humpf-some things are well taken others not. Lets see:
Originally posted by Toad:
That was bait?
the 1) and 2),obviously, yes.
see the smilie
Well, duh! Have your history studies at University suggested to you why this might be the case? Particularly the "since WWII" part?
Since WWII until 1990 US of A has been the key in any important world matter, along with USSR. After it USA has been the ONLY world ruler.
Facts are facts. You feared communism expansion and did ANY thing in your hands to stop it, Communist party was banned in USA (go freedom, GO), and you wanted it banned from the world. So you took the job of "world policemans" because YOU wanted. noone forced your succesive presidents to do it so. (and I dont tell that I'm not grateful about it).
BTW I have no university studies on the matter, but since I was seven I have read a lot about WWII and post WWII world. I'll never consider myself as an expert, but I think i know enough about the matters to give my opinions over them-
Your History studies have surely covered VietNam during WW2 right?
yes
French colonialism in the post-war era?
too
The Agreement on the Cessation of Hostilities in Vietnam on July 20, 1954?
[/b]
something less stable than Versalles'19. But yes. That too.
The provisional division of the country at approximately the 17th parallel?
Obviously NV took the "provisional" as a literal description
The fact that the cease-fire agreements also referred to "general elections" that would "bring about the unification" of the two zones of Vietnam?
The fact that agreement was not accepted by the Bao Dai (non-communist nationalist) government, which agreed, however, to respect the cease-fire?
The fact that the "Domino Theory" was generally accepted by the non-communist world powers? (You know what the Domino theory is, right?)
all is nonsense in this matter. Because I am referring to the 1962-75 Vietman conflict. all you have said dont explain what happened in 1960s in VIetnam.
The fact that in December 1961, President Diem requested assistance from the United States?
Diem eh? lol, that was the president of one of the most corrupt governments in the world, one that passed human rights over his private parts. One that was feared and hated by his own country. He was a monster by any measure.
You supported it because the "enemy" was the communism. You supported it because you had POLITICAL interest in the zone (mostly the same reasons you always defended israel at all costs).
VIetman happened because USA put its nose in a hornet's nest. And of course you got the nose VERY red.
That the US had a signed military assistance treaty with South VietNam?
Today to sign that treaty with a monster as Diem would mean a political earthquake in washington...
Thanks god some things are being fixed by themselves.
Your studies have also undoubtedly covered the fact that in 1943, in Cairo, President Roosevelt, Prime Minister Churchill, and Gerneralissimo Chiang Kai-shek together announced on Dec. 1st the "Cairo Declaration" which proclaimed that "the aforesaid three g reat powers, mindful of the enslavement of the people of Korea are determined that in due course Korea shall become free and independent"?
Knew about the declaration, and the people involved. Didnt know the date and location. Again, it doesnt explain Korea.
That on Nov.14 1947, the United Nations passed a resolution that created a U.N. presence in Korea. The resolution called for a "United Nations Temporary Committee on Korea" (UNTCOK) to watchdog national elections to be scheduled sometime before March 31st 1948?
That when the UNTCOK arrived in Korea, the special commission, consisting mainly of American allies, were met warmly in the American Occupational Zone. In the Soviet Zone, however, UNTCOK was not even recognized by the authorities there and was denied entrance?
That in May 1948, elections were held in the South? That mirroring the proceedings in the south, elections were in held in the autumn of 1948 and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea was born?
That on April 8, 1948 U.S. troops were ordered to withdraw from Korea on orders from President Harry Truman?
That on June 29, 1948 the last U.S. troops were withdrawn from South Korea?
That on January 15, 1950 Secretary of State Dean Acheson stated that the Western defense perimeter of the U.S. stops short of South Korea?
LOL and eastern defence perimeter in 1941 for Japan was the Marianas and, exactly SAIPAN, Guam and Tinian!...was Japan right to take Saipan because fell into its "defence perimeter?"
Come on, this are wasted words, the thing is that USA had its nose kept into a FOREIGN country because, again, communism threatened to win a victory. You couldn't accept it, and you fought against it. Anything else, IMO, is superfluous. Fact is-USA had political interest in the zone-USA sends troops.
Again, world police in action. I dont say that south korea deserved to fall into communism, I say that when it was going to happen YOU WERE THERE because OWN reasons. nothing to do with korean people.
Own interests...allways own interests...Using a lot of excuses, but in the end, OWN USA interests...
That on June 25, 1950 early in the morning, the North Korean People's Army under General Chai Ung Jun, invaded South Korea with seven assault infantry divisions, a tank brigade, and two independent infantry regiments.
The United Nations Security Council resolution called for an end to the North Korean aggression. The resolution got passed only because the Soviet Union had boycotted that particular meeting?
That the way the UN Security Council works is not the same as the way the General Assembly works?
And as you saw that UN couldnt say what you wanted,you sent unilaterally troops to Korea, so breaking UN decisions and its ability to take part from there onwards as a REAL interlocutor between sides in conflict.
The veto right in the security council of UN has sucked ALWAYS.I agree in it.
Still if you want to respect the very same organization you just created then you MUST comply with its resolutions (or lack thereof).
Since then I think that NOONE has really taken seriously UN until 1991. Because USA and USSR were known to do what they wanted, not what UN said. Great isnt it?.
That on June 27, 1950 the United Nations asked member nations to aid the Republic of Korea?
That on July 7, 1950 the United Nations created the United Nations command under General Douglas MacArthur?
The guy who asked permission to drop an A-bomb over NOrth korea?...
That today there are about 37,000 American soldiers who are stationed there?
Are you really suggesting that Korea would have been less of a world "hotspot" over the years WITHOUT the presence of US troops since the ceasefire?
No, I suggest that if USA has the role it has today is because USA WANTED IT for 50 years. and it is something not easy to let now that you start to feel tired because communism is not a threat.
Noone called USA into Korea, UN did when USA had already sent troops there. YOu did it on your own, so taking with you the role originally given to UN. And you kept that attitude until now.
Sure that world is now a better word with no communism. Still you WANTED the policeman role. You wanted it for 50 years, and sorry ,it is something that now can't be stopped.
I'm sure your studies went into detail on the Libyan raid and cleared up the following points:
That the actual attack concerned was a pointed response by the American government to what it regarded as Libyan-sponsored terrorism?
That on April 14, 1986, thirty-two American aircraft attacked selected targets located at Tripoli and Benghazi, Libya? Thirty-seven people were killed; an undetermined number were injured?
That the incident took place against a background of heightened tensions between the US and Libya, involving terrorist attacks in Rome and Vienna airports, confrontations at the "Line of Death" in the Gulf of Sidra and, on 5 April 1986, the bombing of the ‘LaBelle’ night-club in Berlin, leading to the death of one American and injuries to sixty-three others?
That the US had stated its intent to use force against terrorist bases and the US government claimed that it had evidence linking Libya to the Berlin bombing and to other planned terrorist attacks?
That after examining the facts leading up to the American airstrike and the relevant international law, if the Libyan government was indeed part of the plot to bomb the "LaBelle" night-club and if it was planning further such attacks on American targets, then the American government was entitled to act?
In short words: There was terrorism against US interests and soldiers. You threatened a sovereign country with the use of pure force. You violated a sovereign country's national skies and commited war actions against it. You killed a sovereign country's people and damaged its military, buildings and structures.
Call it whatever you want. I call it a war action, something on the line of Pearl Harbor.
If that behavior is done by a guy in real life, he would be sent to prison for the rest of his days. USA went ahead with an UN condemn (One that REagan must have found VERY funny, BTW), and nothing else.
I dont see how that way of action can be defended, toad. Really. I live in a land with the weight of a terrorist independentist group, and I will NEVER support the use of force against them. Very few things give the right to use the force. Lybia in 1986 was not one of those times. Even France and UK denied USA the use of their airspace for the attack! (Spain didnt...oh, well
)
....and now Grenada.....
The trouble began on October 13, 1983, when the Grenadian Army, under the direction of the former Deputy Prime Minister Bernard Coard, deposed Prime Minister Maurice Bishop and established military rule of the smallest independent country in the Western Hemisphere.
However, the US IMO should NOT have intervened. If anything, we should have offered to evacuate any US citizens that wanted to leave and then left the area.
There was no threat to US national interest and no obligation by treaty or other agreement that required the US to invade. Even the Soviet/Cuban airfield was not really a problem...just another target for the Strategic Integrated Operations Plan. (SIOP, the standing US warplan).
This was a mistake in US foreign policy. I don't think any US writer on this BBS has ever stated the the US hasn't made mistakes.
But is another example of same thing, toad. Granada could've been a propagandistic problem for USA, nothing solid,nothing real, but still was something not to be "tolerated". THere WERE interest there. Propaganda. To make clear that US would actively act against such things. USA didnt want another Cuba. And made a lot of noise to make it clear.
US intervention in Chile through the CIA was also a huge mistake and illegal. It has taken the US a long time but our Congress has begun to act.
It took us a while, but it's all going to come out.
Didnt know that the congress is in it. Glad , mighty glad to know it. BUt I doubt that 27 years after it there is much more than an apology to do. Still deserves a salute.
Argentina? You are referring primarily to Peron?
No, to the succesive militar dictatorships in 70's and early 80's. Had CIA support much in the same way as in Chile, but it has much less press than Chile (after all Salvador allende's assasination is IMO, one of the grimmest moments in XX century).
Or are you talking about later, when Jimmy Carter, one month after his inauguration, began his human rights campaign by targeting Argentina, Ethiopia, and Uruguay for aid sanctions?
CIA supported Argentinian militar dictatorships up to 1980s. Carter may have said anything (Uruguay?...CIA members directed the torture of opposition members to "extract" information from them...read about it, Toad, some stories about those interrogatory sessions belong to Mauthausen more than to Uruguay). But the fact is that CIA actively supported those things until 1982.
And I wont start about Nicaragua (sandinists), Colombia,
PANAMA (please can you give another explanation for Panama? I'd really love to hear about it) CUBA (same)...etc...
All in all, US policy on South america has been a whole disaster, of unmeasurable proportions.
It's true that Bosnia and other overseas operations cost the United States $7 billion in 1999
Let me answer with another question....
wich was,exactly, the benefits on USA military doing the Yugoslavia bombings?...the weapons they tested?...the weapons they USED in real combat?...
2 sides of the coin.
Are you saying that the US has done such a poor job as "the world's policeman" that we HAVE to stay on the job?
NO, I say that US has done some good jobs and some bad jobs at the same time. And that many times "human rights", and "right reasons" have had nothing to do with your intervention, but only and purely USA own interests. Political, economical and propagandistic reasons.
And that after 50 years WANTING the job, now is a bit problematic to say "i want to resign". You wanted the job, you got it. Sometimes you did it well sometimes you blewed it bigtime. But you wanted the job and you got it.
the problem comes when USA people realize that the "job" its something hard to left aside, and THAT is my only point in this thread.
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 09-22-2000).]
