Mugabe is at it again

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Kirnwaffen

Indeed it does, but the way in which you're argument was made appeared to justify Chirac's behavior and state that he is above criticism by Americans simply because past administrations have actively sponsored worse dictators.

I do not seek to justify Chirac's behaviour, nor does my argument support that. However the phrase 'people in glass houses' springs to mind. As does the phrase, 'if you lie with dogs, you rise with fleas'.

[Kirnwaffen]

However the phrase 'people in glass houses' springs to mind.

So the extent of you're argument is 'you should shut up because you're government did the same thing'?

If so, you're argument still qualifies as ad hominem.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Shot down by the USAF? KAL is coming to mind, but I doubt it was the USAF.

The Iranian airliner shot down by an American ship was the one I'm think of.

Cuban-American paid by the US government to do the deed? Anyways, show me the civies targetting other civies. That is terrorism. I will condemn that.

The man was a paid agent of the CIA. He planted a bomb aboard a Cuban airliner leaving Venezuela in the 1970s. It killed all 87 people on board. He was jailed for a time in Costa Rica, but the US leaned on them big time to let him go, and today he's retired in Miami somewhere.

Post cold-war? How about the School of the Americas, that continues to train torturers and murderers. The US supported the genocidal occupation of East Timor up to the very end. It continues to support the genocidal occupation of West Papua by Indonesia. Today the US supports the murderous government of Columbia, giving them two billion dollars in the last couple of years to continue slaughtering their own people. That's just a few examples.

We haven't changed. We just don't have a nuclear armed adversay to stop us anymore.

[Carver]

Originally posted by notyoueither

re terrorism. Pfft. How many airliners blown up by American backed forces? How many school buses? None, or near none. Please don't cloud the real issue about terrorism by equating Muslims who fire stingers at Russian attack helicopters with Chechyns who hold theatres full of civilians hostage.

Plenty. Those are exactly the kinds of attacks conducted by the US backed Contras in Nicaragua and the US and South African backed UNITA in Angola. These "freedom fighters" routinely laid landmines indiscriminantly where they would kill civilians. UNITA repeatedly attacked passenger rail cars and buses, kidnapping and/or killing the occupants.

And Reagan's friends in South Africa joyfully bombed church offices and other anti-apartheid officies. F.W. deKlerk finally admitted a few days ago that he knew the bombing of Khotso House (the South African Council of Churches) had been authorized before it happened - and apparently made no effort to intervene. Additionally, the South Africans liked terrorizing neighboring states by blowing up clinics and schools in Mozambique and elsewhere.

[Carver]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Reagan supported aparthied.

Can you come up with any real proof on this and not parrot out the propaganda that he refused sanctions on S. Africa, while not stating why he did so (btw, the reason was that he believed in constructive engagement with S. Africa, you know the same thing we are doing with China).

Constructive Engagement = give those good ole white boys a pat on the back

The US supplied South Africa with its first nuke reactor and weapons grade uranium for almost ten years. The US allowed South Africa's many chemical and biological weapons staff to freely enter the US and attend conferences and gather research.

The US didn't stop (as it obviously could) Israel from helping: build South Africa's jet fighter, the Atlas Cheetah (a direct derivative of the IAI Kfir); the South African nuclear weapons program; the South African ballistic missle program. Much Israeli tech is US derived, thus US tech was transfered to South Africa via Israel.

Reagan assisted the South African incursions into Angola and Mozambique with intelligence, satellite photos etc.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Constructive Engagement = give those good ole white boys a pat on the back

So with China we are giving the 'Asian boys' a pat on the back? Please. We can stop this 'Kill Whitey' argument now.

The US supplied South Africa with its first nuke reactor and weapons grade uranium for almost ten years. The US allowed South Africa's many chemical and biological weapons staff to freely enter the US and attend conferences and gather research.

The US didn't stop (as it obviously could) Israel from helping: build South Africa's jet fighter, the Atlas Cheetah (a direct derivative of the IAI Krif); the South African nuclear weapons program; the South African ballistic missle program. Much Israeli tech is US derived, thus US tech was transfered to South Africa via Israel.

Reagan assisted the South African incursions into Angola and Mozambique with intelligence, satellite photos etc.

I fail to see how any of this deals with supporting apartheid. I see him supporting a government that was an ally against Communism. I fail to see how that leads to one think he condoned all that was going on inside of the country. Unless you think that if you support a country for ONE reason, then you directly support them for every reason. Attributing the specific to the whole, a common logical fallacy.

[Carver]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Constructive Engagement = give those good ole white boys a pat on the back

So with China we are giving the 'Asian boys' a pat on the back? Please. We can stop this 'Kill Whitey' argument now.

Who said kill Whitey? China has not dehumanized an entire race of people, consigning them to a life of political/economic inferiority from birth.

I fail to see how any of this deals with supporting apartheid. I see him supporting a government that was an ally against Communism. I fail to see how that leads to one think he condoned all that was going on inside of the country. Unless you think that if you support a country for ONE reason, then you directly support them for every reason. Attributing the specific to the whole, a common logical fallacy.

Whether he "condoned" apartheid or not he supported it by supporting the government and the military that kept it in place. Saying they are anti-cummunist is not a valid defense for helping to enslave millions of people.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by notyoueither
Shot down by the USAF? KAL is coming to mind, but I doubt it was the USAF.

The Iranian airliner shot down by an American ship was the one I'm think of.

Right. Now relate that to the original statement re terrorism. I recall the incident. It was in the Persian Gulf. A Navy ship mistook an airliner for a threat and shot it down. Where are the terrorists in civies intentionally targetting civies?

Cuban-American paid by the US government to do the deed? Anyways, show me the civies targetting other civies. That is terrorism. I will condemn that.

The man was a paid agent of the CIA. He planted a bomb aboard a Cuban airliner leaving Venezuela in the 1970s. It killed all 87 people on board. He was jailed for a time in Costa Rica, but the US leaned on them big time to let him go, and today he's retired in Miami somewhere.

How effective do you think arguments would be if they relied on citations of Russian intelligence paying the perpetrators today, without confirmation somehow?

At any rate, I will not quibble more on the point. Terrorism is despicable, no matter who uses it and I am certain that some of the fellow travellers of the US in the past have used it. I don't think it needs more debate, unless it is unclear that what the US, and Canada for that matter, would have done during the Cold War is not something to judge current actions by.

Post cold-war? How about the School of the Americas, that continues to train torturers and murderers. The US supported the genocidal occupation of East Timor up to the very end. It continues to support the genocidal occupation of West Papua by Indonesia. Today the US supports the murderous government of Columbia, giving them two billion dollars in the last couple of years to continue slaughtering their own people. That's just a few examples.

We haven't changed. We just don't have a nuclear armed adversay to stop us anymore.

How are you blaming Indonesia on post Cold War America? Does any form of contact indict? In that case, what about everyone else who has ever had diplomatic contact with their government?

I thought the US was giving aid to Columbia to aid in drug interdiction. Do you think the people the Columbian government is combattiing are nice guys? It's all Americas fault? Murderous? I think the cartels could redefine the term.

You don't need to look to Washington to find bad people, Che.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by molly bloom
The inference being that Chirac is somehow morally or intellectually, or just 'a la mode francaise' deficient at not recognising what an ogre has sat down to lime tea and madeleines with him.

The "horrible unilateralism" he employed to get him to the summit in the face of EU sanctions is more worthy of condemnation.

[TheStinger]

Chirac is the villain in this, he who goes on about the EU acting as one, dropped sanctions against Mugabe for a week to enable him to come to France. This was soley to embarras the UK government. He gave support to a brutal dictator( not as bad as some but still a bastard) because Tony Blair quite rightly treats him like the arsehole he his.