Another reason why the UN is a joke...

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


You have a good point. Libya hasn't gone about invading sovereign nations over the past few years, true.

Chad

BTW, there's no (a) evidence of torture being used on the Gitmo detainees, just the whiny pro forma accusations from the left, (b) they're not our citizens, and (c) they have no right to any protection under the Geneva convention, as they fail to meet the criteria for either lawful combatants or non-combatants. There's no legal impediment under international law to simply shooting the mother****ers after a summary military tribunal.

Oh, here's a question for you, Boris? Why can't you lefties be consistent on the concept of "sovereign" nations? If it's the death penalty in the US, or some commie coup, of just a target of the US for whatever reason, the left gets all flapped up about "sovereignty." If it's civil war in Somalia, the former Yugoslavia, or tribal war in Rwanda, then the left wants imperialist intervention (with enough rules and restrictions to be able to do anything) If it's a former British colony who's boundaries were determined for the convenience of British imperial administration, then granted "independence" to be ruled first by a king then by a couple of dictators who murdered their way into power (Iraq) then there's all this whining about sovereignty again. Get consistent, will ya?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
The U.S. and allies have to learn to play by the same rules their enemies play by.
Let's take assassination. Do you think for a minute all countries abhor the concept?
Personally, I'd rather seen Hussein, for instance, dusted by a single shot, than have to put our young military members at risk; but since that's not currently a viable option...

Actually, it is, assuming you could get the guy. Since he assassinated his way into power, and was involved in the original assassination plot against the king of Iraq, one could presume that motivates his security planning.

The executive order prohibiting assassinations of heads of state could simply be revoked by another executive order, but that's not even necessary for Hussein - it specifically exempts heads of state who are leaders of their nation's armed forces, since they are then a legitimate military target independent of status as a head of state.

Noriega is another example of someone who could have been dusted the same way, he just made it to the Vatican compound before anyone could shoot him, then he surrendered.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
In the 1980s a train carrying military supplies for the murderous governments of Central America ran over a protestor who was clearly visible to the train conductor moving at five miles an hour.

Showing gross ignorance of physics there, che, you ovbiously have no idea on how long it take to stop a train massing thousands of tons moving at any speed (several MILES at 30 mph) several thousand yards at 5mph. Trains are rarely able to stop within their visability distance, well know to lawyers, but not to idiot peacemongering commie protesters laying on tracks. IIRC the idiot's lawsuits were dissmised, but I do not recall the fate of the driver's suit against the idiot who lost his legs. Likely something like one of my father cases, where the fool who drove in front of an SP train, and was mangled as much as you can be without dying (over 100 fractures) sued with all sort of perjured claims about defective signals and crossing (who was unluky enough that there were a couple unevoled witness to testify that the sigls were working fine before the collision). Not only does he not get a dime, but my dad recover a $1400 countercalim against to repair the signal that was damage when the train dragged his battered body across it.

[Boris Godunov]

MtG:

I can't speak for others, but I have never said I agreed with intervention in Somalia, Rwanda or Yugoslavia in terms of direct U.S. military invasion.

I think all such undertakings should be taken with international support. What I've criticized here is unilateral interference by the U.S. in sovereign countries politics and affairs. I think it's a damn shame the UN didn't do more about Rwanda, but no way in hell would I have advocated unilateral U.S. intervention. Somalia was also an obvious mistake.

Yugoslavia was a success because it was a cooperative effort with a strong mandate from the nations of the region. It was not U.S. imperialism by any means, IMO, since the operations were conducted under the aegis of NATO.

[Adam Smith]

At 60 mph, full emergency brakes, it takes about a mile to stop an average train. At 5 mph its one or two hundred feet. Either way, the protester was way to close for the crew to do anything about it.

PS: In the US, freight trains are not run by the government.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Are You looking at current trains or 20 and thirty years ago Adam? And how many cars is an "average train" for thoses figures. They get up to over 100 cars. The biggest varibale is, however, slope ot the track.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Adam Smith

PS: In the US, freight trains are not run by the government.

Just like tanks aren't run by the Chinese government?

[Lefty Scaevola]

IIRC, The track and train of the this particular incident is run by the army until the cars are transfered to a comerciall RR at a junction. It come fright out of the Armory.

[Felch]

Boris, all the documentary evidence we have, interviews, recordings, memos, et al., indicate that the Kennedy and Johnson administrations considered Vietnam a war against Communism. Earlier aid to the French was imperialist, but was also focused on opposing Communism indirectly, since the French CP was very influential, and we wanted to keep the unstable Fourth Republic on our side of the Cold War as best we could. If you somehow know something that no serious historian has yet been able to uncover, you shouldn't be posting here. You should be writing a book, and becoming famous for proving every other scholar wrong.

Everybody seems to be criticizing the United States' human rights record, but I can't understand why. We're not saying the US should chair the thing, just that Libya shouldn't. If there are no suitable African nations to be chairs, then the UN should be reorganized to prevent regionalist silliness like this. Nations should be judged based on thei actions, not what continent they exist on.

The human rights violations people are pulling out of their asses about the United States (Che, Puerto Rico? Please) either involve indirect US involvement, like in El Salvador and such, or no real involvement at all, like East Timor. In all cases, it was simply that the US aggravated existing human rights failings, not initiating them. We're not at fault if some wealthy landowner in Central America hires a bunch of goons to kill his political enemies. We might make things easy for him, but he is the one who made the choice.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Felch X
all the documentary evidence we have, interviews, recordings, memos, et al., indicate that the Kennedy and Johnson administrations considered Vietnam a war against Communism.

The various government documents and so on that we have access to make it quite clear that the war in vietnam was a war of economic imperialism against a Communist country. The whole fear of the Stalinist model was not a fear of some mean guy not allowing people have the right to choose their leaders (USA has done quite well in violently crushing Democracies, far better than any other country out there) but the fear was of the rapid economic development that can occur in Stalinism. If Vietnam made a good example of Stalinist development, "the rot would spread" (as various government documents put it) all over Southeast Asia, and even eventually Japan. Thus, interfering with America's buisness interests in that region by removing themselves from the open sphere into a closed economic sphere.

Therefore, it was a war against a Communist country, yes. But it should be noted that the United States doesn't play favorites in that regard. Whenever a democracy arose in Latin America that began having having uppity notions such questioning the United States unrestricted access to their resources and instead using them for the betterment of their people, that Democracy was violently crushed by the USA and a military dictatorship set up. I'm not saying that the USA hates Democracy, I'm sure we would nice enough to let a Democracy exist as long as it didn't interfere with our buisness interests. But if a Democracy begins questioning our freedom to steal their resources, that Democracy should expect a short lifespan.

All this is on the public record, it doesn't take too much digging to see that no other country in the world can even come close to comparing with the murderous human rights violations of the United States, nor can any country claim to having violently put down as many Democracys as the USA.

[Chris 62]

Sometimes you just have to answer

Your post might be the most distorted version of history yet posted on Apolyton, I had to answer your nonsense.

Originally posted by monkspider
The various government documents and so on that we have access to make it quite clear that the war in vietnam was a war of economic imperialism against a Communist country.

Nonsense, neither North nor South vietnam was anywhere near having stable economies, both lacked stablity and fiscal responsibility.
"Economic Imperialism" might be the stupidest catch phrase I ever heard.
The US was not there for the markets, how rediculous.

The whole fear of the Stalinist model was not a fear of some mean guy not allowing people have the right to choose their leaders (USA has done quite well in violently crushing Democracies, far better than any other country out there)

More bull, Stalin and Communist Russia is the world leader in this, by light years, they managed to stifle ALL of Eastern and most of Central Europe for 5 decades, as well as bring it to both South America, Africa and Asia.
Unless you know history, don't try to argue it, all your posting is bunk.

but the fear was of the rapid economic development that can occur in Stalinism.

HA HA HA HA HA
Stalin took YEARS to make something of a stable economy, and only by RUTHLESS explotation of European slave labor was he able to get, NOBODY was fearing THAT economic model.

If Vietnam made a good example of Stalinist development, "the rot would spread" (as various government documents put it) all over Southeast Asia, and even eventually Japan.

Wrong and right, it was not an example of Stalinist Communist, it was more akin to Mao, but they did fear it spreading.

Thus, interfering with America's buisness interests in that region by removing themselves from the open sphere into a closed economic sphere.

Simplistic strap on answer to a complex problem.
Economics was the LAST reason for US intervention in South east Asia.

Therefore, it was a war against a Communist country, yes. But it should be noted that the United States doesn't play favorites in that regard. Whenever a democracy arose in Latin America that began having having uppity notions such questioning the United States unrestricted access to their resources and instead using them for the betterment of their people, that Democracy was violently crushed by the USA and a military dictatorship set up.

More bull, does the US control Brasil?
Agentina?
Or any of the other South American democracies?
Taking one example, Chile, and appying it to a blanket condemnation is nonsense.

I'm not saying that the USA hates Democracy, I'm sure we would nice enough to let a Democracy exist as long as it didn't interfere with our buisness interests.

Yet again, PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
Your not going to slide by without examples that are factual, so start coming up with some.

But if a Democracy begins questioning our freedom to steal their resources, that Democracy should expect a short lifespan.

HA HA HA HA HA
You sound like a 1930s Communist Newsreal!

All this is on the public record, it doesn't take too much digging to see that no other country in the world can even come close to comparing with the murderous human rights violations of the United States, nor can any country claim to having violently put down as many Democracys as the USA.

HA HA HA HA HA
Stalin killed between 30 and 60 million, nobody knows for sure, Mao also wiped out millions, Pol Pot was on record as killing at least 2 million, and the US leads?
Like the rest of your "facts", pure bunk.

You need to do some SERIOUS reading into what Communist nations really did, i know the US doesn't have clean hands, but your WAY out of wack.

[monkspider]

Re: Sometimes you just have to answer

Originally posted by Chris 62
Nonsense, neither North nor South vietnam was anywhere near having stable economies, both lacked stablity and fiscal responsibility.

True, but as my post later clarified, Vietnam itself wasn't a matter of great interest for the USA. But if the "example" of Vietnam spread, possibly even as far as Japan, it would create a very problematic situation for American buisness interests.

The US was not there for the markets, how rediculous.

Why else would the USA be there? To spread freedom and Democracy?

More bull, Stalin and Communist Russia is the world leader in this, by light years, they managed to stifle ALL of Eastern and most of Central Europe for 5 decades, as well as bring it to both South America, Africa and Asia.

What Democracies did the USSR stifle in South America or Africa or Asia? The USSR tended to allow China to handle things in Asia.
The USA has crushed democracies time and time again in latin America, killing millions of innocents in the process, all to prop military dictatorships in the name of US buisness interests.

Unless you know history, don't try to argue it, all your posting is bunk.

Respectfully, I would say the same to you.

HA HA HA HA HA
Stalin took YEARS to make something of a stable economy, and only by RUTHLESS explotation of European slave labor was he able to get, NOBODY was fearing THAT economic

Wrong, Stalinism was successful to a large degree. There is a good reason why the Soviet Union was referred to as the second world. It took third world peasents and despite crippling civil war and two world wars, improved the standard of living for the average soviet quite considerably. Of course, when the Soviet Union whent capitalist, it took all those Russian workers back to the third world, but we're not supposed to say that. I appologize. I know any success that Stalinism had doesn't justify it. But American leaders at the time were quite concerned with the ammount of economic progress the Stalinist model can create in a short period of time. At least, up until the late 70s or so, when things started to stagnate.

Simplistic strap on answer to a complex problem.
Economics was the LAST reason for US intervention in South east Asia.

Despite this statement going against all offical documents and so forth to the contrary, I will go ahead and humor you: What, pray tell, was the reason for USA intervention then?

Or any of the other South American democracies?
Taking one example, Chile, and appying it to a blanket condemnation is nonsense.

The USA is in de facto control of a number of SA countries. Such as Columbia, where we have been propping up a pro-US government called the most corrupt in the world for years. All of this is no secret or bizarre conspiracy theory. It's all on the public record. Which is something I suggest that you make yourself more famillar with.

HA HA HA HA HA
Stalin killed between 30 and 60 million, nobody knows for sure, Mao also wiped out millions, Pol Pot was on record as killing at least 2 million, and the US leads?

Well I was speaking more in terms of the post war world. But Stalin, according to most accepted estimates, killed no more than one million people. These various 60 million estimates are preposterous and come from cold war period pieces attempting to demonize the USSR by any means nescarry. That would have been such a huge percentage of the population the USSR would have collapsed in a week.
In any event, if you look at the USA's record of intervention. You will find millions and millions of innocents dead. 4 million in vietnam alone, and a few million here and there in various latin american or third world countries. The post-war USA would put Stalin to shame, for sure.

You need to do some SERIOUS reading into what Communist nations really did.

Respectfully, I suggest that you do the same in regards to what the USA has done. I am fully aware that Stalin was a bastard and I don't try to deny this. Stalin was no better than the USA, and set back the cause of socialism for years. As a christian, I find any kind of mass-murder deplorable, and that applies to the actions of the USA as well. Simply because it is my home country doesn't mean I should try to turn a blind eye to it's actions.

[NeOmega]

Yes, we ran over our citizens with tanks when they wanted a better life...no wait that was China.

I hope your not referring to Tianemen Square. Nobody was run over with Tanks.

Kent State Shows how the U.S. reacts after a mere six days, and a couple thousand people.

Tianemen lasted for 3 months, and had 200,000 - 300,000 people.... and the students were beginning to get luny in their claims. As if 200,000 student think they can voice what China wants, a country of 1,000,000,000+

And then we arrested a bunch of them because they created a new religion...oh, that was China, sorry.

No, we killed the Branch Davidians.

Well, we do attck unarmed recon planes in international airspace...no wait, that was China.

I am sure we would if China were arrogant enough to fly recon planes 12 miles off our coast.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by NeOmega
As if 200,000 student think they can voice what China wants, a country of 1,000,000,000+

Damn student agitators. How dare they protest for democratic reforms!

http://www.time.com/time/asia/asiabuzz/2000/05/29/

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Damn student agitators. How dare they protest for democratic reforms!

First mistaken assumption..... Democracy is not necessarily the best form of government. It really matters on the people running the country.

Second Mistaken Assumption.... The students did not show up to protest Communism. They were there to protest corruption.... the communist leaders straying from communist principles and enriching themselves.

Third mistaken Assumption.... when a girl gets up, in the later stages of the protests, and begins yelling "I am commander and chief of the new peoples Democracy of China!" and has a following of 35,000+, although, obviously, nobody elected her, and in fact another factional leader has sprung up.... things are getting a little crazy..... Luny.

Fourth Mistaken assumption...... your link leads anywhere but to a blank page.... or that I want the cookies from your link.