraq didnt declare its WMDs (according to US)....so do you guys feel that had Iraq declared its WMDs, US shouldnt have attacked Iraq and let Saddam run the country?
I guess you dont like the US deciding/doing when you can argue/debate endlessly in the UN. Problem is that powerless people die.BTW 1441 said something to the effect that we know you have WMDs and you need to show to us the WMDs (and destroy them) or prove that you dont have them (or have destroyed the ones we know you had).
Im going to state it again deepak, you see a tree or two but refuse to see the forest.
Saddam was not removed in 91 because the old Pres Bush did not have a mandate from the UN to remove him. Too bad he didnt just listen to the people of Iraq and do the job without the UN. We now know better that the UN has lost all credibility to deal with major crisis that might require force. Case and point North Korea, everyone wants the US to deal with it, except the US wants the UN to get a backbone and do its job for once.
About the kurds, I have stated in other threads here that my main reason for going to war was for the people of Iraq. I wish we could have liberated them back then. Unfortunatly we were still dealing with a bigger evil the USSR, and we needed Iraq in our corner.
Argue all you want there deepak that the USSR wasnt evil, but they were. Not sure how you cant see a ruthless killer for anything but a ruthless killer. Here in the states we see them as killers, not sure what you call them in India, maybe "misunderstood people"?
sigh,
Similar threads
- Locked
