a plea to all americans

Mitch Farmer wrote in message . ..
[snip]
It was fitting and
proper to side with Iraq in a calculated manner against Iran just as
it was with the Soviet Union forty years earlier.


"The enemy of my friend is my enemy"

The politics of alliances is a dangerous one and we were warned as
early as the birth of this country about "entangling" ourselves in them.
You have to go back to the late 1800's, through Otto Von Bismark, and
into the confusion which became the "1st world war" to begin to
see the larger picture, but it is there to see. Supporting a bad
guy because his enemy is a "worse" guy is a perscription for disaster.
We are slowly untangling ourselves from 40 years of alliances based upon
little other than "be our friend, not theirs".

Iraq was the aggressor, there is little doubt about that. Iran was
no friend, but in essence they were as much victim as Kuwait was. That
it was "fitting" to oppose them is based upon little other than
the very immediate past at that time. What they did was indefensible
but I'm not sure it was clear thinking on our part to support a Saddam
because of it. Now, with 20/20 hindsight, it would appear it may
have been a major mistake. And potentially our second in that very place
since the Shah was no great shakes either.


It's pandora's box. You can't stick this stuff in after you open
the chains. It is why Wilson wanted the League of Nations. It is
why one war, and two atom bombs later, we agreed to the formation of
the UN. We seemed to have abandoned all that and gone back to
the concepts of "fortress america" prior to WWI, and again find ourselves
in alliances we don't seem to want to honor. And the friends of our
enemies are our enemies, and you're either with us or agin' us.

Ten years after that, the Taliban was rightly demolished.

The Taliban is only dead in Kabul. In the remote regions it is still
very much alive. Try getting your news from a source like the BBC
instead of some "fair & balanced" right-wing source.

Didn't stop us from ending the Soviet Union's reign of terror, did it?

The Soviet Union failed because Gorbachev was not willing to kill
many Soviet citizens in the revolts of the various republics, like
Lithuanina. If he had reacted like previous Soviet leaders in 1956
and 1968, those revolts would have been crushed. Gorbachev
believed in "socialism with a human face." Read books like "Lenin's
Tomb" by Remnick and others. The Soviet Union did NOT fail
because of Reagan's steely will, contrary to Bu****es like you.

Naturally you would have objected at the time to the cooperation
of the Soviet and American governments fighting Germany, correct?
It was fitting and proper to side with Iraq in a calculated manner
against Iran just as it was with the Soviet Union forty years earlier.

Talk about comparing apples with oranges. WWII was a fight to
survive with millions of lives at risk. The problem with Iran was
mostly a regional conflict, with our embassy personnel at risk of
course. We did NOT need to partner with Iraq.

You don't know anything about history.

You sure don't.

Coming from an ignorant moron like you, I'm not terribly offended.


Casey

You don't need to wait for long.
http://www.thememoryhole.org/corp/iraq-suppliers.htm:

Even before Iraq released its weapons-program dossier on 7
December 2002, it was said that the report would name the
corporations that supplied Iraq with the equipment and other
material it needed to develop biological, chemical, and nuclear
weapons. Soon after the report was released, those suspicions
were confirmed. Sources who had seen the report said that it
identified suppliers from the US, UK, Germany, France, China,
and elsewhere.

If that report is true - and I think it is - it puts those listed companies
in the same class as the companies that manufactured Zyklon-B and
other things for the Nazis during WWII. BASF is one of the
descendants of those WWII-era companies.


Casey

"Bob" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 09:16:47 -0000, "Ken Catchpole"
wrote:


"Mitch Farmer" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 05:22:13 GMT, "Casey" wrote:


it's become a cliche to say US foreign policy is 'naive'.

Indeed - it's been said so much, you wonder why it's still the case....

IIRC the USSR disbanded itself, and was largely down to Gorbarchev's
brave
"Perestroika"- and at the very least it was more complicated than "The
Americans Won". This is *exactly* the sort of naive and arrogant
banner-waving that ****es off the rest of us.

SNIP

union's collapse, the former soviet foreign minister, alexander
kozyrev, wrote an article in 'foreign affairs quarterly'. he said it
was economic competition from the US that forced the collapse of the
USSR. the soviets realized they were falling further and further
behind and couldnt catch up.

I agree - but we are both right. ...Perestroika happened due to the economic
power of the US *and* political changes in the USSR that made reform
possible [nothing to do with Jimmy Carter, the Olympics or force, as was the
flavour of the OP]. D'y see now that international politics is more
complicated than "we did x and y happened" or "we did this and won"?.

*Exactly* demonstrating my point.

you ignore the old adage about "my enemy's enemy is my friend". While it
was not strictly the taliban, US support for Afghans against the Soviets
(not RUSSIANS - SOVIETS) wasn't limited by political concerns

"Miles" wrote in message
news:BvvDb.10782$J77.6419@fed1read07...


ray wrote:
as did they back the taliban against russia (tut tut
tut
The USA did not support the Taliban.

ray wrote:
when is someone going to get around to trying george bush, and his
cronies for their crimes against the rest of the world, there is now
talk of charging saddam hussain with 'agression towards foreign land'
when he waged war on iran, does america and its convient foreign
policy forget that they backed iraq through this war, for their own
'personal benift' as did they back the taliban against russia (tut tut
tut... u thought they would atleast learn then!!)

the u.s has to sit up n start to think, (n i mean really think... not
the type g.b is used to doing!!) why are they drawing such hatred from
the rest of the world? its not just one country.. but growing public
sentiment that the current american government is nothing more than a
bull in a china shop!!!

my plea to all americans would be to please sit up and think... ur
country has produced many a great men in the past, ull can do much
better than george bush for a president, ull are can do much more than
just sit and buy the load of crap ull are force fed daily by your
media

In the free USA media can say what it wants, but citizens are smart enough
to sort out most of the crap. Something about having at least four 24/7 US
"News" channels plus the 4 majoar networks and umpteen dozen from foreign
outlets plus newspapers, etc. etc., all with their own reporters and
analysts. And, according to a poll yesterday 63% of us believe going into
Iraq was still the right thing to do. The UN failed miserably in its duty
to stand by its resolutions, still catering to Saddam after he violated
dozens of UN resolutions promising "serious actions," i.e. military force,
if he didn't change.

I'll tell you want we in the US are tired of; bankrolling European defenses
(and the UN) with hundreds of billions of our taxdollars every year and
bailing you out in your own backyard (old Yugoslavia and the USSR) over and
over again. The UN and Europe have abandoned their responsibilities in the
region and the Middle East, leaving it all up the U.S. e.g., the UN set up
Israel as an independent state after GB gave it up in 1948 and promptly
walked away. Even with more recent accords brokered by the US, the UN and
Europe have taken a "hands off" approach except for "diplomatic debates."

When the chips are down and it's time to "**** or get off the pot" only the
US and some allies have a vision for the future and the balls to act.

Even with the EU the US's major trading partners are more and more our
friends along the Pacific Rim and Asia, adding to the local clamor to leave
Europe to its own devices. For those who need a refresher in geography the
US does border Russia and almost 10% of our citizens are of Asian descent.
Another 25+ % have immigrated from our Southern American neighbors.

You say we've committed "crimes against the world." And yes, I say "we,"
not just Pres. Bush, because he does represent us, and we, along with a
large majority of our elected officials, fully support him. It's what our
Democratic Republic is all about. And what we are striving to lead the
Iraqi people into as well. Just watch us succeed. And if for some reason we
don't you can keep whining as terrorists and barbarians take over your
corner of the world, and the US has left the Continent.

MTV

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 09:16:47 -0000, "Ken Catchpole"
wrote:


"Mitch Farmer" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 05:22:13 GMT, "Casey" wrote:

In Europe, we have a lot to be greatful for from the USA, not least for
helping us rebuild after WWII - a fact that is often forgotten. However,
there is a lot of ill-sentiment towards the US because American forgein
policy is very often extremely naive, and because the people are so
inward-looking. Good foreign policy doesn't win US voters. Take a look at a
US newspaper and you'll struggle to find the half of one page devoted to
world news. The fact that most Americans have never been outside their state
(why would they - America is a big place) also means that Americans (even if
they care) simply do not *realise* they are being overly naive.

Sorry, I was fixin' my gennerater out in the back on my pickup truck
so I get coon huntin this mornin.

As it was, IIRC Bill Clinton - despite his faults - was instrumental in
signing a series of global treaties, in helping secure peace in Northern
Ireland, and in getting the Israelis and Palestinians to the negotiation
table. This was partly because he had at least seen a bit of the world, and
had been able to recognise that each case was slightly more complicated than
good vs bad, white vs black, cowboys vs indians, or Christians vs Muslims.
Fast forward five years and it's all gone to ****, not least because George
Bush, who has barely been outside Texas, reflects this deeply naive
attitutde to the world. It worries the rest of us, because the USA is such a
powerful nation, and has the potential to be a great source of evil as well
as good.

Yeppers, that Texan sure is a hoot, ain't he?

As for the "War on Terror", don't make me laugh (are you listening too,
Blair?). We might as well all call ourselves Canute and command the tide to
stop coming in.

Who's Blair? Ain't never herd of him. I got a cousin named Bear, but
that aint his reel name, hes just strong as a bear.

Oh, and:

And Stalin as well when it was necessary. Go figure. Didn't stop us
from ending the Soviet Union's reign of terror, did it? Naturally you

IIRC the USSR disbanded itself, and was largely down to Gorbarchev's brave
"Perestroika"- and at the very least it was more complicated than "The
Americans Won". This is *exactly* the sort of naive and arrogant
banner-waving that ****es off the rest of us.

You a commie or somethin? Don't like them commie pinko faggots to
much. I got a double barrel loaded waitin for you if you try somethin.

"Kenny McCormack" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Ken Catchpole wrote:
The fact (?) that most Americans have never been outside their state
(why would they - America is a big place) also means that Americans
(even if they care) simply do not *realise* they are being overly
naive.

Source?

Not that I am against the sentiment expressed (in fact, one of the truly
neat things about the US is the fact that you *don't* have to cross
international borders to see new and different areas - i.e., our "states"
are about equivalent to your "countries"), but the statistic looks fishy.

Sorry, it probably is made up on the spot. Lies, damned lies, n'all that.

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:18:38 GMT, "Casey" wrote:

Ten years after that, the Taliban was rightly demolished.

The Taliban is only dead in Kabul. In the remote regions it is still
very much alive. Try getting your news from a source like the BBC
instead of some "fair & balanced" right-wing source.

I'll wager I have traveled to more nations than you have been to
cities. If you'd like, I'll list them. About 32 now and counting. I
also read the BBC regularly you ****ing asshole, and have had a few
comments posted in the "Have your say" section to boot. The Taliban
has been removed from power and Afghanistan is improving. Let me add
this: I don't care if Afghanistan ever amounts to anything as long as
its Islamic fundie residents are kept neutered and spayed like the 7th
century aficionados they are. Except my dentist however, as SHE fled
Afghanistan for a real life here.

Didn't stop us from ending the Soviet Union's reign of terror, did it?

The Soviet Union failed because Gorbachev was not willing to kill
many Soviet citizens in the revolts of the various republics, like
Lithuanina. If he had reacted like previous Soviet leaders in 1956
and 1968, those revolts would have been crushed. Gorbachev
believed in "socialism with a human face." Read books like "Lenin's
Tomb" by Remnick and others. The Soviet Union did NOT fail
because of Reagan's steely will, contrary to Bu****es like you.

It failed due to decades of US led competition with the USSR. Gorby
was only trying to save his ass in a dying inferior system. There is
no such thing as socialism with a human face for the record.

Naturally you would have objected at the time to the cooperation
of the Soviet and American governments fighting Germany, correct?
It was fitting and proper to side with Iraq in a calculated manner
against Iran just as it was with the Soviet Union forty years earlier.

Talk about comparing apples with oranges. WWII was a fight to
survive with millions of lives at risk. The problem with Iran was
mostly a regional conflict, with our embassy personnel at risk of
course. We did NOT need to partner with Iraq.

You overstate the support the US gave Iraq. At the time, Iran was a
perceived greater threat with its growing Islamic theocracy. In
retrospect, that concern was well founded wasn't it? Iraq successfully
kept those clerics busy for a few years while we tended to ridding the
world of the USSR. Don't worry pal, Iran is going to be dealt with as
well when the time is right. We don't need or desire your input, so
**** off.

You don't know anything about history.

You sure don't.

Coming from an ignorant moron like you, I'm not terribly offended.

Coming from a Soviet apologist puke like yourself, I'm not surprised.

They did have a beautiful constitution though on paper however, didn't
they?

"Mitch Farmer" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 09:16:47 -0000, "Ken Catchpole"
wrote:


"Mitch Farmer" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 05:22:13 GMT, "Casey" wrote:


You a commie or somethin? Don't like them commie pinko faggots to
much. I got a double barrel loaded waitin for you if you try somethin.

;-)))