France ...classic again..wtg!!!

[Momus--]

And, of course, the sinking of the Lusitania had absolutely nothing to do with it.

It had plenty to do with being a good pretext for whipping up public outrage to support involvement in the war. However, if you think that it was the main cause of going to war then you haven't done your homework.

Contradictory assumption. If we actually had a "ruling elite" that wanted war we would have gone to war no matter what. As it is, we have an elected body. A government "Of the people, by the people and for the people."

Having a ruling elite isn't mutually exclusive with being a democracy. Are you really too obtuse to realise that?

France pulled out, the U.S. attempted to stave off North Vietnamese aggression by first sending advisors and later troops in force. It turned out to be a lost cause. The only twentieth century example I can think of where the U.S. probably should have followed France's lead.

The point being that while the goal of containing communism may arguably have been laudable, it certainly didn't boil down to altruism on your part since the majority of Vietnamese didn't want you there.

U.S. hostages.

I have a bridge for sale in London if you're interested. Lets see:

US rationalizations for invading Grenada.

1) Reagan claimed the airport had been shut down thus preventing US citizens from leaving the country. This was a lie; the truth was that the US authorities put pressure on neighbouring carribean countries to stop flying to Grenada. By severely reducing the availability of flights out of the country, Reagan was then able to claim that the stranded US citizens were in danger and needed "rescuing".

2) US "hostages.". There were approx. 800 US students in Grenada prior to the invasion. None of these were ever held hostage, in fact the parents of over 500 of them contacted the State Dept to advise that their children were safe and well. This was confirmed by staff from the US embassy in Barbados who visited the island prior to the invasion. After the invasion, US troops waited 3 days before arriving at one of the medical schools attended by the US students, thus giving lie to the claim that they were ever in danger. The students were polled by the college administration as to whether they felt in danger and wanted to leave the island. 90% indicated that they would rather stay.

3)The alleged Cuban "military buildup" on the island.

The airport that was being built on the island was repeatedly claimed by Reagan to be a Cuban project which was intended to house russian miltary jets. This was a lie. It was in fact a civilian project being run by Plessey, a british company and had been underwritten by the government of Margaret Thatcher. Cuban personnel were involved in the construction, as were British, Canadians and Finns. Following the invasion, no evidence of military installations on the airport was ever found.

4) The alleged claim that the OECS (Organisation of Eastern Carribean States) had requested US intervention. This was also a lie; no request was ever made by the OECS, since this would have required the unanimous support of all the member states. The member states of Monserrat, St Kitts & Nevis and Grenada itself all opposed the intervention.

What happened to your "U.N." stance? The U.N. attempted to intervene in a bloody tribal conflict and, in the end, could not achieve that goal. The U.S. participated in the action, supporting the U.N. If you want to blame someone for the condition Somalia was in before, during and after the U.N. mandated intervention, blame Aideed and the various tribal chieftans.

Have you checked the conditions in Somalia recently? I'm not arguing that the US intentions weren't laudable, but if they were indeed driven by altruism then it didn't exactly have the desired effect. No blame intended here though.

If the powers that be turn to corruption afterwards then just blame the U.S. for not putting in place it's own puppet government, ok?

That's a nicely selective reading of history. Are you arguing that the actions of the US backed duvalier regime aren't at least partially responsible for the current mess? Please read this then tell me that the history of US intervention in Haiti is one driven purely by altruism.

You, however, don't get a point

On the contrary, it would be more accurate to say that you don't get the point.  I expect you still think the Iraq invasion was down to WMD too huh?

[Arlo]

Originally posted by Momus--
It had plenty to do with being a good pretext for whipping up public outrage to support involvement in the war. However, if you think that it was the main cause of going to war then you haven't done your homework.

Having a ruling elite isn't mutually exclusive with being a democracy. Are you really too obtuse to realise that?

 We don't have a ruling elite or are you too obtuse to realize that?

Originally posted by Momus--
The point being that while the goal of containing communism may arguably have been laudable, it certainly didn't boil down to altruism on your part since the majority of Vietnamese didn't want you there.

 The Northern ones didn't. The Southern ones did. Just like in Korea. Now Vietnam has no North/South boundry. Korea still does and the South Koreans certainly want us there. Talk about obtuse.

Originally posted by Momus--
I have a bridge for sale in London if you're interested. Lets see:

US rationalizations for invading Grenada.

1) Reagan claimed the airport had been shut down thus preventing US citizens from leaving the country. This was a lie; the truth was that the US authorities put pressure on neighbouring carribean countries to stop flying to Grenada. By severely reducing the availability of flights out of the country, Reagan was then able to claim that the stranded US citizens were in danger and needed "rescuing".

2) US "hostages.". There were approx. 800 US students in Grenada prior to the invasion. None of these were ever held hostage, in fact the parents of over 500 of them contacted the State Dept to advise that their children were safe and well. This was confirmed by staff from the US embassy in Barbados who visited the island prior to the invasion. After the invasion, US troops waited 3 days before arriving at one of the medical schools attended by the US students, thus giving lie to the claim that they were ever in danger. The students were polled by the college administration as to whether they felt in danger and wanted to leave the island. 90% indicated that they would rather stay.

3)The alleged Cuban "military buildup" on the island.

The airport that was being built on the island was repeatedly claimed by Reagan to be a Cuban project which was intended to house russian miltary jets. This was a lie. It was in fact a civilian project being run by Plessey, a british company and had been underwritten by the government of Margaret Thatcher. Cuban personnel were involved in the construction, as were British, Canadians and Finns. Following the invasion, no evidence of military installations on the airport was ever found.

4) The alleged claim that the OECS (Organisation of Eastern Carribean States) had requested US intervention. This was also a lie; no request was ever made by the OECS, since this would have required the unanimous support of all the member states. The member states of Monserrat, St Kitts & Nevis and Grenada itself all opposed the intervention.

Grenada opposed! Oh my.

We acceded to the request to become part of a multinational effort with contingents from Antigua, Barbados, Dominica, Jamaica, St. Lucia, St. Vincent, and the United States.

And yes, we were concerned for the safety of the American students. And yes, the construction had Cuban interests. To divorce civilian and military interests in such is naive. The construction was never finished ... by the Cubans.

Originally posted by Momus--
Have you checked the conditions in Somalia recently? I'm not arguing that the US intentions weren't laudable, but if they were indeed driven by altruism then it didn't exactly have the desired effect. No blame intended here though.

 Then why even bring it up?

Originally posted by Momus--
That's a nicely selective reading of history. Are you arguing that the actions of the US backed duvalier regime aren't at least partially responsible for the current mess? Please read this then tell me that the history of US intervention in Haiti is one driven purely by altruism.

 No more selective than any of the "evil American plot to control the world" version.

Originally posted by Momus--
On the contrary, it would be more accurate to say that you don't get the point.  I expect you still think the Iraq invasion was down to WMD too huh?

I'd say the conflict in Iraq was a result of Saddam Hussain repeatedly refusing to comply with UN resolutions and attempting a bluff that failed and ultimately cost him his tyranical control of Iraq. What say you to that? I can venture but I'll let you do it.

Back to the focus of altruism and how we got there:

Lasz offhandedly mentioned that the U.S. is somewhat altruistic in nature and tends to depose tyrannical dictators from time to time to which Straffo responded that that pov is nothing but an urban legend. Yet the track record stands.

German Imperical conquest over Europe in WWI - opposed ... suppressed. The Third Reich and Imperical Japan in WWII - opposed ... suppressed. North Korean aggression on South Korea - opposed ... stalemate. North Vietnamese aggression on South Vietnam - opposed ... failure to suppress. Numerous dictatorships that either directly or indirectly threatened the security of U.S. citizens and/or the world in general.

Now it's easy to take a stance in which you personally doubt the motives behind the measures and yet you're really in no position to be able to ascertain with complete certainty the true motives. You can only decide to agree with other's opinions of what they would prefer to believe those motives to be. As I can side with other sources that counter such.

Rest assured, however, that taking a stance to vilify every single war or conflict the U.S. has been in during the twentieth century does not make a convincing case against current political or military actions in most American's eyes. If you think it does, you know less about us, as a people, than you think you do. Reflect on that and see if perhaps you, yourself, don't see just a little bit of revisionism in your own sources.

Thanks.

[strk]

Arlo you forgot to include the dictators that the US has worked to bring to power.  

Also - the Iraq war was about WMD's.  If we went after every tin pot dictator who oppressed his people we would be all over africa, south america and asia.  But we arent.  

Why not you ask?

They have no oil.

Seriously Arlo, Woody would roll in his grave to hear you spout RW talking points under his son's name.

[Arlo]

Iraq was about non-compliance with UN mandates after Desert Storm. If you want to believe it was about oil ... go to a gas pump.

As far as all the evil dictators the U.S. has worked so hard to place in power over the last century is concerned - name one non-oppressive democratic state rife with human rights that the U.S. has deposed and put a tyrannical dictator in it's place. Also name one that the U.N. itself didn't mandate the need to replace. The U.N./U.S. always replaced the despot with someone the legal government or people chose. If that person becomes as corrupt as the person he replaced, that's not the fault of the U.S. In Iraq right now the coalition is attempting to help the people set up a democracy.

Here's Woody spinning in his grave about an evil dictator:

Now I wished I had a bushel
Wished I had a peck
Wished I had old Hitler
With a rope around his neck.
Hey, round, round Hitler's grave
Round, round we go
Gonna lay that poor boy down
He won't get up no more.
Mussolini [Hermann Goering] won't last long
Tell you the reason why
We're a-gonna salt his beef
And hang it up to dry.
The German army general staff
I guess they missed connection
Went a hundred miles a day
But in the wrong direction.

I'm a-goin' to Berlin
To Mister Hitler's town
I'm gonna take my forty-four
And blow his playhouse down.

How Hitler went to Russia
In search of Russian oil
But the only oil he'll find there
Is a pot in which he'll boil.

[Hitler said to Goering
Here's what he did say
I can't understand this Russian snow,
It's getting too hot for me.]

Now Mister Hitler's traveling mighty fast
But he's on a one-way [single] track
Started down that Moscow road
But now he's coming back.

- Woody Guthrie

[strk]

Originally posted by Arlo
Iraq was about non-compliance with UN mandates after Desert Storm. If you want to believe it was about oil ... go to a gas pump.

As far as all the evil dictators the U.S. has worked so hard to place in power over the last century is concerned - name one non-oppressive democratic state rife with human rights that the U.S. has deposed and put a tyrannical dictator in it's place. Also name one that the U.N. itself didn't mandate the need to replace. The U.N./U.S. always replaced the despot with someone the legal government or people chose. If that person becomes as corrupt as the person he replaced, that's not the fault of the U.S. In Iraq right now the coalition is attempting to help the people set up a democracy.

Here's Woody spinning in his grave about an evil dictator:

Now I wished I had a bushel
Wished I had a peck
Wished I had old Hitler
With a rope around his neck.
Hey, round, round Hitler's grave
Round, round we go
Gonna lay that poor boy down
He won't get up no more.
Mussolini [Hermann Goering] won't last long
Tell you the reason why
We're a-gonna salt his beef
And hang it up to dry.
The German army general staff
I guess they missed connection
Went a hundred miles a day
But in the wrong direction.

I'm a-goin' to Berlin
To Mister Hitler's town
I'm gonna take my forty-four
And blow his playhouse down.

How Hitler went to Russia
In search of Russian oil
But the only oil he'll find there
Is a pot in which he'll boil.

[Hitler said to Goering
Here's what he did say
I can't understand this Russian snow,
It's getting too hot for me.]

Now Mister Hitler's traveling mighty fast
But he's on a one-way [single] track
Started down that Moscow road
But now he's coming back.

- Woody Guthrie

Nice to hear fro Woody Fascist killing machine.  

btw hindsight shows us that the UN inspectors and sanctions were working.

nice to see you again Arlo - have you talked HTC into modeling the Spanish thing yet?

[Arlo]

It's my funtion in life. Yo HT .. Spain dude! Uber Bipes!

You'd think the furballers would rally round my cause.

[strk]

Originally posted by Arlo
It's my funtion in life. Yo HT .. Spain dude! Uber Bipes!

You'd think the furballers would rally round my cause.

cept they used .30 cals didnt they?  much to small imo

[Arlo]

They had alot of wood and cloth construction too so it works out.

[Momus--]

Arlo, it's simple - name one US "hostage" taken in Grenada.

We acceded to the request to become part of a multinational effort with contingents from Antigua, Barbados, Dominica, Jamaica, St. Lucia, St. Vincent, and the United States.

Unfortunately, an OECS request for outside assistance can pertain only to outside agression and requires a consensus of all the members states to be valid.  Of course if you actually knew what you were talking about you'd acknowledge this.

And yes, we were concerned for the safety of the American students. And yes, the construction had Cuban interests. To divorce civilian and military interests in such is naive. The construction was never finished ... by the Cubans

It's stunning the way you ignore the facts I brought to the debate.

1. The Students were in no danger.

2. The Airport was being buit by a british company.

Then why even bring it up?

I didn't bring Somalia up - you did Homer

We don't have a ruling elite or are you too obtuse to realize that?

Every nation does, democratic or not. To suggest otherwise indicates a severe lack of understanding about how power is actually exercised.

more selective than any of the "evil American plot to control the world" version.

Nice straw man argument - please point out where I've claimed this.

I'd say the conflict in Iraq was a result of Saddam Hussain repeatedly refusing to comply with UN resolutions and attempting a bluff that failed and ultimately cost him his tyranical control of Iraq. What say you to that? I can venture but I'll let you do it.

That's funny, I seem to recall Bush rationalising the decision to invade by claiming that Iraq was a threat to US security, or do you dispute this?

You can only decide to agree with other's opinions of what they would prefer to believe those motives to be. As I can side with other sources that counter such.

You haven't quoted any sources; feel free to do so. All the facts I've given you (which are easily verifiable to anyone with the intellectual curiosity to look them up), you've disregarded. I understand your slavish need to conform to the dominant meme that dicates that the US never acts, like other powers in world history, out of venal self interest, but so far you've brought nothing to the debate save easily disprovable snippets of propaganda.

I've never argued that the US involvement in WW1, WW2, or Korea wasn't in effect a force for good, but your lightweight and rather sophomoric understanding of historical motivations demonstrates that you haven't really done anything but skim the surface when considering the real driving forces behind the rush to war. All you've really done is demonstrate your understanding of the history channel version of events.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by Momus--
Arlo, it's simple -   Of course if you actually knew what you were talking about you'd acknowledge this.

It's stunning the way you ignore the facts I brought to the debate.

I didn't bring Somalia up - you did Homer

To suggest otherwise indicates a severe lack of understanding about how power is actually exercised.

Nice straw man argument.



I understand your slavish need to conform to the dominant meme.

your lightweight and rather sophomoric understanding of historical motivations demonstrates that you haven't really done anything but skim the surface when considering the real driving forces behind the rush to war.

All you've really done is demonstrate your understanding of the history channel version of events.

Momus ... you've been nothing but a smarmy lil arse since you first posted in this thread but I'll still give you a chance to rephrase. Then we'll go from there. If you can't, then go to "pissy euro-political-agenda" hell and don't expect any other response other than ....   :aok

[hawker238]

Originally posted by Arlo
"pissy euro-political-agenda"

I hate when people use that phrase.  Many of the accused may actually be more American than their accusers, regardless of nationality.

Of course then you'd have to define American, and I wonder how that would go on this BBS.

[Arlo]

Kinda depends on where they're from, really. If I went to a board hosted in Kramtavia, primarily populated by Kramtavians and started or joined in on a thread that critisized the Kramtavian Grand Potentate's decision to send troops into the Splutter Republic because I, as an American, didn't like what that country's leader did or how he did it, even though it not only had no negative repercussions here ... maybe even positive repercussions there .... and here .... then my comments could easily be construed as some sort of "pissy US-political-agenda" crap.

Now .. I'd be the first person ready to modify the description of the hell momus can go to as "just plain assinine-dipchit-political- agenda" hell if momus actually turned out to be a resident of the States. But he could go there just as easily.

[Naso]

So Arlo, you are telling us, non-US (thirld worlders, as someone of your friends called us), being this a game owned by US people, to STFU?

I would like to know if this is the position of the owners of the place.

Pecunia non olent

Extending your logic, since we pay on foreign corrency (converted by St.Visa), we are B-series players?

Is this the position of HTC too?

[Arlo]

No, not at all. Don't be so thenthitive and don't read too much into things. What I said was "pissy euro-political agenda." Hawker didn't like that so I gave an example of someone being able to use "pissy American-political agenda." Six of one and a half dozen of the other. Do you have a "pissy euro-political agenda?" As far as HTC is concerned, I can't speak for them. But I seriously doubt they would use the phrase ... on the bbs.

[LAWCobra]

Arlo does the phrase the empty can rattles the most ring a bell:aok