thank you france, germany, russia, china, etc

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon
Only if you come up with some decent arguments instead of posting the same old tired crap. If you can't understand that international relations are for the most part governed by realpolitik, then you really aren't qualified to enter this discussion.

Anyway, how about showing us these vaunted weapons of mass destruction? I haven't seen one yet, and there were supposed to be thousands, right?

Realpolitik. Check. I agree for the most part. Then why are you surprised that the US would engage in it, and why do you whine incessantly about American foreign policy?

Originally posted by Agathon
You know - you too will have to do better than this. I said that it didn't matter what Chirac's motives were. My point was that the Ameri-scum weren't much different (in fact their motives were probably worse) and that Chirac was on the right side, albeit for different reasons.

You can flap on all you like, but this war was waged on fake pretexts partly to make sure that people of limited political awareness, like yourself, would vote for little George in the upcoming election. And you all bought it.

And don't give me that crap about the US helping the Iraqui people. Everyone with half a brain knows that foreign policy has very little to do with caring; and everyone who watched the news media knows that they slipped back to that excuse after all their others were shown to be wanting.

Ameri-scum? Oh, OK. I think I see the answer.

btw, since the US government is doing things to better the position of the US in the region (I agree that is why they did it) and you seem to think that is how all foreign affairs are governed, why are you so pissed off that they have to do it in such a way as to be of some benefit to the locals in order to ensure support for their policies with their own people? Doesn't sound so bad to me. The US acts like every other nation would if they had the muscle to do so, but is tempered by the sensibilities of the American people. Can you think of any better way to do it when there is a hegemon?

[Menlas]

Originally posted by skywalker
I'm sure you're wrong. We supplied the vast majority of the military equipment and personell. The only people who paid for stuff that wasn't theirs were the Saudis (and maybe the Kuwaitis... but I don't know there).

What I found on http://www.ledevoir.com/2003/03/06/21844.html :

La première guerre du Golfe était justifiée par l'invasion du Koweït par les troupes de Saddam Hussein et l'offensive avait été décidée d'un commun accord entre puissances occidentales alliées. La facture avait ensuite été partagée entre l'Arabie Saoudite (31 %), le Koweït (29 %), le Japon (17 %), l'Allemagne (12 %) et les États-Unis pour le solde (un peu plus de 10 %).

Gulf War 1 was justified by the Kuwait invasion by Saddam Hussein troops, and the offensive had been collectively decided by the western allied countries. The bill had then been shared between Saoudi Arabia (31%), Kuweit (29%), Japan (17%), Germany (12%) and US (a bit more than 10%).

Cruddy : point taken, ok

And sorry for the little off-topic, however the whole thread seems to have turned OT, so...

[Kuciwalker]

Ok, I may be wrong. But we did supply most of the military forces, even if we didn't pay for it

[Kidlicious]

Maybe the resources will be devoted to Iraq that are needed now.

On another note, let this stand as an example of how the Republicans handle a crisis. They showed no willingness to immediately get things going again in Iraq and the people there have suffered. The question is why do we trust them in America when we know they will fvck up every single time there is a crisis and they are responsible for handling it.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by PLATO1003
Interesting...How were they going to do that when in 1942 their production capacity was almost at zero and they were relying on the US for over 80% of their arms and food. (which btw was not nearly enough to feed the population adequately)?

This is certainly not true. What is true is that Stalin appeared weaker than he was to get the aid and to get the allies to invade N. Europe.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by PLATO1003

Agathon, I think you misread his quote.

Perhaps. I thought he was disagreeing with me by agreeing with me.

Of course the United States was pursuing its own interests in WWII. That's about the sum of my claim. Again, why is this so controversial?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by notyoueither

Realpolitik. Check. I agree for the most part. Then why are you surprised that the US would engage in it, and why do you whine incessantly about American foreign policy?

Because realpolitik is evil and unjust: any decent person should oppose unjust wars.

btw, since the US government is doing things to better the position of the US in the region (I agree that is why they did it) and you seem to think that is how all foreign affairs are governed, why are you so pissed off that they have to do it in such a way as to be of some benefit to the locals in order to ensure support for their policies with their own people?

I'm pissed off when anyone does it. I doubt that it will be of that much benefit to the locals and considerable disutility should they decide that they want to take their fate into their own hands.

Doesn't sound so bad to me. The US acts like every other nation would if they had the muscle to do so,

And why not object to it. Might does not make right.

but is tempered by the sensibilities of the American people.

*blinks*

You are kidding me, right?

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Agathon


Perhaps. I thought he was disagreeing with me by agreeing with me.

Of course the United States was pursuing its own interests in WWII. That's about the sum of my claim. Again, why is this so controversial?

If that is the sum of your claim, it's the way you are putting it that is raising so much laughter.

Of course the USA got benefits from WW2. Winners generally benefit from winning. The point is, WW2 was not a US idea.

It was a Fascist/Communist idea. When it became obvious that Fascist militarism could only be opposed by force, that's what happened.

Or do you seriosusly think otherwise?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon
*blinks*

You are kidding me, right?

You're probably right there too. Might be better if they did it the way the USSR then, the Russians now, and the PRC do these things. Far fewer people around to protest against them when they're done...

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by PLATO1003
Interesting...How were they going to do that when in 1942 their production capacity was almost at zero and they were relying on the US for over 80% of their arms and food. (which btw was not nearly enough to feed the population adequately)?

80%!?? I don't know whether I should be angry or simply laugh

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by The Vagabond


80%!?? I don't know whether I should be angry or simply laugh

Laugh, and the whole world laughs with you. Or something like that.

[Kuciwalker]

The whole wide world except agathon

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Cruddy

If that is the sum of your claim, it's the way you are putting it that is raising so much laughter.

Don't blame me because you can't read.

Of course the USA got benefits from WW2. Winners generally benefit from winning. The point is, WW2 was not a US idea.

You show me where I ever said that WWII was a US idea. All I claimed was that its involvement in the war and post war in Europe was for self interested reasons - mainly because if either the Soviet Union or Germany had dominated Europe the US would have been in a geostrategically (yes it is a word) poor position. Hence the claims of US "selfless generosity" towards Europe are so much bunk.

Or do you seriosusly think otherwise?

No and only an illiterate would understand me as saying so. Go back and read the couple of sentences I posted on this topic. Then perform the mental operations needed to get from them to your ridiculous accusations. Or do you habitually indulge in such "creative interpretation"?

[Kuciwalker]

No, the US became involved in World War II because (in the Pacific) we were ATTACKED and because (in Europe) we were declared war upon. Despite the advantages (or disadvantages), we would not have gone to war if it hadn't been for that.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by skywalker
we would not have gone to war if it hadn't been for that.

Prove it.