Quote of the Day
"The moral code, the moral compass of the state-controlled media is something to behold. Now, some of you may not know the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner hosted a state dinner last night (January 19) for Hu Jintao of China. Hu Jintao is holding the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize winner in prison in China. Not making it up. The 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner hosted a dinner for the guy holding the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize winner in prison, and the media does not get the irony of this at all. They're too busy running around chasing Sarah Palin and radio talk show hosts over 'civility.'"
216 Comments:
Rush L. has a point. For some reason, China is off-limits, despite being a fascist-commie state.
Also, Middle East "kingdoms" get a free ride. Women can't drive or vote in Saudi Arabia. Who cares? We even re-established the monarchy in Kuwait, chasing out Saddam at great expense. Boy, that was worth spilling US blood for. Gold toilets for the "kings."
Setting up a narco-Islamic state in Afghanistan is Obama's current quest.
Good question; If we kept a trim military fit only to defend our borders, could Obama engage in his idealistic, utopian nation-building in Afghanie?
Apparently, making a movie about killing a sitting president, George W. Bush, is acceptable behavior.
Do you think there would be a backlash today - would anyone dare call it uncivil - if Rush made a movie about assassinating the current president?
Vangel, while I may share some of your sentiment, this is where "libertarians" and the like get themselves into trouble: if someone doesn't agree 100% with you, he/she is branded a "statist" and forever banished.
Reminds me of the way communists split into factions over every tiny little detail of whether one likes Trotsky's beard more than Lenin's mustache.
Lets not do that to "ourselves".
VangeIV, not sure if you're accusing Rush of being a statist or him seeing his political opponents as statists.
If the former, I'd be interested if you could point to an example of his statism.
Vangel, while I may share some of your sentiment, this is where "libertarians" and the like get themselves into trouble: if someone doesn't agree 100% with you, he/she is branded a "statist" and forever banished.
Rush is a statist. He favours laws that would regulate social interactions and foreign intervention by the administration. I call it the way I see it regardless of the fact that our friends on the left and right are upset by the observation.
This is why I have trouble being optimistic about the rise of the Tea Party. While a few are certainly pro-liberty, many attack individual liberty by promoting government regulation of marriage, sexual behaviour or drug use, and support the unnecessary occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq.
AIG, it would seem that the factionalism you speak of is a characteristic I observe in everyone political organization; indeed, every human organization [political, religious, social, etc].
What I find amusing is the criticism in the press of "partisanship" from members of political parties when belonging to a political party is by definition a partisan endeavor.
How can one belong to a political party and not be partisan?
Q: What would you call a group of "non-partisan" people who vote for the same candidate and work to convince other people to vote for their candidate?
My impression of Rush's views regarding social policy is he favors State's rights and that he opposes what has been the slow usurpation of state's rights by the federal government.
Who are the one's claiming "Free" trade with China is a good thing?
If you all didn't self contradict yourselves with ever other thought you might come up with something significant.
Dr. Perry:
Ah, the evil of it all!
Heard Obama 2.0 has glitches. The program is unstable. Apparently when you hit “enter” you get a malware link to a picture of Howard Hughes’ fine mess “Spruce Goose” then a redirect to zebras-with-spots. Then a complete program crash with the sign-off of the crashing malware reading “Saved or created Jimmy Carter’s reputation”. What’s up with that?
The word on the street is they tried loading a fix through the program Reagan 01.20.81. Did not straighten out malware issue. Problem is, Reagan 01.20.81 refuses to load.
All part of Obama's "Not meddling" like he said about Iran. What it really is, "Not standing up for human rights." Obama is the opposite of the American tradition. If we aren't standing up for oppressed people who the heck is? China, Japan, India, Russia, Germany, France, Brazil? No, we are the only ones and the world has progressed because of it. Nobel Peace Prize for Obama. He didn't deserve it in 2009 and he never will. Peace Prize. Ugh.
NormanB:
The so-called "American tradition" is a tradition of propping up oppressive dictatorships all over the world. You can take your tradition and shove it.
alexhard posted: 'The so-called "American tradition" is a tradition of propping up oppressive dictatorships all over the world.'
That is very notional. Are you painting the world in our own self image?
Vangel, I don't disagree with anything you said. But, social liberty is only a part of the issue. A far bigger issue is the fiscal nightmare. And I think that is a far bigger issue, which merits even putting the social bickering on the side for a minute (because frankly whether I can smoke crack or not doesn't matter to me anywhere near as much as to who is putting their hands in my pocket)
As Bob Wright says, he isn't necessarily as black as you paint him. More than anything, he is an entertaining "clown" who has to say what his listeners want to hear.
Overall its small potatoes compared to the rest. Factionalism of this sort isn't common...its actually common only amongst "extreme" ideologies that will call someone "anti-revolutionary revisionist petty bourgeois saboteur!" or a "statist idiot" simply because of fringe issues (or rather it may be common amongst ideologies that live on the fringe...like communism, or the "Libertarians" of the Libertarian Party).
Frankly broad ideological strokes with an up or down trend is all you get in life. And I'm satisfied with that.
PS: Plenty of "libertarians" or free-market people, like myself, supported wars like Iraq etc, for a variety of reasons (while admitting that they were carried out horribly)
"The so-called "American tradition" is a tradition of propping up oppressive dictatorships all over the world. You can take your tradition and shove it."
Interesting. Interesting also that every country that has ever had the fortune of being bombed and invaded by the US, is doing considerably better on all aspects of human rights than it was before.
If only most countries in the world were fortunate enough to be oppressed in such a way ;) I wonder if the Vietnamese are beating themselves up today for having sacrificed 2 million people for Uncle Ho, only to be back at the starting line 20 years later to buy Coca Colas and work at Nike factories. Hmm, talk about stupidity.
I know, I know. That just doesn't fit with the leftist storyline (or most "libertarians" storyline either).
"This is why I have trouble being optimistic about the rise of the Tea Party. While a few are certainly pro-liberty, many attack individual liberty by promoting government regulation of marriage, sexual behaviour or drug use."
Ah, so the Tea Party works for smaller government, but they're all a bunch of poseur statists unless they come out for gay marriage and the legalization of crack.
Nice irony, but I don't see what it has to do with civility.
If anything, it is an object lesson in how to be civil with those you disagree with.
What I find amusing is the criticism in the press of "partisanship" from members of political parties when belonging to a political party is by definition a partisan endeavor.
How can one belong to a political party and not be partisan?
==============================
Yep.
AIG-
"its actually common only amongst "extreme" ideologies that will call someone "anti-revolutionary revisionist petty bourgeois saboteur!""
i'm not so sure about that.
try being an anti abortion democrat in massachusetts or an anti-gun republican in texas.
our major political parties punish even small deviation from party lines more than ever before. the national organizations control the money and thereby the candidates.
i don't think it's that extreme ideologies are more prone to factions, i think it's that our mainstream parties have gotten so good as suppressing them through financial control that they get knocked out of the box (though the tea party might be a notable exception).
smaller groups factionalize because they are less established and have not cemented their control yet. once they grow up, petty Trotskite differences get buried under stalin.
VangeIV, not sure if you're accusing Rush of being a statist or him seeing his political opponents as statists.
Both are statists.
If the former, I'd be interested if you could point to an example of his statism.
He supports a big military and military adventures abroad. He went on the air and told listeners that GWB deserved the Nobel Peace Prize. He supports government secrecy even when governments violate the law. He supported the jailing of Julian Assange and the closing of websites that the government does not like. (He actually said that Assange should have been killed.) He considers libertarians enemies of the state and would have them marginalized or jailed. He supports the war on drugs. He believes that the state should prohibit gays from serving in the army if they admit that they are gay. Etc. Etc. Etc.
My impression of Rush's views regarding social policy is he favors State's rights and that he opposes what has been the slow usurpation of state's rights by the federal government.
Yet he would jail people who expose the fact that the federal government committed crimes, manipulated the public to go to war, and would have the federal government prohibit drug use.
Who are the one's claiming "Free" trade with China is a good thing?
I am. So is Mark. And Don. And thousands of economists who do not work for the government or special interest groups looking to benefit from protectionism.
i'm with vangel on this one. rush is a Conservative, not a libertarian.
he is more than happy see the state use coercion to push his social agenda.
hands off your money but hands on your private life is still statism.
alexhard posted: 'The so-called "American tradition" is a tradition of propping up oppressive dictatorships all over the world.'
That is very notional. Are you painting the world in our own self image?
It seems to me that the posting was correct. The US has been propping up dictatorships for quite some time and supports dictators abroad because it values its own interests over those of individuals living in other countries.
Vangel, I don't disagree with anything you said. But, social liberty is only a part of the issue. A far bigger issue is the fiscal nightmare. And I think that is a far bigger issue, which merits even putting the social bickering on the side for a minute (because frankly whether I can smoke crack or not doesn't matter to me anywhere near as much as to who is putting their hands in my pocket)
All right, let us look at the fiscal mess. Why exactly should you trust a Republican administration any more than a Democratic one again? If you look at the data rather than the rhetoric you will see that some of the biggest expansions of government took place under Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II. The last fiscally semi-responsible Republican President was Ike.
And as much as Clinton opened up a can of worms with his use of Freddie and Fannie to add liquidity into the system in order to prevent bubbles from bursting Bush did nothing to reverse those activities. It was Bush who decided to invade two countries that had little to do with 9/11 and were not a threat to the US. It was Bush who exploded the deficit and introduced the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003. By running huge deficits he did not reduce your taxes. He just kicked the can down the road.
The fact is that both the Democratic and Republican parties are run by elitist statists who depend on the power of government for their own economic status and social prestige. Both parties need to be thrown out of office and the US needs legislators who remember the wise words of Jefferson, that government is best which governs least.
Interesting. Interesting also that every country that has ever had the fortune of being bombed and invaded by the US, is doing considerably better on all aspects of human rights than it was before.
If only most countries in the world were fortunate enough to be oppressed in such a way ;) I wonder if the Vietnamese are beating themselves up today for having sacrificed 2 million people for Uncle Ho, only to be back at the starting line 20 years later to buy Coca Colas and work at Nike factories. Hmm, talk about stupidity.
On what planet do you live again? The Vietnamese, who beat the US in their war, are supposedly doing better because you bombed them? Did human rights in Cambodia improve because the US bombed the country secretly? Would you like to make the case to the survivors and relatives of the millions that died in the killing fields that they need to thank you for dropping bombs on their country?
It is this kind of stupidity and arrogance that makes people around the world get angry at the US. Unlike us Canadians, who have been exposed to that stupidity and arrogance for quite some time, and understand that there are actually very decent and sane Americans that are not heard from as much, these people are not as tolerant and sometimes strike out. That is particularly true when US policies supported dictators who wiped out moderates and all that is left in opposition are violent extremists that can be manipulated into doing something very stupid by individuals that would like to see violent action be taken against Americans.
If we want to stop the extremists we need to mind our own business and let them take care of their own problems with their own regimes. I don't know about you but I do not believe in initiating violence against others and prefer peace and prosperity to war and poverty.
Ah, so the Tea Party works for smaller government, but they're all a bunch of poseur statists unless they come out for gay marriage and the legalization of crack.
The only thing that the Tea Party should be for is liberty. That means no foreign wars of aggression. No high taxes. No unfunded liabilities. And no regulation of voluntary social and economic transactions. As Lew Rockwell pointed out, be ready to be disappointed by many in the Tea Party because they are conservative statists who worship power and money and have no interest in liberty. They still favour government intrusion and as such are not to be trusted any more than the lefties who oppose military adventurism and promote social liberty at the same time as they call for more economic meddling.
"Rush is a statist. He favours laws that would regulate social interactions and foreign intervention by the administration"...
Making it up as you go along vangeIV?
No, Rush doesn't believe that people should pay for the behavior of others, there's no ConstitutionAL basis for it...
Apparently you like many others 'parrot' the anti-Rush rantings of leftist pundits...
BTW do you have any credible source that the TEA party (you do know the letters in TEA stand for, right?) "support the unnecessary occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq"...
I've personally not heard or read of anything of that sort but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist...
"He supports a big military and military adventures abroad."
Neither of which qualify as being "statist". The job of the "state" is national defense. Supporting a strong national defense in the face of external threat, is hardly being a "statist"
“i'm with vangel on this one. rush is a Conservative, not a libertarian.”
I don’t believe anyone claimed otherwise.
“hands off your money but hands on your private life is still statism.”
Perhaps, but it is far less relevant or important than “hands off my money”. That’s the lesson to be learned from communist factionalism; focus on what matters, not what doesn’t.
“Why exactly should you trust a Republican administration any more than a Democratic one again?”
You are putting words in my mouth. Even Rush would say the Repubs were just as responsible as the Dems for this mess ;)
“Libertarians do not support wars of aggression…A true libertarian would demand that …”
I guess I’m not a true libertarian then ;) I have betrayed the Revolution.
“On what planet do you live again? The Vietnamese, who beat the US in their war, are supposedly doing better because you bombed them?”
You didn’t understand what I said. What I said was, that 20 years after the US bombed them and they sacrificed 2 million people for Uncle Ho, they are starting back to where they were in 1965. So what did the Vietnamese achieve? At the end of the day, the US was right all along, and the Vietnamese would have had a 30 year head-start on China.
That’s what I said. At the end of the day, US “oppression” of poor ol’ little countries, has been the biggest promoter of economic and individual liberty in the world, ever.
“Did human rights in Cambodia improve because the US bombed the country secretly?”
No, but they would have improved 100 times over had the US succeeded in “oppressing” them ;)
“Would you like to make the case to the survivors and relatives of the millions that died in the killing fields that they need to thank you for dropping bombs on their country? “
Oh yes I forgot; the US killed millions of Cambodians in the killing fields.
“It is this kind of stupidity and arrogance that makes people around the world get angry at the US.”
With all due respect to the people of the world…bugger off!! (I’m not American BTW, originally at least)
“If we want to stop the extremists we need to mind our own business and let them take care of their own problems with their own regimes.”
All of a sudden its “we”. But when the US does something bad, its “you” ;)
I actually agree with you that the US probably should not get too involved with lost causes. But only because they are lost causes, and a more passive approach might work better (like Iraq or Afghanistan, which no amount of bombs or democracy will ever fix). That being said, I have no problem with the US exporting “oppressiveness” around the world, as I have seen it being exported (I’m from the Balkans, so I have had the fortune of being bombed and “oppressed” by the US). I understand the opposition to this may be that it costs too much for the US to do, and I accept that opposition. But where it can be done, it probably ought to be done.
Now, our Canadian and European neighbors might want to get off their high horses, because when it comes to defending the freedoms and liberties of people around the world, I have yet to see a Canadian or French warship off the coast.
“I don't know about you but I do not believe in initiating violence against others and prefer peace and prosperity to war and poverty.”
Of course! But I also happened to believe in helping those in need, who are having their peace and prosperity being taken away by bullies.
“Making it up as you go along vangeIV?”
Some generalizations and suppositions, no doubt.
He supports a big military and military adventures abroad. He went on the air and told listeners that GWB deserved the Nobel Peace Prize.
The "military adventures abroad" nonsense comes straight from the playbook of the idiot left. As for GWB deserving the Nobel Peace Prize, I'd have to agree. When one considers the tremendous number of lives that have been saved and the current and future millions that have been liberated from the brutal tyranny of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban. Then, yes, when compared to other recipients who has done absolutely nothing to promote peace and human liberty, he deserves it.
He supports government secrecy even when governments violate the law. He supported the jailing of Julian Assange and the closing of websites that the government does not like.(He actually said that Assange should have been killed.)
Government "secrecy", as it applies to the U.S. government, requires the routine oversight of duly elected officials. So, while you may not have access to all government information, elected officials acting on your behalf do. Julian Assange is in the business of divulging national security intelligence at a time of war. He has done this not for some altruistic reason, but in an effort to damage the U.S.. The publication of these documents has put U.S. military personal and those allied with us in very real mortal danger. So, yes, he should be tried, and if found guilty, executed.
He considers libertarians enemies of the state and would have them marginalized or jailed.
Libertarians of your ilk are self-marginalizing.
He supports the war on drugs.
How terrible for you, that you must actually have to convince others in society of the virtues of your positions before they can be enacted into law.
He believes that the state should prohibit gays from serving in the army if they admit that they are gay. Etc. Etc. Etc.
The U.S. military exists for the protection and defense of the country, not for the self-actualization of gays. Service entails many restrictions on personal liberty that may not otherwise be considered acceptable in civilian life, like the prohibition of women in combat roles. It is not a leftist social experiment.
... he would jail people who expose the fact that the federal government committed crimes, manipulated the public to go to war ...
No one - let me repeat that - no one, manipulated the public to go to war. That is a lie. You can start your education here: 'Bush Lied'?, The Washington Post
The Vietnamese, who beat the US in their war, are supposedly doing better because you bombed them?
First, the U.S. military had withdrawn from Vietnam years before the fall of Saigon. It was the withdrawal of military aid to the South Vietnamese, who had beaten back two separate invasions by the communists on their own, that led to the communist "victory". Pick up a history book.
Did human rights in Cambodia improve because the US bombed the country secretly?
Attempting to lay responsibility for the human rights record of the communists in Cambodia at the feet of the U.S. only exposes you for the morally confused leftist you really are.
It is this kind of stupidity and arrogance that makes people around the world get angry at the US.
We are not interested in winning the approval of people like you. You are a parasite. You live in a free society without any consideration for the sacrifice that has been made to make a keep it free.
"They are now trying to make the same case based on similar lies against Iran and other countries."
Oh, what are you babbling about, Vangel? Are you seriously denying Iran's efforts towards nuclear weapons?
"The only thing that the Tea Party should be for is liberty. That means no foreign wars of aggression. No high taxes. No unfunded liabilities. And no regulation of voluntary social and economic transactions."
Oh my, the Tea Party isn't pure enough for Vangel so he casts them aside with nary a thought. He would rather live in his ideal anti-American, Lew Rockwell nutcake fantasy land than acknowledge the positive direction groups like the Tea Party are pushing America.
There's a reason why "libertarians" of some schools are on the margins, and have been for decades. They refuse to play nice or prioritize.
That being said, I'll take a page out of my own recommendation and say that in spite of not agree on some things, I think we all want movement in the same direction.
"There's a reason why "libertarians" of some schools are on the margins, and have been for decades. They refuse to play nice or prioritize."
Or even vote. They should realize nobody cares what direction they want the wagon to go when they aren't even going to help push. But Vangel is Canadian, so he can sit there all smug in the tundra, basking in his socialist health care and national security the US provides the hemisphere.
"If anything, it is an object lesson in how to be civil with those you disagree with"...
Well hydra 'personally' I think civility is way over rated...
"He went on the air and told listeners that GWB deserved the Nobel Peace Prize"...
Yes I do remember that and what Rush was doing and what you failed to menint vangeIV is that Rush was making a comparison to some who had received the Peace Prize, people like Arafat for instance...
"He supported the jailing of Julian Assange and the closing of websites that the government does not like..."...
Hmmm, sounds like you've been listening to David Brock and NOT Limbaugh...
"The US has been propping up dictatorships for quite some time and supports dictators abroad because it values its own interests over those of individuals living in other countries"...
Why dodn't you define a couple of those supposed dictators vangeIV so I know where you're coming from?
"The fact is that both the Democratic and Republican parties are run by elitist statists who depend on the power of government for their own economic status and social prestige"...
Hmmm, now there's a oddity... You and I are singing the same pslam, from the same page in the same book...:-)
Oh, what are you babbling about, Vangel? Are you seriously denying Iran's efforts towards nuclear weapons?
Not at all. I simply point out that Iran is in compliance with the treaty that it has signed and that Iran is not a direct threat to the US. When I was a kid the US government was talking about helping Iran build nuclear reactors. That was when their man ran the country and was busy killing off the moderates in opposition to his regime.
I think that this covers it better than I could.
Oh my, the Tea Party isn't pure enough for Vangel so he casts them aside with nary a thought. He would rather live in his ideal anti-American, Lew Rockwell nutcake fantasy land than acknowledge the positive direction groups like the Tea Party are pushing America.
I prefer the land of the free to some neoconservative police state thank you. Fortunately, Americans are still weary of the nutcases on the right so it will be a long time before the conservatives manage to get enough power to endanger liberty.
My point is that many in the Tea Party are just the same old conservatives that were supporting GWB and his wars and as such will not do much to lessen the fiscal burden on taxpayers. Of course, I would be very happy to be proven wrong and to see a huge cut in defense, medicare, social security, education, energy subsidies, agricultural subsidies, etc., but I am not exactly holding my breath. So far the Party of Evil has proven itself to be no different than the Party of Stupid and is pushing policies that will do harm to the United States rather than those that will make it what it once used to be; the protector of individual liberty and the greatest nation on this planet.
There's a reason why "libertarians" of some schools are on the margins, and have been for decades. They refuse to play nice or prioritize.
How do you 'play nice' with statists who want to limit your liberty and advocate initiation of violence against innocent people? And how do you 'prioritize' by abandoning individual liberty?
That being said, I'll take a page out of my own recommendation and say that in spite of not agree on some things, I think we all want movement in the same direction.
If you mean cut spending, shrink the size of government, and have it mind its own very limited business I agree. But if your 'priorities' argue for foreign adventurism unconstitutional legislation that limits freedom, or any expansion of the state then I do not agree.
But Vangel is Canadian, so he can sit there all smug in the tundra, basking in his socialist health care and national security the US provides the hemisphere.
I am not exactly 'smug.' My federal government is also stuck in Afghanistan and Canadian troops are dying. I believe that the action is helping to turn some angry young idiots into potential threats to average Canadians, who do not support the war and occupation. And while my government is not as intrusive in many ways as yours, it is still far too large and far too eager to spend the taxes it collects from working Canadians.
As for our socialist healthcare system, I have seen it kill one uncle and two cousins in the past five years. I have seen my father unable to get access to specialists without waiting a long period of time. I see that when I pay for over the counter drugs I have to pay around 25% more than an American would. But I have one advantage because unlike most Canadian taxpayers I do not have to fund the healthcare system so I can't really complain about the quality. If I really need to have something critical done I can always head to Singapore, the US, or Hong Kong.
Yes I do remember that and what Rush was doing and what you failed to menint vangeIV is that Rush was making a comparison to some who had received the Peace Prize, people like Arafat for instance...
I don't buy that argument. He said that some unsung heroes also deserved the prize.
The list included Reagan and Bush. He praised the industrialists who built the bunker busters and other weapons that help kill people because those weapons bring peace.
Hmmm, sounds like you've been listening to David Brock and NOT Limbaugh...
No. Limbaugh called for the closing of the Wikileaks web site just as the Obama Administration had closed some domestic web sites for copyright infringements. He also called for him to die of lead poisoning.
Why dodn't you define a couple of those supposed dictators vangeIV so I know where you're coming from?
Duvalier. Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo. Mubarak. Saud monarchy. Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. Diem. Saddam Hussein. Kuwaiti monarchy. Batista. Mobutu. Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlevi. Somoza. Trujillo. Noriega. Marcos. Amin. Etc., Etc., Etc.
You are absolutely delusional. You simply list every evil regime you can think of and then credit it's existence and it's crimes to the U.S.. This is not an argument, it's hate speech. You need to extract your head from Noam Chomsky's ass for a moment and take a deep breath.
No, Rush doesn't believe that people should pay for the behavior of others, there's no ConstitutionAL basis for it...
Apparently you like many others 'parrot' the anti-Rush rantings of leftist pundits...
Rush opposes legalization of drugs so yes, he would force people to behave in ways that they would choose not to. The insertion of the word "pay" in your statement above is just hiding the pea. No matter how you try to spin it, Rush is a social conservative who has no problem with regulations in the social sphere.
BTW do you have any credible source that the TEA party (you do know the letters in TEA stand for, right?) "support the unnecessary occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq"...
I've personally not heard or read of anything of that sort but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist...
Even supposedly libertarian leaning Tea Party candidates like Ran Paul supported involvement in Afghanistan and opposed Ron Paul's argument that all troops be pulled out immediately.
If you are ignorant of what the Tea Party candidates are saying about Iraq and Afghanistan then that is your problem. I only go by what they have told the press and argued in the debates and took them to mean what they said.
... that some of the biggest expansions of government took place under Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II. The last fiscally semi-responsible Republican President was Ike.
Once agian, it would be best to study up. Under our system, Congress controls the purse strings. The largest expansions of government - those that threaten U.S. solvency - all took place under a Democrat congress and adminstration. That would be Social Security (FDR) and Medicare and Medicaid (Johnson).
It was Bush who exploded the deficit and introduced the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003. By running huge deficits he did not reduce your taxes. He just kicked the can down the road.
GWB's spending, which averaged 19.6 percent of GDP, was lower than Clinton's and Reagan's. The deficit in 2007 when the Democrats took control of the entire Congress was 160 billion, every bit of spending from that day forth required their support and approval.
Vangel,
"I simply point out that Iran is in compliance with the treaty that it has signed..."
Bullshit. Even the feckless UN grudgingly admits:
Iran is a party to the NPT, but was found in non-compliance with its NPT safeguards agreement and the status of its nuclear program remains in dispute. In November 2003 IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei reported that Iran had repeatedly and over an extended period failed to meet its safeguards obligations, including by failing to declare its uranium enrichment program.[17] After about two years of EU3-led diplomatic efforts and Iran temporarily suspending its enrichment program,[55] the IAEA Board of Governors, acting under Article XII.C of the IAEA Statute, found in a rare non-consensus decision with 12 abstentions that these failures constituted non-compliance with the IAEA safeguards agreement.[18] This was reported to the UN Security Council in 2006,[56] after which the Security Council passed a resolution demanding that Iran suspend its enrichment.[57] Instead, Iran resumed its enrichment program.[58]
"Iran is not a direct threat to the US."
When they have nukes they will be a threat to the entire planet. They're currently a deadly threat to Israel. 6 million Jews are threatened with another holocaust almost daily by the insane Ayatollahs who run Iran. But libertarians of the Lew Rockwell variety would rather see holocausts all around the planet than intervene and thereby violate their "principles." No thanks, I'd rather we kill the bastards first and then live with the shame of the likes of Vangel endlessly making that "tsk, tsk" motion with his fingers.
Regarding the Shah: "That was when their man ran the country and was busy killing off the moderates in opposition to his regime."
He was a moderate in hindsight. Religous minorities and women were treated much much better, and he worked to westernize the country.
He was still a bastard, but it was better to have him on our team than with the Russsians.
Well vangeIV you still have nothing credible to offer with regards to the alledge Limbaugh rants...
"Duvalier. Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo. Mubarak. Saud monarchy. Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. Diem. Saddam Hussein. Kuwaiti monarchy. Batista. Mobutu. Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlevi. Somoza. Trujillo. Noriega. Marcos. Amin"...
Use wikipedia much vangeIV?
Maybe you should look at real history and see which of those were real villains and which of those were villains identified with leftist historians having an agenda...
Just a thought...
"The insertion of the word "pay" in your statement above is just hiding the pea"...
That has to be one of your worst rationalizations for explaining why you're far out on a thin limb...
"If you are ignorant of what the Tea Party candidates are saying about Iraq and Afghanistan then that is your problem"...
Ahhh, still making it up as you go along or still parroting the leftist pundits I see vangeIV...
I'm a nominal member here in Missouri and help get some of the literature out and no there isn't much said one way or the other...
That's the thing about the TEA party vangeIV there's not much lock step in the organization...
It was Bush who decided to invade two countries that had little to do with 9/11 and were not a threat to the US.
No threat? Think again.
... he would jail people who expose the fact that the federal government committed crimes, manipulated the public to go to war ...
No one - let me repeat that - no one, " manipulated the public to go to war". Again, you need to READ UP.
One other thing regarding Iran: if you don't dispute Iran is making nuclear weapons, then what "similair lies" do you think all those same neocons, including Obama, are telling us now?
"I believe that the action is helping to turn some angry young idiots into potential threats to average Canadians, who do not support the war and occupation."
Yes, some of those "angry idiots" knocked some of our buildings down and killed a few thousand people before we had any troops in Afghanistan. You might have heard about it. Knowing Lew Rockwell fanboys, you probably thought we had it coming.
The U.S. had to ally itself with some dictatorships in the effort to halt the spread of communism, just as we were allied with the Soviets in order to defeat Hitler. That does not mean that we supported dictatorship or condoned the behavior of individual dictators. In fact, countries such as Taiwan, South Korea, Chile and the Philippines were at one time dictatorships but have since, under U.S. pressure, become democratic. Can you name a single country which did the same under Soviet influence?
“My point is that many in the Tea Party are just the same old conservatives that were supporting GWB and his wars and as such will not do much to lessen the fiscal burden on taxpayers.”
First off, that’s not the case. GWB is held equally responsibly with the Dems for this mess (especially after his actions in 2008). Secondly, even if it were the case that they were war fans, the military budget (including veteran’s affairs) accounts for about 1/7 of total spending. There are bigger targets.
“but I am not exactly holding my breath.”
And I agree, they won’t make much of a change. But not because they don’t “want” to, but because there are entrenched interests which will not be pushed back.
“How do you 'play nice' with statists who want to limit your liberty and advocate initiation of violence against innocent people? And how do you 'prioritize' by abandoning individual liberty? “
By realizing that my right to smoke dope and have intercourse with a male goat while riding a motorcycle without a seat-belt, MAY not be as important or threatening to my liberties, as having the government take 43% of my income.
“But if your 'priorities' argue for foreign adventurism unconstitutional legislation that limits freedom, or any expansion of the state then I do not agree.”
Nowhere in the constitution is it said that you have a right to do whatever you want. The constitution specifies Federal powers, not state or local ones. Check your local constitution for that (ie, community standards and norms, can in fact be restrictive. And if you don’t like them, you are free to move elsewhere where they are not. That’s the essence of the US; competition in governance. Of course, it hasn’t been that way in decades)
“I don't buy that argument. He said that some unsung heroes also deserved the prize. The list included Reagan and Bush. He praised the industrialists who built the bunker busters and other weapons that help kill people because those weapons bring peace.”
Those arguments make a heck of a lot more sense than giving Obama a Nobel Peace Prize for being…not-Bush?
“Rush opposes legalization of drugs so yes, he would force people to behave in ways that they would choose not to.”
You are not free to behave in any way you chose to. Community and society impose restrictions on our behavior every day.
“No matter how you try to spin it, Rush is a social conservative who has no problem with regulations in the social sphere. “
Yes he is. And the point is, whether you agree with social conservatives or not, it is far more important to agree on fiscal issues. Social issues can be relegated to local control, which almost everyone (except the left!!) would agree with.
“It was Bush who exploded the deficit and introduced the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003. By running huge deficits he did not reduce your taxes. He just kicked the can down the road.”
Agreed. I’d venture to say most Tea Party activists clearly recognize that GWB was a failure in that respect. I have yet to hear any of them hold op GWB as an example to follow. Quite the contrary.
"He was a moderate in hindsight."
Exactly. Examples are not to be compared to our standards of today, but to the alternatives of the time. Was the Shah a bastard? Of course. What was the alternative? The Soviet Socialist Republic of Azerbaijan?? The Islamic Republic?
Is Mubarak a bastard? Undoubtedly. What is the alternative? The Muslim Brotherhood (ie, Hamas-style rule in Egypt)?
There's tough choices in the real world that are almost never pretty (otherwise they wouldn't be tough).
Unless Canada or you, or any European country, has ever done ANYTHING to improve the liberties of a single human being elsewhere in the world, I'd advise caution in America-bashing.
This comment has been removed by the author.
"He supports a big military and military adventures abroad."
Neither of which qualify as being "statist". The job of the "state" is national defense. Supporting a strong national defense in the face of external threat, is hardly being a "statist"
Extreme threat? I hope that you are not talking about Iraq and Afghanistan. Neither was a credible threat to the US. Or are you talking about Germany, Japan, or South Korea. If not, why are US taxpayers paying to defend those countries?
The last time I looked the US was spending more on its military than the next 20 countries combined even though its neighbours are peaceful and it is protected from harm by two oceans.
Rush is a statist. Supporting huge military budgets, military bases at more than 100 countries around the world and meddling abroad makes him one. If you think differently than you need a dictionary.
“hands off your money but hands on your private life is still statism.”
Perhaps, but it is far less relevant or important than “hands off my money”. That’s the lesson to be learned from communist factionalism; focus on what matters, not what doesn’t.
How you live your personal life does matter. When you have a person defending the FBIs ability to write its own warrants and suggests that anyone who discloses the fact should go to jail you have a statist supporting a totalitarian system. That may not matter to you because you feel that materialism is more important than freedom but it does matter to most people.
You are putting words in my mouth. Even Rush would say the Repubs were just as responsible as the Dems for this mess ;)
He sure as hell doesn't make the point clearly enough or often enough. Bush should have been in jail, not awarded a Nobel Peace Prize.
I guess I’m not a true libertarian then ;) I have betrayed the Revolution.
That is likely correct. You have no trouble with wars of aggression. The libertarian position is a simple one. Aggression, which is defined as the initiation of the use or threat of force against anyone else, whether undertaken by a single individual, by a group of individuals, or a nation, is never justified.
"Exactly. Examples are not to be compared to our standards of today, but to the alternatives of the time. Was the Shah a bastard? Of course. What was the alternative? The Soviet Socialist Republic of Azerbaijan?? The Islamic Republic?"
Actually, I believe the alternative would have been the existing democratically elected government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq, who was overthrown with the help of
British and US intelligence agencies in 1953.
You didn’t understand what I said. What I said was, that 20 years after the US bombed them and they sacrificed 2 million people for Uncle Ho, they are starting back to where they were in 1965. So what did the Vietnamese achieve? At the end of the day, the US was right all along, and the Vietnamese would have had a 30 year head-start on China.
With all due respect, I believe that you are presenting a false choice.
As someone who opposes Communism I agree that a free Vietnam, which supported property rights and individual liberties, would have been better off. But the US had no interest in that. All it cared about is having the government of Vietnam on its side against the Russians, no matter which dictator was in charge. Ho actually asked the Americans for help to get rid of the French, who were occupying the country, so that Vietnam would be free. His movement was actually supported by US Office of Strategic Services against the Japanese and even the French.
“Did human rights in Cambodia improve because the US bombed the country secretly?”
No, but they would have improved 100 times over had the US succeeded in “oppressing” them ;)
You bombed the country and supported Pol Pot, who killed more than a million people while he was in charge of the country so I would say that you did succeed in oppressing Cambodia. If you don't see the problem there is something wrong with your logic.
The "military adventures abroad" nonsense comes straight from the playbook of the idiot left.
Really? Didn't the 'left' support the Iraq war? Since when has the 'left' been against war? The way I saw it both the 'left' and the 'right' fell in line as GWB and his band of neoconservatives lied their way to war.
As for GWB deserving the Nobel Peace Prize, I'd have to agree.
Hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis die and you want to give him a Nobel Peace Prize? So much for rational thought.
When one considers the tremendous number of lives that have been saved
and the current and future millions that have been liberated from the brutal tyranny of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban.
You supported both early on. Without the US Saddam never would have come to power and without American meddling in Afghanistan there would have been no Taliban.
Then, yes, when compared to other recipients who has done absolutely nothing to promote peace and human liberty, he deserves it.
Actually, by bombing and killing innocent civilians he is guilty of the same crimes as the Nazis were convicted of at Nuremberg. Clinton was also guilty because it was his embargo that wound up killing half a million Iraqi children, something that Madeline Albright said was worth it. Richardson agreed. You might as well give them to Nobel Peace Prize too.
Julian Assange is in the business of divulging national security intelligence at a time of war. He has done this not for some altruistic reason, but in an effort to damage the U.S.
Read the Constitution. The US never declared war in Iraq. So there is no war. And why the hell aren't you pissed off at the revelations of wrongdoing by the criminals in your own government rather at Assange, who allows you to see their criminal acts?
The publication of these documents has put U.S. military personal and those allied with us in very real mortal danger. So, yes, he should be tried, and if found guilty, executed.
First, there is no war so nobody can be guilty of treason. Second, the State Department admitted that nobody had lost their lives or been harmed due to the release of the information. Third, people who broke laws within the government have yet to be prosecuted.
I can understand why the State Department is pissed off. I can understand why politicians who have hidden money in Switzerland or the Swiss government would be pissed off. Or a Bank of America executive. What I can't understand is why you would be pissed off. Do you prefer to live in ignorance of the crimes being committed in your name or the hypocrisy of the political elite as it fills its pockets at your expense while it lies to you and pretends that it cares about your welfare?
Libertarians of your ilk are self-marginalizing.
Not exactly. First, as someone who argues that GWB should win a Nobel Peace Prize I would not accuse anyone of being an extremist or marginalized until after I looked in the mirror. Second, if libertarians were really marginalized the neocons would not be so eager to attack them. The libertarians who have not compromised on principle and have pandered to power are gaining a great deal of respect and attention from the public.
How terrible for you, that you must actually have to convince others in society of the virtues of your positions before they can be enacted into law.
Liberty is a virtue. And you are not exactly being consistent. If people are prohibited from smoking pot why is it legal to drink alcohol, smoke tobacco, drink high fructose, or eat food with too much salt? If they can stop you from smoking pot why can't they stop you from eating fast food?
The U.S. military exists for the protection and defense of the country, not for the self-actualization of gays. Service entails many restrictions on personal liberty that may not otherwise be considered acceptable in civilian life, like the prohibition of women in combat roles. It is not a leftist social experiment.
I do not care much for leftist social experiments. But I do care about liberty and there is nothing about gays that make them any less fit to serve than Jews, blacks, women, Catholics, Asians, etc. I am sure that if this discussion were taking place 80 years ago you would have opposed integrating the forces.
No one - let me repeat that - no one, manipulated the public to go to war. That is a lie.
After the speechPowell was told that the CIA did not believe there were any mobile labs for making biological weapons. It was convenient to lie to him so that his lies would be more convincing. We know that the Niger claims were outright lies and that Bush knew that they were lies. We know that there were no WMDs.
And no, it is not credible to quote a neoconservative who wrote more than a dozen commentaries in favour of the Iraq occupation as an authority defending Bush's lies even after he made a big joke of it.
The whole defense of the Iraq and Afghan conflicts are a big joke by people who got fooled by lies but don't want to admit that the politicians that they trusted used them as convenient idiots.
First, the U.S. military had withdrawn from Vietnam years before the fall of Saigon. It was the withdrawal of military aid to the South Vietnamese, who had beaten back two separate invasions by the communists on their own, that led to the communist "victory". Pick up a history book.
You pick up a book. The only time since WWII that the US won a war, it invaded Grenada.
Attempting to lay responsibility for the human rights record of the communists in Cambodia at the feet of the U.S. only exposes you for the morally confused leftist you really are.
Unlike the US government, I actually opposed Pol Pot. You might try reading a history book because events were quite a bit more complicated and far different than you imagine them to have been.
We are not interested in winning the approval of people like you. You are a parasite. You live in a free society without any consideration for the sacrifice that has been made to make a keep it free.
But I do know the sacrifice. That is why I oppose the growth of the police state and the empire that you embrace so easily. The US was the greatest country in the world not too long ago, flaws and all. It is still a great country. But it is because of people like you on the right and the idiots on the left that it is now in serious decline. To fix it you need what made it great before, individual liberty. You certainly do not need rent seekers and panderers to power excusing criminal acts by the criminal class.
Hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis die and you want to give him a Nobel Peace Prize? So much for rational thought.
No credible source claims that "hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis died". The Lancet study was exposed as a political fraud. The real figure is closer to 80,000 with the vast majority of those being killed by the enemy. That you rely on such wild exaggerations shows that you are either completely uninformed or simply a liar. The reality is that removing Saddam ended the U.N. sanctions, which Canada supported and which killed far more Iraqis than the war. It also lifted the very real threat of genocide from the Khurds and the marsh Arabs. I guess that 500,000 dead Iraqi children or the genocide of the Khurds and marsh Arabs was just the price you were willing to pay.
"If the world had acted against Hitler the way you acted against Saddam Hussein, the lives of millions would have been saved." - Shimon Peres speaking to President George W. Bush
Read the Constitution. The US never declared war in Iraq. So there is no war.
Actually, the Congress did authorize the use of military force. Legally, that is a declaration of war.
I am sure that if this discussion were taking place 80 years ago you would have opposed integrating the forces.
Because anyone who challenges an argument made by you must be a racist, right? Twit.
We know that the Niger claims were outright lies and that Bush knew that they were lies.
Wow, you really need to pick up a paper - other than the "Socialist Worker's Daily" - every once in a while. Not even the Washington Post was buying Wilson's Bullshit.
The only time since WWII that the US won a war, it invaded Grenada.
Yeah, except for that big "Cold War" thing. Remind me again, where's the Soviet Union?
You pick up a book.
You can start here: A Better War, Lewis Sorley. When you're done with that let me know I have others.
Vangel,
"After the speechPowell was told that the CIA did not believe there were any mobile labs for making biological weapons. It was convenient to lie to him so that his lies would be more convincing."
Did you actually read your link? It's pretty clear the CIA believed the info "Curveball" gave them at the time of Powell's speech. They did so probably because, like most people, they thought Iraq's WMD program was a "slam dunk" as George Tenet said.
I saw WMD's myself in the first war and figured Saddam would still have them, of course. Does that make me a "liar" also? Or just mistaken. By the same token, you must be a liar because you told me recently the US supplied Saddam with tanks. I have yet to see your verification of that.
Still waiting for your comments on Iran. Incidentally, do you still believe all the US has to do is stop being so mean to the mullahs and they will then somehow magically fall to democratic forces?
You are absolutely delusional. You simply list every evil regime you can think of and then credit it's existence and it's crimes to the U.S.. This is not an argument, it's hate speech. You need to extract your head from Noam Chomsky's ass for a moment and take a deep breath.
Check your history books. Every dictator that I listed was supported by the US. Even Saddam was your buddy at one time. (So was bin Laden.) You supported Pol Pot even though his regime killed a million people. That is not hate speech. It is a historical fact.
Once agian, it would be best to study up. Under our system, Congress controls the purse strings. The largest expansions of government - those that threaten U.S. solvency - all took place under a Democrat congress and adminstration. That would be Social Security (FDR) and Medicare and Medicaid (Johnson).
In your system there is very little difference between the two parties. Presidents have a big stick by being able to veto legislation. Nixon, Bush I and II, and Reagan did not use that power to force the big spenders in Congress to cut the size of government. Instead, they compromised on principle and got a bigger and bigger government.
As I wrote before, there is no big difference between the Party of Evil and the Party of Stupid. Suggesting otherwise suggests that you have not been paying attention.
GWB's spending, which averaged 19.6 percent of GDP, was lower than Clinton's and Reagan's. The deficit in 2007 when the Democrats took control of the entire Congress was 160 billion, every bit of spending from that day forth required their support and approval.
If we do not measure spending that is not on the books, ignore unfunded liabilities and the off-balance sheet war expenses than we can conclude that Bush was a fiscally responsible president. But we can't ignore all that spending just because it was not put on the budget. Bush was not a fiscal conservative and not exactly an America-first Old Right Republican. He was a meddler who fell under the spell of Neoconservatives who lied the country to war and have pushed it towards insolvency. Along with Obama, Bush will be seen as one of the worst presidents ever.
Bullshit. Even the feckless UN grudgingly admits:...
The International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations body that monitors NPT compliance, has not found any evidence of a bomb program. It has verified that Iran had not diverted its declared nuclear material to a bomb making program. The violations are just disagreements about the use of US inspectors to spy on Iranian facilities. The Iranians would rather use people not as hostile to their country and would prefer European, African, or Asian inspectors.
And the last time I looked Israel had nuclear weapons, which it made with American help. Even your own media smells the hypocrisy.
He was a moderate in hindsight. Religous minorities and women were treated much much better, and he worked to westernize the country.
He was still a bastard, but it was better to have him on our team than with the Russsians.
The Shah killed and tortured innocent people. He was not a moderate. He was a dictator who, with the help of CIA advisers, destroyed the moderate political opposition and made possible the revolution that put the extremists in power.
“The last time I looked the US was spending more on its military than the next 20 countries combined “
It could certainly use to lower its spending on the military. That is a different argument entirely, however (and the fact the US spends as much, as the reason the world today is as peaceful and free as it is)
“ Supporting huge military budgets, military bases at more than 100 countries around the world”
a) Supporting a big US military budget doesn’t make one a “statist”. The US needs a much bigger budget then everyone else, because it is the “arsenal of democracy” (at the risk of sounding like a WW2 cartoon, but it is true). World peace, is the product of a strong US military.
b) The “bases in 100 countries” meme is getting tired and ridiculous. It is used both by the Left and the Liberterians, even though it is factually completely wrong. That being said, it could certainly use to downsize a bit, particularly in the European continent.
“That may not matter to you because you feel that materialism is more important than freedom but it does matter to most people.”
Most people don’t care about their right to smoke dope. Most people care about the 43% of their paycheck taken every year.
“That is likely correct. You have no trouble with wars of aggression. The libertarian position is a simple one. Aggression, which is defined as the initiation of the use or threat of force against anyone else, whether undertaken by a single individual, by a group of individuals, or a nation, is never justified.”
Hmm. Would you care to show me an example of this “aggressive” wars the US has undertaken, where the other guys were NOT engaged in massacring and brutalizing either their own people, other nation’s people, or directly attacking the US? Please do.
“Actually, I believe the alternative would have been the existing democratically elected government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq, who was overthrown with the help of British and US intelligence agencies in 1953.”
That falls under the “Soviet Socialist Republic of Azerbaijan”
“But the US had no interest in that. All it cared about is having the government of Vietnam on its side against the Russians, no matter which dictator was in charge. Ho actually asked the Americans for help to get rid of the French, who were occupying the country, so that Vietnam would be free. His movement was actually supported by US Office of Strategic Services against the Japanese and even the French. “
Making it up as you go along.
You have to distinguish between social freedom, political freedom and economic freedom. Communism suppresses all three. Economic freedom however, is essential to the building of the other two. Preserving economic freedom, even if through dictators like in South Vietnam, Chile, South Korea, Taiwan, Turkey, Greece etc etc…is much more preferable than communism. History has proved it to be so, as today these countries are also democratic (except for S. Vietnam of course).
This is where some “libertarians” get bogged down. They can’t distinguish between three different issues.
“You bombed the country and supported Pol Pot, “
???? US bombed VC routs and bases in Cambodia. This does not equal “US bombed the country”. US supported Pol Pot??? Wow
“Hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis die and you want to give him a Nobel Peace Prize? So much for rational thought. “
Tens of millions of Iraqis are free today because of him, too (Kurds and Shiite mostly). Go ask a Kurd what they think of GWB.
“Without the US Saddam never would have come to power”
I’ll have to call BS on this.
“and without American meddling in Afghanistan there would have been no Taliban.”
Once more, BS.
“Actually, by bombing and killing innocent civilians he is guilty of the same crimes as the Nazis “
Where? When? How come I never heard of these carpet bombings of Baghdad?
“Clinton was also guilty because it was his embargo that wound up killing half a million Iraqi children“
All the garbage the left was spewing before 2003 about the supposed millions of starving Iraqis due to the embargo, and yet post-2003 we never saw any PROOF of this supposed mass starvation in Iraq. Saddam’s cartel controlled trade in-out of the country.
“Second, if libertarians were really marginalized the neocons would not be so eager to attack them. The libertarians who have not compromised on principle and have pandered to power are gaining a great deal of respect and attention from the public. “
The only ones who look at the world as “neocons vs the rest”, are the Leftists and some “libertarians” of the Lib. Party type. No one else looks at the world in black and white. So yes, you are marginalized. You were marginalized in 2008 too when all the Lib. Party was able to attract was pot-smokers and bearded guys from New Hempshire. Sorry, you guys need to chill out and treat people who have common goals with you as human beings instead of war criminals.
“If people are prohibited from smoking pot why is it legal to drink alcohol, smoke tobacco, drink high fructose, or eat food with too much salt? If they can stop you from smoking pot why can't they stop you from eating fast food? “
Because the community in which you are a part of, thinks those ought to be standards for itself. If you don’t like it, you can go be part of another community where they are more open to your ideas. No where is the freedom for you to do whatever you want, guaranteed. I agree with you that the federal government ought not to make such decisions (and most republicans would agree too)
“But I do care about liberty and there is nothing about gays that make them any less fit to serve “
And I agree. The issue is, cultural norms and standards may not be ready. 18 year old soldiers are not exactly the most philosophical types.
Some “libertarians” also seem to have a problem with cultural norms and standards, even though they proclaim the virtues of self-organizing institutions (ie cultures). There are mechanisms by which to reform cultural norms to your liking; its called CONVINCING OTHERS to agree with you. (that being said, I agree with you that the Fed. Gov. has no right to bar someone for who they are)
“Unlike the US government, I actually opposed Pol Pot.”
You keep repeating this completely idiotic point, without realizing that you’re making it up.
“Check your history books. Every dictator that I listed was supported by the US. Even Saddam was your buddy at one time.”
Once more, besides exaggerating and inventing facts to fit your reality, you also do not recognize the difference between political freedom, economic freedom and social freedoms. Nor do you recognize which is the most essential one, and the harsh reality that often you can’t get all three.
“You supported Pol Pot even though his regime killed a million people. That is not hate speech. It is a historical fact.”
That’s not historical fact. That is a LIE. Pure and simple made up BS. The US never supported anything of the sort. The US supported the Cambodian gov. in exile, following the Vietnamese invasion (which killed a further 500k-1 mil people). This gov. in exile was composed of many factions, and the US supported the former prime-minister’s faction (the Khmer Rouge were part of it too).
“As I wrote before, there is no big difference between the Party of Evil and the Party of Stupid. Suggesting otherwise suggests that you have not been paying attention.”
There are minor differences, and there’s hope in one more than the other. No one is being partisan here…except you.
“The Shah killed and tortured innocent people. He was not a moderate. He was a dictator who, with the help of CIA advisers, destroyed the moderate political opposition and made possible the revolution that put the extremists in power.”
Iran never had moderates. These fairy-tales Leftists and some “libertarians” that somehow before the US, the world was made up of nice moderate people is ridiculous. Iran was always a nation divided, a nation struggling with communism, Islamism and nationalism. Mossadegh was neither a moderate, nor elected democratically, as no such thing existed in Iran at the time anymore than it exists today. Mossadegh allowed as much political “freedom” as the Shah allowed; ie very little (Mossadegh ruled through emergency powers). The romanticism of the Left and some “libertarians” of figures opposed to the US is astounding. They will make up any sort of lie to show that there were angels on earth prior to the US.
Its rather silly.
Did you actually read your link? It's pretty clear the CIA believed the info "Curveball" gave them at the time of Powell's speech. They did so probably because, like most people, they thought Iraq's WMD program was a "slam dunk" as George Tenet said.
I saw WMD's myself in the first war and figured Saddam would still have them, of course. Does that make me a "liar" also? Or just mistaken. By the same token, you must be a liar because you told me recently the US supplied Saddam with tanks. I have yet to see your verification of that.
There were no WMDs in Iraq. What you saw in the first war were weapons that the US sold to Saddam but those did not have long shelf lives. The only legitimate WMD that you could find would probably be a fired but unexploded shell somewhere at a testing range but given the deterioration it would not be very useful as a weapon.
And let us not spin a story here. The simple fact is that it was in Bush's interest to find any WMDs and he certainly tried. The fact that he could not find them tells us what we need to know.
And if you had looked at the vast amount of literature you would know that there was a reason why the 'source' was given the name curveball. The lies were very transparent and did not take much looking to reveal the flaws in the arguments that Powell was making. The flaws were not found because some people already knew that the argument was bogus and did not want anyone investigating too hard.
Still waiting for your comments on Iran. Incidentally, do you still believe all the US has to do is stop being so mean to the mullahs and they will then somehow magically fall to democratic forces?
I think that Iraq is not very stable and will fall if the US government steps aside and lets the internal opposition have a run at Ahmadinejad. He never would have won the last election without help from the US government. Had it remained silent he would have lost because voters were tired of him. But by making him a visible enemy the US made him out to be more important than he really was and made sure that the anti-American vote went to him.
The IEA has certainly said that Iran is not diverting its declared material into a weapons program so there is nothing to worry about on that front. And even if it did have a weapon it would not be a threat to the US, which is helping India with its own bomb program even though it has not signed the NPT, and ignoring Israel's 200 warheads, all built with American assistance. I would not take away Israel's right to have a nuke and would not prevent any other country from obtaining one.
It could certainly use to lower its spending on the military. That is a different argument entirely, however (and the fact the US spends as much, as the reason the world today is as peaceful and free as it is)
I disagree. The American government has been taking sides in wars across the globe and has been giving weapons to dictators. Its meddling has made the world less stable and American citizens much poorer.
a) Supporting a big US military budget doesn’t make one a “statist”. The US needs a much bigger budget then everyone else, because it is the “arsenal of democracy” (at the risk of sounding like a WW2 cartoon, but it is true). World peace, is the product of a strong US military.
I assume that this is a joke. If it is, the cartoon reference is appropriate.
b) The “bases in 100 countries” meme is getting tired and ridiculous. It is used both by the Left and the Liberterians, even though it is factually completely wrong. That being said, it could certainly use to downsize a bit, particularly in the European continent.
Facts are facts. The US military has certainly not refuted the claim.
Most people don’t care about their right to smoke dope. Most people care about the 43% of their paycheck taken every year.
Most people don't smoke dope so I doubt that they care. But you cannot have a free country and a ar against drugs that is being prosecuted by a police state at the same time.
Hmm. Would you care to show me an example of this “aggressive” wars the US has undertaken, where the other guys were NOT engaged in massacring and brutalizing either their own people, other nation’s people, or directly attacking the US? Please do.
Iraq would be the latest one. The US was not attacked by Iraq but chose ot invade it. Its justification in the UN was not that Saddam was not treating his people probably. In fact, given the fact that the US government put Saddam into power in the first place and thought that killing 500,000 kids due to an embargo was 'worth it', any claim that it wanted to help the Iraqi people is pure BS.
You have to distinguish between social freedom, political freedom and economic freedom.
Freedom is freedom. You cannot justify National Socialism by pretending that you oppose Communism.
???? US bombed VC routs and bases in Cambodia. This does not equal “US bombed the country”.
Actually, it does. Your bombers killed 600,000 Cambodians and destabilized the government.
US supported Pol Pot??? Wow
Sad but true. The US government supported the Khmer Ruge because it was worried about an expansionist Vietnam. The killing fields and the genocide did not matter as much as opposing Vietnam. You might try reading the history books some time. Or you might want to take a trip to Tuol Sleng or the Killing Fields some time to see the kind of terror that your government helped create and support. I made the error of taking my wife with me. She could not sleep well for a week.
Tens of millions of Iraqis are free today because of him, too (Kurds and Shiite mostly). Go ask a Kurd what they think of GWB.
The Iranian Shiites love GWB for getting rid of Saddam. My Kurdish friends love him too but are worried that he has allowed Iran to gain an upper hand politically. Frankly, GWB was good for my portfolio. I have investments in Iraq and my PM portfolios were great beneficiaries of the Greenspan/Bernanke/Bush/Obama follies.
“Without the US Saddam never would have come to power”
I’ll have to call BS on this.
Try reading instead of posting in ignorance. How do you think the Ba'ath Party got to power?
You might want to begin by looking here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north170.html
And follow the references to the original source material.
“What you saw in the first war were weapons that the US sold to Saddam “
BS. Complete made up fantasy. There’s nothing more to say on that.
“I think that Iraq is not very stable and will fall if the US government steps aside and lets the internal opposition have a run at Ahmadinejad. He never would have won the last election without help from the US government.”
This is getting sillier and sillier with every comment. So now it’s the US which prevents the opposition from overthrowing Ahmadinejad.
Are you even aware WHO the opposition is in Iran? Do you even know who Mousavi is? Do you know who Rafsanjani is? Do you know how many thousands of people Mousavi had executed in the 80s? Oh but I guess you think they are “moderate democrats”.
“Had it remained silent he would have lost because voters were tired of him. “
Who told you that? The Iranian-Americans who haven’t set foot in Iran in 30 years?
“But by making him a visible enemy the US made him out to be more important than he really was and made sure that the anti-American vote went to him.”
He won because he controls the economy through the IRGC cartels.
“The IEA has certainly said that Iran is not diverting its declared material into a weapons program so there is nothing to worry about on that front.”
Well then it’s all solved then. IEA said so. Did the IEA examine those underground facilities in the heart of Teheran which are visible even on Google earth?
“And even if it did have a weapon it would not be a threat to the US”
Iran threatens every single country around it with aggression.
“which is helping India with its own bomb program even though it has not signed the NPT”
India is a democratic state. India has had a nuclear weapon since 1974, a time in which it was heavily leaning towards the USSR. You keep making up allegations of “US support”, without any sort of back-up. How long are you going to keep this up?
“and ignoring Israel's 200 warheads, all built with American assistance. “
Israel got nuclear technology from the French, not Americans.
“I would not take away Israel's right to have a nuke and would not prevent any other country from obtaining one.”
Israel is a democratic country. Iran is an aggressive dictatorship which has territorial and political claims on all its neighbors. Big difference, which you don’t seem to see.
and without American meddling in Afghanistan there would have been no Taliban.”
Once more, BS.
The Taliban and al Qaeda were funded by the CIA. You really should do some reading.
"I disagree. The American government has been taking sides in wars across the globe and has been giving weapons to dictators. Its meddling has made the world less stable and American citizens much poorer.
"
Has made the world LESS stable? It eliminated 99% of communist dictatorships around the world, eliminated 99% of dictatorships period. This is downright silly. I feel like I'm talking to one of those 18 year old Socialist Worker kids standing in front of a university library trying to sell me a paper.
Yes the US took sides and supported some dictators. It did so, because thats what was needed at the time. History has vindicated those decisions.
“Facts are facts. The US military has certainly not refuted the claim.”
I don’t need to hear it from the US military to figure out where and what kind of bases the US has around the world. Try Wikipedia ;) (their list includes also “joint bases” where the US has access, but no presence, like the multiple bases listed for Bulgaria but which aren’t really so).
“But you cannot have a free country and a ar against drugs that is being prosecuted by a police state at the same time. “
You most certainly can.
“Iraq would be the latest one. The US was not attacked by Iraq but chose ot invade it. “
Could be argued either way.
“In fact, given the fact that the US government put Saddam into power in the first place”
Another BS completely baseless claim. Saddam was the creation of Arab Baathism.
“and thought that killing 500,000 kids due to an embargo”
Another made-up baseless claim that died in 2003.
“Freedom is freedom. You cannot justify National Socialism by pretending that you oppose Communism.”
Freedom is not freedom. Life is not clear cut. Life is gradual, and so is accomplishing “freedom”.
“Actually, it does. Your bombers killed 600,000 Cambodians and destabilized the government. “
BS. Don’t you ever get tired of paraphrasing Noam Chomsky? That is so far off from reality, I’ll leave you to ponder that number for a minute.
“Sad but true. The US government supported the Khmer Ruge because it was worried about an expansionist Vietnam. The killing fields and the genocide did not matter as much as opposing Vietnam. You might try reading the history books some time.”
Once more, made up BS. You make it too easy. Once more, the US supported the Cambodian gov. in exile, which was a coalition of groups which VOLUNTARELY included the Khmer Rouge in it. And the US never supplied that faction.
For God’s sake.
“The Iranian Shiites love GWB for getting rid of Saddam. My Kurdish friends love him too”
You’ve just accounted for 75% of Iraq’s population.
“How do you think the Ba'ath Party got to power? “
The same way it did everywhere else in the ME, the same way every government in the ME was established. US had nothing to do with it in any sense of the word.
"The Taliban and al Qaeda were funded by the CIA. You really should do some reading."
BS of the highest order. Provide ONE instance of such support.
Where? When? How come I never heard of these carpet bombings of Baghdad?
I have no idea why you have not heard about the bombing of civilians in Iraq. Perhaps you don't read newspapers, magazines or don't own a TV.
All the garbage the left was spewing before 2003 about the supposed millions of starving Iraqis due to the embargo, and yet post-2003 we never saw any PROOF of this supposed mass starvation in Iraq. Saddam’s cartel controlled trade in-out of the country.
Well, MA certainly didn't deny the contention that kids were dying. She actually told 60 Minutes that 500,000 dead were worth it. Bill Richardson agreed. And it is hard to see the bodies once they are buried unless you choose to dig them up.
The only ones who look at the world as “neocons vs the rest”, are the Leftists and some “libertarians” of the Lib. Party type....
Really?
http://tinyurl.com/6am7vaq
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aewpvcxAwTk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLxwWl6_-FU
http://tinyurl.com/33tubje
Ignorance is no excuse. The Republican Party was co-opted by Neocons who migrated over from the Democratic Party after failing to convince Bill Clinton to attack Iraq.
As one of the citations argues, the Neoconservatives do not believe in the individual but pursue statism as they pursue the goal of transforming the world in their own image and supportive of their favoured policies. Many of the people who attack my position here have made the exact same argument; we had to attack Iraq to make the Iraqi people more like us and free them from Saddam.
As a reader of Bloom and a student of Thomas Pangle I have a great admiration for the intellect and arguments of many of the neoconservatives. But I also understand that the admiration requires a huge amount of caution because at the heart of the neocon philosophy is a dismissal of the average individual who is but a tool for the philosopher kings that make the policies behind the scenes. They use effective tools by ensuring that a combination of propaganda and a few pushed thumotic buttons rile up the great unwashed and get them to trade some of their liberty for promised security that never seems to come.
No one else looks at the world in black and white. So yes, you are marginalized. You were marginalized in 2008 too when all the Lib. Party was able to attract was pot-smokers and bearded guys from New Hempshire. Sorry, you guys need to chill out and treat people who have common goals with you as human beings instead of war criminals.
I would not worry about libertarians. Most of the libertarians that I know are doing very well and managing to live as free individuals no matter what barriers are put in their way. We don't need to have our way politically and are doing quite well getting rich from the opportunities presented by the idiocy from the both the left and right. Some of us are actually very fond of the arguments made by the neocons and understand how you are likely to react when they push your buttons. That allows us to do quite well even as find yourselves stagnating and less secure. To us it makes no difference if the Republicans or Democrats win because we do not see much of a difference between the elite that runs either party.
Because the community in which you are a part of, thinks those ought to be standards for itself.
I think that you are confused. I live in a city of 700,000 people, a province of 12 million, and a country of 34 million. Of all those people I may be friends with a few hundred and know well around one thousand. What is my community? Most people are strangers to me and in no position to set standards for me or for anyone else. In fact nobody asked those people about the standards because more than half would actually repeal the laws that make the sale and use of pot illegal.
You are confusing 'community' with a cabal of politically savvy individuals who run the country and their monied friends who are the primary beneficiaries of the laws and regulations that are passed.
Bryan Caplan covers this much better than I could. I suggest that you read and learn.
And Cristian Gherasim explains why your lefty notions of class and community do not reflect reality.
There are mechanisms by which to reform cultural norms to your liking; its called CONVINCING OTHERS to agree with you. (that being said, I agree with you that the Fed. Gov. has no right to bar someone for who they are)
How ironic that this statement comes from someone who advocates forcing others to agree with you.
You keep repeating this completely idiotic point, without realizing that you’re making it up.
You mean to tell us that you were not aware that the US government supported the Khmer Rouge because they feared Vietnamese expansion?
Rothbard, who was a critic of the American policy of supporting the Khmer Rouge wrote, "The Reagan Administration’s continued aid and support to Pol Pot in Cambodia, the most genocidal butcher of our time, is more reprehensible but less visible to most Americans. As a result, Pol Pot’s thugs are mobilizing at this very moment on the Thai border to return and take over Cambodia as soon as the Vietnamese pull out, presumably to renew their bizarre mass murders. But you see, that’s okay with the Reaganites because the Cambodian Commies are guerrilla fighters against the Vietnamese (pro-Soviet) Commies, who by definition are evil. Pol Pot’s butchers as "freedom fighters" show us that, in the arsenal of the Reaganite Right, "freedom," like "taxes" and many other crucial words, means, as in the case of Humpty Dumpty, whatever they choose it to."
John Pilger, who was a journalist in the country also observed, "Unclassified CIA files leave little doubt that the bombing was the catalyst for Pol Pot's fanatics, who, before the inferno, had only minority support. Now, a stricken people rallied to them. In Panh's film, a torturer refers to the bombing as his reason for joining "the maquis": the Khmer Rouge. What Nixon and Kissinger began, Pol Pot completed. And having been driven out by the Vietnamese, who came from the wrong side of the cold war, the Khmer Rouge were restored in Thailand by the Reagan administration, assisted by the Thatcher government, who invented a "coalition" to provide the cover for America's continuing war against Vietnam."
Or your could pick up a copy of Michael Hass', Cambodia, Pol Pot, and the United States: The Faustian Pact.
Or read The New Statesman.
Once more, besides exaggerating and inventing facts to fit your reality, you also do not recognize the difference between political freedom, economic freedom and social freedoms. Nor do you recognize which is the most essential one, and the harsh reality that often you can’t get all three.
Of course I do. That is why I do not support murderers or excuse my government when it chooses to support murderers. I know that many of you have been brainwashed by the leftist misuse of language but freedom is freedom. You can't have economic freedom without social freedom or the other way around. And the only way to have economic and social freedom without political freedom was if men were ruled by angels.
That’s not historical fact. That is a LIE. Pure and simple made up BS. The US never supported anything of the sort. The US supported the Cambodian gov. in exile, following the Vietnamese invasion (which killed a further 500k-1 mil people). This gov. in exile was composed of many factions, and the US supported the former prime-minister’s faction (the Khmer Rouge were part of it too).
Nice spin but it does not work. The fact was that the biggest player was always the Khmer Rouge. The minor players that were also being supported were only there for cover when the criticism came.
Cambodia, Pol Pot, and the United States: The Faustian Pact
Iran never had moderates. These fairy-tales Leftists and some “libertarians” that somehow before the US, the world was made up of nice moderate people is ridiculous. Iran was always a nation divided, a nation struggling with communism, Islamism and nationalism. Mossadegh was neither a moderate, nor elected democratically, as no such thing existed in Iran at the time anymore than it exists today. Mossadegh allowed as much political “freedom” as the Shah allowed; ie very little (Mossadegh ruled through emergency powers). The romanticism of the Left and some “libertarians” of figures opposed to the US is astounding. They will make up any sort of lie to show that there were angels on earth prior to the US.
You mean all those university professors and students who opposed the Shah and were killed and tortured to death were extremists?
Well, given your ignorance you probably have not met many Iranians so it is quite understandable that you regurgitate the evil pablum that is fed to you by your handlers. For examples of moderates you can look here.
Use wikipedia much vangeIV?
Maybe you should look at real history and see which of those were real villains and which of those were villains identified with leftist historians having an agenda...
Just a thought...
No, I did not use Wikepedia. I went by memory and probably missed some more important tyrants that also belong on the list.
And I do not really refer to the leftist historians because of their obvious bias. The people I cited killed their own citizens and used force to rule over a population that did not want them in place. Using the, 'other guy could have been worse,' argument does not change the fact that your government supported tyrants. And note that if I had used the left's lists I probably would have put up one of their favorite villains, Pinochet, on the list.
But, as usual, the hypocrisy of your government is illustrated again. While Congress has vilified Pinochet for killing around 2,500 leftists and jailing many others it has praised a dictator like Mubarak as being an invaluable ally.
No, I did not use Wikepedia. I went by memory ...
Well, that explains everything.
I've never encountered anyone so fluent in bullshit. I guess that when you come from a country that has no real standing or responsibilities you can afford to be smug. Back to your sandbox junior.
“Most people are strangers to me and in no position to set standards for me or for anyone else.”
They most certainly can and do, all the time.
“You are confusing 'community' with a cabal of politically savvy individuals who run the country and their monied friends who are the primary beneficiaries of the laws and regulations that are passed. “
The further away you go from the local environment, the more of that you get. No argument here from me on that. However, that doesn’t negate the fact that your local community can and does determine standards and practices for your community.
You are not differentiating between the two. In fact your argument specifically speaks to my point; since you are talking about “country”, and I’m talking about local community.
“How ironic that this statement comes from someone who advocates forcing others to agree with you.”
When did I advocate such a thing? ;) I’m saying that, in realistic terms, the community you reside in determines a lot of things about your behavior through self-developed institutions. Those are the things we call culture and morals and religion etc. Now you’re just putting words into my mouth and claiming I am advocating a central decision-making body, which clearly I am not. But…how else could you have an argument with me, unless you put words in my mouth? ;)
“Nice spin but it does not work. The fact was that the biggest player was always the Khmer Rouge. The minor players that were also being supported were only there for cover when the criticism came. “
Talk about accusing anyone of a “spin” job. You’re making things up again. Do yourself a favor and stop reading books :p (by senile political “scientists” with a clear anti-American agenda. If you even pretend to be interested in the truth, reading biased sources is clearly not the way to go about it)
The US never supported the Khmer Rouge in any way shape or form. It supported the greater umbrella organization which represented the Cambodians in exile (and this, selectively). The entire US involvement in Cambodia was specifically to help them push off the Khmer Rouge/VC invasion.
Instead of posting some idiotic book that costs $103 because obviously no one is in the slightest interested in buying it, do us all a favor and provide some specific instances of this. Otherwise, please stop making things up. We’re not Mises.org contributors here.
“You mean all those university professors and students who opposed the Shah and were killed and tortured to death were extremists? “
I’m saying they are irrelevant. Just as irrelevant as the students and professors killed by Ahmadinejad last year. Do not confuse popular fervor with the actual political realities on the ground. Just as the students protesting last year, may have been protesting for “democracy” and “human rights” (though really most of the protests were about economic issues), in reality the political alternative to Ahmadinejad was an equally Islamo-fascist murderer who had his own economic cartels to defend (Mousavi and Rafsanjani).
As someone once said, “it’s the economy, stupid”
“Well, given your ignorance you probably have not met many Iranians so it is quite understandable that you regurgitate the evil pablum that is fed to you by your handlers.”
I don’t really base my info on anecdotes from Iraninan-Americans. I know better than to listen to an Iranian-American on their political thoughts ;)
“The people I cited killed their own citizens and used force to rule over a population that did not want them in place. Using the, 'other guy could have been worse,' argument does not change the fact that your government supported tyrants.”
Yes the US supported tyrants and murderers. No argument here. But I’ve got news for you; reality is a b****. It ain’t like it’s described in mises.org. Alternatives do make a difference, and they may make a difference in the long term. S. Korea, Taiwan, Turkey, Greece, Chile are testaments of the hard choices that had to be taken, which turned out favorably in the end.
“While Congress has vilified Pinochet for killing around 2,500 leftists and jailing many others it has praised a dictator like Mubarak as being an invaluable ally.”
Well that says a lot about Congress now doesn’t it. You do realize no one here is defending Congress or the President or any such entity?
The standard strategy of all extreme Leftists or extreme libertarians is always, build up a straw man and then attack it to claim victory.
AIG,
I have followed the discussion on this thread with great interest. It has been quite fascinating.
You seem to have a wealth of detailed knowledge of historical events, which have occurred during my lifetime, so I have some knowledge of them. But, I don't think I ever knew some of the details you've presented.
You have stated many things with certainty and confidence, while claiming that "leftists" and "libertarians" are just plain wrong, but you have provided no references. If I wished to learn more - as I do - what sources would you recommend?
"You have stated many things with certainty and confidence, while claiming that "leftists" and "libertarians" are just plain wrong, but you have provided no references. If I wished to learn more - as I do - what sources would you recommend?"
I make no claims or allegations of any sort. I'm simply responding to the ones Vangel is making. I don't claim my sources are better then his, but at the very least I can see clearly his are biased and have an agenda.
You had anything in particular in mind? I'd be more than happy to.
AIG,
"You had anything in particular in mind? I'd be more than happy to."
Yes, thank you. I'm particularly interested in your sources for the following:
1. "Mossadegh was neither a moderate, nor elected democratically, as no such thing existed in Iran at the time anymore than it exists today. Mossadegh allowed as much political “freedom” as the Shah allowed; ie very little (Mossadegh ruled through emergency powers)."
My understanding of this period is that Mossadegh was initially an admirer of the US, and hoped for a similar democratic system in Iran. I believe he was elected as Prime Minister when his party, the National Front, came to power in 1951. His attempts to reduce the dominance of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. (now BP), and his eventual nationalization of it's assets put him on the wrong side of British and US interests, and led to his overthrow by the CIA and British intelligence agencies. I think it's sheer speculation that the Tudeh party was a serious threat at this time.
2. "The US supported the Cambodian gov. in exile, following the Vietnamese invasion (which killed a further 500k-1 mil people). This gov. in exile was composed of many factions, and the US supported the former prime-minister’s faction (the Khmer Rouge were part of it too)."
"I believe he was elected as Prime Minister when his party, the National Front, came to power in 1951."
Mosaddegh was elected by the parliament. Parliamentary elections in Iran at the time were hardly "democratic". They were (and are), gang affairs. The notion that we are dealing with a democracy cut short, is absurd given the conditions of Iran.
Once in power, he rigged elections, canceled elections, and gave himself emergency powers.
These are facts which aren't exactly in dispute by anyone. You can find them in "Iran Between Two Revolutions", hardly a partisan book with any agenda.
The only point I'm making is, romanticized notions of figures, based purely on their anti-Americanism, are not very interesting, especially if presented in a 2-line of the type "America supported evil Dr. X and overthrew democratic Mr. Y".
Mr. Y wasn't such a nice guy either, and conditions on the ground determine much more who gets in and out of power in these places than America's wishes.
" His attempts to reduce the dominance of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. (now BP), and his eventual nationalization of it's assets put him on the wrong side of British and US interests, and led to his overthrow by the CIA and British intelligence agencies."
He attempted to take private property from its owners, and use it to prop up his government. Regardless of the "high ended" goals he proclaimed, that is in no way different than what Chavez did in Venezuela. (of course in Iran, the government has had the oil in its hands now for 30 years, and still the people live in poverty. Same for Chavez)
The leftists have the same storyline lionizing Chavez for being a democratically elected president who wants to help the people by taking from the rich and giving to the poor, and who survived an CIA-led coup. How much do you buy that?
"I think it's sheer speculation that the Tudeh party was a serious threat at this time. "
Indeed it is a speculation. However, whenever one gets into an alliance with the communists, one usually ends up being eaten by them alive. Tudeh was his main and strongest ally. (again from "Iran Between Two Revolutions")
The fact that Mosaddegh's targets did not include the Soviet oil fields in the North of Iran, the fact that his popular support, when things got tough, rested on the communists...may have indicated to the US that it was better to overthrow him, then deal with the likely Soviet influence.
Bad decision? Maybe. We will never know.
"2. "The US supported the Cambodian gov. in exile, following the Vietnamese invasion (which killed a further 500k-1 mil people). This gov. in exile was composed of many factions, and the US supported the former prime-minister’s faction (the Khmer Rouge were part of it too).""
What is in dispute in this second point?
Here it is from a libertarian source no-less: CATO
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa074.html
They most certainly can and do, all the time.
No. Standards are not set by 'the people.' They are made by law by politicians. There is a big difference.
However, that doesn’t negate the fact that your local community can and does determine standards and practices for your community.
How one behaves in church or talks to ones neighbours, yes. But not which social program one has to fund. That is not set by the community but by a political elite that pushes the agenda that it is paid to push by the rent seekers. Does your local community run the school system? No. Parents have little say because the system is set up to function from top down not bottom up. It works to serve the bureaucrats, not the students.
You are not differentiating between the two. In fact your argument specifically speaks to my point; since you are talking about “country”, and I’m talking about local community.
You are deluded. Most people do not know more than five or six of their neighbours and certainly do not get very involved in planning events in their local community. Most events actually revolve around kids' activities or social events tied in to commercial operations. Most of the rules are set by a handful of individuals.
When did I advocate such a thing? ;) I’m saying that, in realistic terms, the community you reside in determines a lot of things about your behavior through self-developed institutions. Those are the things we call culture and morals and religion etc. Now you’re just putting words into my mouth and claiming I am advocating a central decision-making body, which clearly I am not. But…how else could you have an argument with me, unless you put words in my mouth? ;)
One of us is not being very clear. If you are going to give me the Hayekian argument about spontaneous order I would agree. But that is not what this discussion is about. It is about rules set by local, state, and federal governments, most of which are very arbitrary and far removed from the local community.
Talk about accusing anyone of a “spin” job. You’re making things up again. Do yourself a favor and stop reading books :p (by senile political “scientists” with a clear anti-American agenda. If you even pretend to be interested in the truth, reading biased sources is clearly not the way to go about it)
The US never supported the Khmer Rouge in any way shape or form. It supported the greater umbrella organization which represented the Cambodians in exile (and this, selectively). The entire US involvement in Cambodia was specifically to help them push off the Khmer Rouge/VC invasion.
Sure it did. Thatcher and Reagan supported the Khmer Rouge and let them still retain Cambodia's seat at the UN. They gave money, arms, and training so that Pol Pot could fight Vietnamese expansion. What was going was not a secret and well documented at the time and now. On my campus there were speakers denouncing Reagan's support of the Khmer Rouge by both the right and left wing idiots. I don't think that it was any different where you were.
If you want to ignore the evidence and pretend that it is not true go ahead. But that will not change the facts. And note that the critics are from all sides of the spectrum. The Old Right types, the left, and the anarchists all criticized the support of the Khmer Rouge by Reagan and Thatcher.
Instead of posting some idiotic book that costs $103 because obviously no one is in the slightest interested in buying it, do us all a favor and provide some specific instances of this. Otherwise, please stop making things up. We’re not Mises.org contributors here.
You don't have to buy the book to look in it. It is very searchable and provides a very clear picture. And as I said, none of this was secret. When he wrote his piece opposing Bush's 1990 war with Iraq Rothbard reminded readers that, "the punch line is that the Reagan-Bush administration has been allied with the monster Pol Pot in his guerrilla war against the Vietnamese Communist-puppet regime in Cambodia (Gorbyish Commies as against the ultra-Maoist Pol Pot), shipping Pol Pot weapons, so that he is just about to take over Cambodia once again! (Very recently, the Bush administration has, in response, pulled back slightly from that commitment to Pol Pot."
John Pilger, who was a journalist working in Cambodia, noted that from 1980 to 1986 the US had given $86 million to support Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. There are many other people who have written on the subject but I guess that you are not interested in paying attention because what you find does not fit your vision of the US government or Reagan/Bush.
I’m saying they are irrelevant. Just as irrelevant as the students and professors killed by Ahmadinejad last year. Do not confuse popular fervor with the actual political realities on the ground. Just as the students protesting last year, may have been protesting for “democracy” and “human rights” (though really most of the protests were about economic issues), in reality the political alternative to Ahmadinejad was an equally Islamo-fascist murderer who had his own economic cartels to defend (Mousavi and Rafsanjani).
You are all twisted. You went from 'there are not moderate Iranians' to 'moderate Iranian victims are irrelevant. Sorry but the crimes of the Shaw did matter and they helped create the extremists that still run the country.
I don’t really base my info on anecdotes from Iraninan-Americans. I know better than to listen to an Iranian-American on their political thoughts ;)
If you knew any Iranian-Americans you would know that there are many moderate Iranians. Given the change in your latest posting it appears that you now know that there are moderate Iranians and that your new position is that they do not matter and have never mattered.
Yes the US supported tyrants and murderers. No argument here. But I’ve got news for you; reality is a b****. It ain’t like it’s described in mises.org. Alternatives do make a difference, and they may make a difference in the long term. S. Korea, Taiwan, Turkey, Greece, Chile are testaments of the hard choices that had to be taken, which turned out favorably in the end.
Actually, reality is more like what the Mises people claim than what the neconons say it is. How did Vietnam work out for you? Or the bombing of Cambodia? Or the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan? Are you any safer or richer? Are Americans more respected in the world?
No. You are poorer and have managed to give up the moral high ground that was once unassailable. As I wrote, it is easy for the US to be the greatest country in the world. All it has to do is to reject the neoconservatives and embrace liberty. But that won't happen because they have found the right buttons to push and the noble lie that will bind you to your iron and bronze status.
Well that says a lot about Congress now doesn’t it. You do realize no one here is defending Congress or the President or any such entity?
You mean that you are not defending Reagan's support of Pol Pot by giving me the realpolitik argument? Could have fooled most readers.
The standard strategy of all extreme Leftists or extreme libertarians is always, build up a straw man and then attack it to claim victory.
Libertarians need no straw men because the flaws of the lefties and the right are so easy to expose. On economic issues the right usually joins them while the same is true of social issues when the left join them. They share the best qualities of both the right and left while avoiding the worst. I'll take that any day.
“How one behaves in church or talks to ones neighbours, yes. But not which social program one has to fund. That is not set by the community but by a political elite that pushes the agenda that it is paid to push by the rent seekers. Does your local community run the school system? No. Parents have little say because the system is set up to function from top down not bottom up. It works to serve the bureaucrats, not the students. “
Yesterday we were talking about the “brutal police state” preventing you the freedom from smoking dope. Today we are talking about social programs and schools. Clearly you are grasping at straws, since I have no quarrel with you on social programs, schools, or the government’s role in either. So if you take away my quarrel with you, what else do I have to live for? ;)
“You are deluded. Most people do not know more than five or six of their neighbours and certainly do not get very involved in planning events in their local community. Most events actually revolve around kids' activities or social events tied in to commercial operations. Most of the rules are set by a handful of individuals.”
This is nonsense. Sorry but it is.
“One of us is not being very clear. If you are going to give me the Hayekian argument about spontaneous order I would agree. But that is not what this discussion is about. It is about rules set by local, state, and federal governments, most of which are very arbitrary and far removed from the local community. “
Quite the opposite. Certainly I do not disagree on the federal or state level. Which is why, most libertarians and most conservatives would agree that decision making has to be as local and as direct to the people affected by it. This is not a defense of what actually IS happening in the US. It is a rebuttal to your argument that government of ANY level has no right whatsoever to restrict your behavior. That might be part of some theory of some sort, but it is certainly not part of the US Constitution. At the very least, you can’t call it “unconstitutional” (which you did).
“Sure it did. Thatcher and Reagan supported the Khmer Rouge and let them still retain Cambodia's seat at the UN.”
That’s a bold faced lie. You can’t seem to be able to (or willing to) distinguish between realities on the ground. The seat at the UN was held by the coalition government.
“They gave money, arms, and training so that Pol Pot could fight Vietnamese expansion”
That’s another bold faced lie.
“What was going was not a secret and well documented at the time and now”
Then you ought to have no problem providing evidence.
“On my campus there were speakers denouncing Reagan's support of the Khmer Rouge”
Oh no!! That’s some convincing evidence right there.
“I don't think that it was any different where you were.”
I was in a communist hell-hole in Eastern Europe, thank you very much.
“If you want to ignore the evidence and pretend that it is not true go ahead. But that will not change the facts. And note that the critics are from all sides of the spectrum. The Old Right types, the left, and the anarchists all criticized the support of the Khmer Rouge by Reagan and Thatcher.”
Sir, please. What happened to all of these facts?
“When he wrote his piece opposing Bush's 1990 war with Iraq Rothbard reminded readers that, "the punch line is that the Reagan-Bush administration has been allied with the monster Pol Pot in his guerrilla war against the Vietnamese Communist-puppet regime in Cambodia (Gorbyish Commies as against the ultra-Maoist Pol Pot), shipping Pol Pot weapons, so that he is just about to take over Cambodia once again! (Very recently, the Bush administration has, in response, pulled back slightly from that commitment to Pol Pot."
“
This is not evidence. This is called the big pile of horse manure.
“John Pilger, who was a journalist working in Cambodia, noted that from 1980 to 1986 the US had given $86 million to support Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. “
John Pilger is as much “evidence” as any other BS journalist of his ilk. This is not evidence.
“There are many other people who have written on the subject but I guess that you are not interested in paying attention because what you find does not fit your vision of the US government or Reagan/Bush.”
People writing, is not evidence.
“You are all twisted. You went from 'there are not moderate Iranians' to 'moderate Iranian victims are irrelevant. Sorry but the crimes of the Shaw did matter and they helped create the extremists that still run the country. “
Extremists have always run the country. In a country where most people are illiterate peasants, only extremists exist. I never said there were no moderates (whatever you may think the term means in an Iranian context) in Iran, just that politically they are irrelevant, no matter how many of them die in the streets. That’s the harsh reality.
“If you knew any Iranian-Americans you would know that there are many moderate Iranians. “
Yes there are. And they’re not in Iran. Why do you think that is? (most of the ones I know, are raving Leftists, but anyway)
“Given the change in your latest posting it appears that you now know that there are moderate Iranians and that your new position is that they do not matter and have never mattered.”
There’s 80 million people in Iran. You think I would make a statement that implied there are, physically, no “moderate” Iranians? Or do you think I meant, there are politically no moderate Iranians? Lets keep going in circles some more. This is fun.
“How did Vietnam work out for you?”
You’re going to have to ask the Vietnamese people that question. They have been answering it with their feet, and their wallets.
“Or the bombing of Cambodia?”
Do you even have any idea what the “bombing of Cambodia” was and what it did? I don’t think you do.
“Or the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan?”
Mixed results I would say. One can hope for better.
“Are you any safer or richer?”
Safer, most defiantly. Richer? Well I’m not here to defend the spending. I already said, it ought to be cut. Don’t take away everything I have, by putting up points that I agree with you on ;) Do me that favor.
“Are Americans more respected in the world? “
I have no desire to be respected by anyone else in the world. Those who have been liberated by America, whose security and freedom is based on America, and those who appreciate freedom and democracy, are the ones I want the respect of. Not the French, not the Italians, not the Spanish, not the Russians, nor most of W. Europe.
It is no badge of accomplishment to be respected by lousy governments.
I already mentioned I am from the Balkans. I have seen the “respected” European troops stand by and watch, with their guns in their hands, as people were massacred left and right, all the while preaching to the rest of the world the virtues of being a “respectable European”. I have seen the “respectable” ones protesting in the streets of their capitals to defend Milosevic because he is, after all “a socialist like us, and anti-American”.
I take it as a badge of honor, in fact, that people who hate freedom and capitalism, despise America. We wouldn’t be doing our job otherwise.
“You are poorer and have managed to give up the moral high ground that was once unassailable”
Morality is not a measurement of whether crowds in France or Spain agree with you. In most cases, it is the opposite.
“As I wrote, it is easy for the US to be the greatest country in the world. All it has to do is to reject the neoconservatives and embrace liberty.”
And I don’t disagree with you. Except that these “neo-conservatives” are figment of your imagination, or at worst, yesterday’s news. We need to get rid of the distortion of the system that existed in this country.
“You mean that you are not defending Reagan's support of Pol Pot by giving me the realpolitik argument? Could have fooled most readers. “
I can’t answer a made-up point. I just can’t.
“Libertarians need no straw men”
Well there’s all sorts of people who call themselves “libertarians”. I’ll be honest…I’m a Milton Friedman guy. I’m a classical liberal. Unfortunately there’s no appropriate name for people like us, who just aren’t out there on the fringe. So we’re forced to call ourselves “libertarians”, along with you.
So, if you’re speaking about “those” kinds of libertarians, straw men is all they usually have. I feel sorry to say that, but you guys got to work on making a coherent point without ending up calling everyone in the room a war criminal baby-eating Khmer Rouge.
“because the flaws of the lefties and the right are so easy to expose”
The argument that we are interested in, is neither a left nor a right argument. It is an up or down argument. This is why you’re not on the same page as everyone else in the room.
AIG,
"Iran Between two Revolutions"
Thanks for the reference. I was looking forward to reading this, but it isn't likely I will, as it's not available at any of my local libraries, and is priced at $61 at Amazon. Hardly a best seller. This looks much like a reference Vangel provided, that you scorned. It too was high priced, written by an aging academic, and not widely available. I'm not familiar with either author, and can't seem to find much about Ervand Abrahamian, so I'll just have to take your word for it that his writing is non-partisan and without an agenda.
Incidently, I see that he is currently working on a book about the 1953 coup in Iran. Maybe I'll have to wait for that one.
"Thanks for the reference. I was looking forward to reading this, but it isn't likely I will, as it's not available at any of my local libraries, and is priced at $61 at Amazon. Hardly a best seller. This looks much like a reference Vangel provided, that you scorned. It too was high priced, written by an aging academic, and not widely available."
Its sarcasm. The objection is that the author Vangel references clearly has an agenda. Either way, Vangel's "reference" included a title of the book, without giving a single detail or example of such support (which leads me to believe that he has never read the book)
The examples I have given, are neither limited to the referenced source, nor are they disputed by any other source. In fact, Ervand is hardly a "pro-American" source or interested in presenting anti-Mosaddegh accounts. Quite the opposite, as is the case with 99% of political historians. Yet those tad bits of info, are not disputed even by the pro-Mosaddegh crowd.
The real question is, given that it was 1953, with Uncle Stalin right above Iran, with territorial, political and economic claims on Iran; where a PM with a close relationship with the communists and resting on the support of the communists is targeting foreign property while providing favoritism for Soviet properties...what would be the likely outcome of Iran if the situation had continued down that road?
This presents a very different reality than the often naive stance of Leftists and "some" libertarian, where Mosaddegh is seen as a "democratically elected leader overthrown by the evil US". This criticism is not focused on saying that the Shah was better, or that Mossadegh was better. Rather, than in the grand scheme of things, the Iranian people would have likely been better off preserving some semblance of economic freedom instead of falling into the likely communist-oriented sphere.
Venezuela gives us a glimpse of what would have happened.
ts sarcasm. The objection is that the author Vangel references clearly has an agenda. Either way, Vangel's "reference" included a title of the book, without giving a single detail or example of such support (which leads me to believe that he has never read the book)
It is very easy to use the search function in Amazon and to look inside the book. All you need to do is to use words like CIA, or Reagan and you will find all of the references that you want. And I have not relied on a single book but gave you reports from journalists who had worked in Cambodia, Murray Rothbard, and several other authors. Do all of them have an agenda? And what about the facts? After all, it is documented that the US refused to recognize the new government and kept the Khmer Rouge at the UN seat in New York. Even you admitted that the US supported the Khmer Rouge but justify it as being part of support of a coalition even though everyone knew that the Khmer Rouge were the only true power in that coalition. Nothing I wrote is not known to anyone who paid attention. The fact that you refused to look at the evidence is your problem, not mine.
This presents a very different reality than the often naive stance of Leftists and "some" libertarian, where Mosaddegh is seen as a "democratically elected leader overthrown by the evil US". This criticism is not focused on saying that the Shah was better, or that Mossadegh was better. Rather, than in the grand scheme of things, the Iranian people would have likely been better off preserving some semblance of economic freedom instead of falling into the likely communist-oriented sphere.
First, he was democratically elected. Second, he was a lefty progressive. Third, he did nationalize the Iranian oil industry. I do not believe that any of these facts are being debated here.
What is debated is was he overthrown by the CIA or not. The evidence is that he was even though he was elected and was the legitimate ruler of a sovereign nation. I point out that is against international law and cannot be justified. You argue that it was all done for the Iranian people because somehow they would be better off under the tyrannical regime of the Shah.
But if the US should have the right to overthrow any ruler it does not like why shouldn't the Russians, French, Chinese, Indians, Iranians, Iraqis, etc., etc., etc., have the same right?
Whether you like it or not, principles do matter. You do have to figure out what is right and what is wrong.
Venezuela gives us a glimpse of what would have happened.
So what you are saying is that the Iranians are much better off than the Venezuelans because the CIA overthrew their elected president and replaced him with a madman? I do not think that they would agree because the overthrow of a single man is much easier than the overthrow of a theocracy.
"It is very easy to use the search function in Amazon and to look inside the book. All you need to do is to use words like CIA, or Reagan and you will find all of the references that you want. And I have not relied on a single book but gave you reports from journalists who had worked in Cambodia, Murray Rothbard, and several other authors. Do all of them have an agenda? And what about the facts?"
Sir. You have not provided a single fact or piece of evidence. Not one.
There is nothing more I can say on the matter.
"After all, it is documented that the US refused to recognize the new government and kept the Khmer Rouge at the UN seat in New York. "
That is an insane statement. The "new government" was a Vietnamese-installed government. The seat at the UN was kept by the coalition government, composed of many factions. 90+ nations voted in the UN to prevent the Vietnamese-installed government from taking the seat.
"Even you admitted that the US supported the Khmer Rouge but justify it as being part of support of a coalition even though everyone knew that the Khmer Rouge were the only true power in that coalition."
I said nothing of the sort, and nothing of the sort was ever done. You clearly are unwilling to understand.
"First, he was democratically elected."
No he wasn't. No such practice ever existed in Iran. No such practice was allowed by him afterward either.
"Third, he did nationalize the Iranian oil industry."
No he didn't. He didn't touch the Soviet-owned oil fields in Northern Iran.
"What is debated is was he overthrown by the CIA or not."
No its not. Thats not what is being debated at all. At least keep up ;)
"I point out that is against international law and cannot be justified."
And I point out that international law can go stick itself somewhere.
"You argue that it was all done for the Iranian people because somehow they would be better off under the tyrannical regime of the Shah. "
Indeed, it seemed that way at the time.
"But if the US should have the right to overthrow any ruler it does not like why shouldn't the Russians, French, Chinese, Indians, Iranians, Iraqis, etc., etc., etc., have the same right?
"
You're asking the wrong question. The question is, did (do) the Russians, French, Chinese etc, overthrow and install regimes they like?
The answer is: yes they do.
This begs the question then, would we, and freedom-loving people in the world, be better off if the US opposed this, or if the US stood back and "considered international laws and its respect in the world"?
I've already answered my view on this question.
You don't have to agree. But so it goes.
"Whether you like it or not, principles do matter. You do have to figure out what is right and what is wrong."
Principles, such as defending freedom, opposing tyranny, and doing what is necessary to spread freedom and democracy around the world, do indeed matter.
"So what you are saying is that the Iranians are much better off than the Venezuelans because the CIA overthrew their elected president and replaced him with a madman? I"
You clearly are unwilling to understand what I'm saying.
Either way, instead of wasting my time to repeat a point already made 5 times before, I'll just say that indeed the Shah failed to live up to expectations. But there were only 3 alternatives in Iran at the time; the Shah, communism, or the Ayatollahs. I think the worst alternative, was avoided.
"I do not think that they would agree because the overthrow of a single man is much easier than the overthrow of a theocracy."
That may say more about your understanding of Iran, than about reality. But then again, we can't all know intimate details about Iran, but at the very least, one ought not to make up stuff.
Yesterday we were talking about the “brutal police state” preventing you the freedom from smoking dope.
No, we were arguing about the right of the police state to intrude in voluntary activities. You argued that it was all right because the rules were made by the 'community.' I argue that is nonsense because the community has no say in drug laws. Most voters in most communities would support legalization and the end of the war on drugs because they see its social costs. But the police state does not allow it so communities will keep paying the price just as they did during Prohibition.
Today we are talking about social programs and schools. Clearly you are grasping at straws, since I have no quarrel with you on social programs, schools, or the government’s role in either. So if you take away my quarrel with you, what else do I have to live for? ;)
I am just pointing out that the community does not make the rules that we are arguing about. The only place where the 'community' makes rules is in small institutions that are joined voluntarily. You are still wrong to support the police state and are still with the statists.
This is nonsense. Sorry but it is.
That is the way it is. Most of the people we hang around are friends from work or parents of kids that our children play sports with or go to school. Few people know more than a handful of neighbours because most people are very busy trying to make a living and have very little time for socializing. Now you could be different because of your age and employment status or you could work in a small town where families have lived next to each other for generations and everyone knows every story about everyone else. But the typical person in a typical modern society does not really know his community in the way that the social conservatives are pushing and has less in common with their neighbours than before. How many people attend the PTA, council meetings, or even bother to vote in local elections?
Which is why, most libertarians and most conservatives would agree that decision making has to be as local and as direct to the people affected by it. This is not a defense of what actually IS happening in the US. It is a rebuttal to your argument that government of ANY level has no right whatsoever to restrict your behavior...
If less than a third of people bother to vote for the municipal election why should the politicians make all kinds of rules and pay for all kinds of services to all kinds of unionized employees on behalf of the 'community?' You are arguing for the another version of the old Marxist idea of classes where somehow the individual fails to be as important as the class he belongs to. Switch the word class with community and you have the same argument.
That’s a bold faced lie. You can’t seem to be able to (or willing to) distinguish between realities on the ground. The seat at the UN was held by the coalition government.
The Khemer Rouge was the previous government and they still held the seat. Hell, even the idiots at Wikipedia know this. They write, After the Khmer Rouge were driven from power by the Vietnamese in 1979, the United States and other powers[specify] refused to allow the Vietnamese-backed Cambodian government to take the seat of Cambodia at the United Nations. The seat, by default, remained in the hands of the Khmer Rouge. These countries considered that however negative allowing the Khmer Rouge to hold on to the seat was, recognising Vietnam's occupation of Cambodia was worse.
And I did some digging in Amazon and found plenty of other books that make the same argument as I gave you before. You can go to page 460 of, When The War Was Over: Cambodia And The Khmer Rouge Revolution, Revised Edition, in which the author points out that Reagan blocked an international investigation into genocide because the revelations might force the Khmer Rouge out of the coalition.
And then there is the obituary of Richard Holbroke, who was involved in the whole Cambodia mess. We read, "After Vietnam invaded Cambodia in December, responding to brutal Khmer Rouge border attacks, the US aligned with Beijing against Hanoi. Holbrooke implemented American strategy to isolate Vietnam and to rebuild the Khmer Rouge as a means of military pressure. He personally persuaded Prince Sihanouk to not seek asylum in the US and to continue as the titular leader of the KR dominated Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea so that it continued to hold Cambodia's seat in the UN. Holbrooke successfully pressured European and international aid agencies to end or not provide development assistance to Vietnam or to post-KR Cambodia."
Not enough? Then look at Benny Widyono's, Dancing in Shadows: Sihanouk, the Khmer Rouge, and the United Nations in Cambodia.
Or Tom Fawthrop's, Getting Away With Genocide: Cambodia's Long Struggle Against the Khmer Rouge, which goes over how the US, UN, and China stopped investigations into the genocidal actions of the KR because they did not want them ousted from the coalition.
As I said above, the truth is well known but you refuse to see it.
“What was going was not a secret and well documented at the time and now”
Then you ought to have no problem providing evidence.
I provided plenty of evidence above. Books by historians, journalists, a UN official who was on the ground, etc. Articles by many people. References to admissions by the UN and US bureaucrats that they were propping up the KR.
You are like those anti-war protests who stopped protesting when their man, Obama, made it to the White House. All of a sudden, when their man was conducting it, Bush's war was no longer an issue. Funnily enough I am hearing conservatives start to speak out about the war because a Democrat is conducting it. It seems to me that your problems never seem to be with principles but with politics.
I was in a communist hell-hole in Eastern Europe, thank you very much.
Me too. That is where I learned about the evils of big government and a police state. Why didn't you?
Sir, please. What happened to all of these facts?
I have provided facts. You refuse to look at them because you claim not to be able to spend a few bucks on a book or use the Amazon search function to look inside it. It is all there for anyone who wishes to see.
Extremists have always run the country. In a country where most people are illiterate peasants, only extremists exist. I never said there were no moderates (whatever you may think the term means in an Iranian context) in Iran, just that politically they are irrelevant, no matter how many of them die in the streets. That’s the harsh reality.
You are moving the pea again. I pointed out that the Shah had killed off moderates. You first claimed that there were no moderates and switched that to "extremists have always run the country." Well, that is what happens when the tyrant that you put into place kills off the moderates.
Yes there are. And they’re not in Iran....
So now there are no no moderate Iranians in Iran? I guess that all those students that were killed protesting the mullahs must have been extremists.
Why do you think that is? (most of the ones I know, are raving Leftists, but anyway)
It isn't that way. Iran has the moderates just as the US does. And I doubt that most Iranians that you know are as lefty as your typical European. Or Obama supporter.
There’s 80 million people in Iran. You think I would make a statement that implied there are, physically, no “moderate” Iranians? Or do you think I meant, there are politically no moderate Iranians? Lets keep going in circles some more. This is fun.
I would say that there are many political moderate Iranians. Go to an Iranian university and compare the views to the students in most American universities. I think that you are more likely to find more thoughtful and moderate Iranian students than American ones.
Do you even have any idea what the “bombing of Cambodia” was and what it did? I don’t think you do.
Yes I do. The US government illegally bombed Cambodia and destabilized its government. More than 2 million died because of it.
Mixed results I would say. One can hope for better.
If one trillion dollars, more than 4,000 dead American soldiers, more than 50,000 wounded, several hundred thousand dead and wounded Iranian civilians, and the handing over of Iraq to the Iranian supported Shiites is a mixed result I would hate to find out what you consider a bad outcome.
Safer, most defiantly.
How? Iraq was never a problem for the US and had nothing to do with 9/11. Neither was the Taliban and it had nothing to do with 9/11 either. From what I can see there are many more Arabs that hate Americans and many more terrorist recruits than before. While your trailer park may be safe, it was never in danger. But other places might be. I know that my kids are not happy I am taking them to New York for a few days because they don't feel very safe.
Richer? Well I’m not here to defend the spending. I already said, it ought to be cut. Don’t take away everything I have, by putting up points that I agree with you on ;) Do me that favor.
You are defending the military spending and have no major problem with the occupations, which have cost a trillion. Claims of being a fiscal conservative ring hollow.
“No, we were arguing about the right of the police state to intrude in voluntary activities.”
No we’re not. We’re arguing as to whether any and all “voluntary activities” are exempt from restrictions on part of your community. Clearly, that’s not how the human species functions in society, judging by the fact that you probably don’t walk around naked in the streets because you just feel like it.
“You argued that it was all right because the rules were made by the 'community.' I argue that is nonsense because the community has no say in drug laws. Most voters in most communities would support legalization and the end of the war on drugs because they see its social costs.”
Then let them vote to end it. Fact is most people don’t give a damn, and those who give a damn are too stoned to do anything about it. And those who profit from it, would hate to see this legalized, because it means their profits would go down. In the end of the day, no one really cares except the Libertarians who keep making this their #1 priority, and making laughing stocks out of themselves.
The only argument I ever made was…and I hope you are listening so that you don’t put words in my mouth again…whatever my feelings on the issue are, the issue is not only secondary, it is at best tertiary. Making a political platform out of drugs, prostitution and seat belt regulations, makes Libertarians (of certain persuasions) into fools, and alienates them from the people who share with them goals which are far far far more important and vital to everyone in this country; fiscal issues.
This is what I said; ie stop busting everyone’s chops over drugs. No one cares.
“I am just pointing out that the community does not make the rules that we are arguing about. The only place where the 'community' makes rules is in small institutions that are joined voluntarily. You are still wrong to support the police state and are still with the statists.”
So you would feel comfortable if it was a local community that banned drugs, instead of the federal government? If the answer is yes, then we are on the same page. Which puzzles me why you keep arguing in circles with yourself.
Have you destroyed your straw-man yet?
“If less than a third of people bother to vote for the municipal election why should the politicians make all kinds of rules and pay for all kinds of services to all kinds of unionized employees on behalf of the 'community?' “
Again, you are arguing with your straw-man, because you’re not arguing with me anymore. Read what I wrote in the quote above this. It is entirely unrelated to your response.
“You are arguing for the another version of the old Marxist idea of classes where somehow the individual fails to be as important as the class he belongs to. Switch the word class with community and you have the same argument.”
Once more, straw-man galore!!
“The Khemer Rouge was the previous government and they still held the seat. Hell, even the idiots at Wikipedia know this. They write, After the Khmer Rouge were driven from power by the Vietnamese in 1979, the United States and other powers[specify] refused to allow the Vietnamese-backed Cambodian government to take the seat of Cambodia at the United Nations. The seat, by default, remained in the hands of the Khmer Rouge. These countries considered that however negative allowing the Khmer Rouge to hold on to the seat was, recognising Vietnam's occupation of Cambodia was worse.”
Once more, the UN seat was held by the Coalition Government. 91 countries voted for it. Try harder next time.
“And I did some digging in Amazon and found plenty of other books that make the same argument as I gave you before. You can go to page 460 of, When The War Was Over: Cambodia And The Khmer Rouge Revolution, Revised Edition, in which the author points out that Reagan blocked an international investigation into genocide because the revelations might force the Khmer Rouge out of the coalition. “
Some evidence.
“And then there is the obituary of Richard Holbroke, who was involved in the whole Cambodia mess. We read, "After Vietnam invaded Cambodia in December, responding to brutal Khmer Rouge border attacks, the US aligned with Beijing against Hanoi. Holbrooke implemented American strategy to isolate Vietnam and to rebuild the Khmer Rouge as a means of military pressure. Hepersonally persuaded Prince Sihanouk to not seek asylum in the US and to continue as the titular leader of the KR dominated Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea so that it continued to hold Cambodia's seat in the UN.Holbrooke successfully pressured European and international aid agencies to end or not provide development assistance to Vietnam or to post-KR Cambodia."”
So your “evidence” is that the US told the faction it WAS supporting, to keep fighting and not give up. Amazingly damning evidence that the US killed 2 million Cambodians. You got me there.
“Or Tom Fawthrop's, Getting Away With Genocide: Cambodia's Long Struggle Against the Khmer Rouge, which goes over how the US, UN, and China stopped investigations into the genocidal actions of the KR because they did not want them ousted from the coalition.”
You said the US supported the Khmer Rouge, installed them in power, Regan was having homosexual sex with Pol Pot, and that the US killed 2 million Cambodians. Now the best evidence you can find, is 2 authors claiming the US did not want to break up a coalition that was fighting the Vietnamese.
I am amazed, and clearly have been wrong the whole time.
PS: The actions of the US in keeping together that coalition, and in supporting them, directly led to the eventual return of Cambodia to Cambodian rule, and eventual democratic rule, under those very same non-Khmer Rouge factions of that coalition. I guess, once more, history vindicates.
“As I said above, the truth is well known but you refuse to see it.”
None of what you have said is even remotely close to what you have been claiming all this time.
“I provided plenty of evidence above. Books by historians, journalists, a UN official who was on the ground, etc. Articles by many people. References to admissions by the UN and US bureaucrats that they were propping up the KR.”
Propping up the Khmer Rouge? You ability to fool yourself in a matter of 3 paragraphs is amazing.
“Me too. That is where I learned about the evils of big government and a police state. Why didn't you?”
I was busy learning what happens when “respectable international law abiding” countries say “its not our business to interfere in the internal matters of other countries”.
“I have provided facts. You refuse to look at them because you claim not to be able to spend a few bucks on a book or use the Amazon search function to look inside it. It is all there for anyone who wishes to see.”
Sir, your “facts” are claims, which at best, say nothing of the sort of what you have been screaming all this time. Shall I quote you, for posterity’s sake:
“You bombed the country and supported Pol Pot”
“Unlike the US government, I actually opposed Pol Pot.”
“You supported Pol Pot even though his regime killed a million people. “
“The US government supported the Khmer Ruge”
“Or you might want to take a trip to Tuol Sleng or the Killing Fields some time to see the kind of terror that your government helped create and support.”
“Thatcher and Reagan supported the Khmer Rouge”
“They gave money, arms, and training so that Pol Pot could fight Vietnamese “
“the punch line is that the Reagan-Bush administration has been allied with the monster Pol Pot”
“shipping Pol Pot weapons, so that he is just about to take over Cambodia once again!”
“the US had given $86 million to support Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge.”
“defending Reagan's support of Pol Pot”
Do you realize now how idiotic your arguments sound? The whole time you have been saying, the US supported the Khmer Rouge, armed them, trained them, loved them, created the killing, were allied with them etc etc etc.
And then to “support” these idiotic allegations, you present “evidence” that some journalist or author claims that the US tried to keep a coalition government together. Do you see the non-sequitur here??
If the US supported the Khmer Rouge, and the Khmer Rouge were the most powerful faction in this Coalition, what exactly happened when the Vietnamese pulled out and the Coalition reentered Cambodia. How is it that the Khmer Rouge did not gain power once more? That obviously doesn’t seem to fit into your story line.
PS: That “obituary” of Richard Holbrook, by any chance, wouldn’t happen to not be an “obituary” but an opinion piece that appeared in The Havana Note, by any chance would it? ;) You’re not a very good liar.
“Well, that is what happens when the tyrant that you put into place kills off the moderates.”
Interesting. The Persian Monarchy was established 2,300 years before the USA existed. I didn’t know Xerxes was put in power by Teddy Roosevelt
“So now there are no no moderate Iranians in Iran? I guess that all those students that were killed protesting the mullahs must have been extremists.”
Protesting the mullahs?? Wherever did you get that idea?
” Iran has the moderates just as the US does.”
Of course it does. The question is, do they matter?
“Go to an Iranian university and compare the views to the students in most American universities. I think that you are more likely to find more thoughtful and moderate Iranian students than American ones.”
Its amazing then that Ahmadinejad would have come off those campuses ;)
And who, prey tell, told you this? There’s about 3 million uni students in Iran. There’s about 20 million Basij their age as well.
“Yes I do. The US government illegally bombed Cambodia and destabilized its government. More than 2 million died because of it. “
Once more, completely factually wrong, and utterly stupid statement. Your rabid anti-Americanism for the sake of anti-Americanism is really silly.
“If one trillion dollars, more than 4,000 dead American soldiers, more than 50,000 wounded, several hundred thousand dead and wounded Iranian civilians, and the handing over of Iraq to the Iranian supported Shiites is a mixed result I would hate to find out what you consider a bad outcome. “
The Kurds and the Shiia don’t seem to be complaining too much about it. Was it too expensive and badly carried out? Yes it was, hence why it’s a mixed result.
Several hundred thousand dead “Iranians” (I’m sure you meant Iraqis)? I FEAR to ask you for a source for this idiocy, expecting to get another John Pilger quote and someone else’s “obituary” pulled out of a very large a**.
“Neither was the Taliban and it had nothing to do with 9/11 either.”
???? You are right, it was probably Santa Claus instead.
“From what I can see there are many more Arabs that hate Americans”
When Arabs learn how to create a single functioning society that has evolved past the 13th century, then I’ll worry about public sentiment towards America from them.
“While your trailer park may be safe,”
That’s really rich, coming from Canada where the most influential artistic piece ever created was Trailer Park Boys :p
“it was never in danger. “
??? The war on terror hasn’t been that much of a war either, in historical terms. 4,000 dead soldiers in 10 years? A tragedy no doubt, but more than that die to peace-time causes in the same time than in these wars. So while the threat to America from a bunch of cave-dwellers isn’t really all that serious, neither is the US response. A storm in a tea-cup.
“I know that my kids are not happy I am taking them to New York for a few days because they don't feel very safe.”
I thought there was no danger? Now there’s danger? So 9/11 was not the dangerous part, it is now that it is dangerous? So what caused them to carry out 9/11? I guess it all boiled down to Pol Pot.
“You are defending the military spending and have no major problem with the occupations, which have cost a trillion. “
I JUST said I had a problem with the spending :) But thanks for building up another straw-man for you, undoubtedly, to take down. Congratulations.
Oh yeah, for my own curiosity, would you happen to know WHO was organizing this "investigation" into genocide in Cambodia, what year it was, and HOW did the US prevent such an investigation?
I'm sure all those "sources" of yours ought to have this info in them, since it seems to be the main plank of their argument.
Sir. You have not provided a single fact or piece of evidence. Not one.
There is nothing more I can say on the matter.
So the books referenced, which you did not look at are what? Just hearsay? The actions at the UN are what? Imagined? Some people do not want to know and you seem to be one of them.
That is an insane statement. The "new government" was a Vietnamese-installed government. The seat at the UN was kept by the coalition government, composed of many factions. 90+ nations voted in the UN to prevent the Vietnamese-installed government from taking the seat.
The US pushed for the Khmer Rouge to be a part of the coalition and blocked the tribunal that was supposed to investigate the genocide because it hoped that the KR would put more pressure on the Vietnamese. It protected the criminals who were guilty of genocide and gave them credibility.
No he wasn't. No such practice ever existed in Iran. No such practice was allowed by him afterward either.
Encyclopedia.com says that he was elected..
So does Answers.com.
Now you could argue that no Prime Minister is ever democratically elected because in such a system voters elect the members of parliament and they in turn choose the Prime Minister. But that would be a typical diversion on your part and would not change the fact that Mossadegh was democratically elected.
This begs the question then, would we, and freedom-loving people in the world, be better off if the US opposed this, or if the US stood back and "considered international laws and its respect in the world"?
When the Iranians elected their representatives they had every right to choose who they wanted, not who you wanted. Killing people and rigging foreign elections is not legal or moral, no matter how much you may respect the power players in the CIA and State Department that make the call.
Principles, such as defending freedom, opposing tyranny, and doing what is necessary to spread freedom and democracy around the world, do indeed matter.
You don't defend freedom by overthrowing democratically elected governments that you do not like. You don't defend freedom by bombing countries, killing thousands of civilians and destabilizing governments. And you certainly do not defend freedom by defending people who commit genocide because you share a common enemy.
You have no principles and you certainly do not try to defend liberty. You are a statist who defends the right of the political elite in the US to try to meddle in the affairs of other nations and create a police state at home.
Either way, instead of wasting my time to repeat a point already made 5 times before, I'll just say that indeed the Shah failed to live up to expectations. But there were only 3 alternatives in Iran at the time; the Shah, communism, or the Ayatollahs. I think the worst alternative, was avoided.
There was another alternative. The legitimately elected government, which the CIA overthrew to protect the interest of the oil companies. While you could have argued that the oil companies had the right to protect their interest by ensuring that they were properly compensated by the government you cannot argue that it was legitimate for the CIA to do the job for them.
No we’re not. We’re arguing as to whether any and all “voluntary activities” are exempt from restrictions on part of your community. Clearly, that’s not how the human species functions in society, judging by the fact that you probably don’t walk around naked in the streets because you just feel like it.
The 'community' makes no restrictions because it tolerates most of the prohibited activities. Even Clinton, Bush, and Obama smoked pot. Clarence Thomas admits to smoking pot. So have other judges, policemen, lawyers, prosecutors, and jurors. So why is some idiot who does not have their contacts and money get thrown in jail when he does the same that they did?
Then let them vote to end it. Fact is most people don’t give a damn, and those who give a damn are too stoned to do anything about it. And those who profit from it, would hate to see this legalized, because it means their profits would go down. In the end of the day, no one really cares except the Libertarians who keep making this their #1 priority, and making laughing stocks out of themselves.
No. In a free society something does not become law until the community votes to accept it. Since they never voted to make drugs illegal they do not have to vote to make them legal. All voluntary economic and social activities should be legal because they are not the business of the state.
The only argument I ever made was…and I hope you are listening so that you don’t put words in my mouth again…whatever my feelings on the issue are, the issue is not only secondary, it is at best tertiary. Making a political platform out of drugs, prostitution and seat belt regulations, makes Libertarians (of certain persuasions) into fools, and alienates them from the people who share with them goals which are far far far more important and vital to everyone in this country; fiscal issues.
The argument you really make is that principles do not matter in the real world. That what is important is grabbing power over others so that some of your own ideas have a better chance of being implemented. But that is how we get socialism and national socialism and how people lose their economic and social freedom.
So you would feel comfortable if it was a local community that banned drugs, instead of the federal government? If the answer is yes, then we are on the same page. Which puzzles me why you keep arguing in circles with yourself.
I would be comfortable if the club I belonged to had rules that members could not smoke pot on the premises. I would be comfortable if the theater owner had a rule the prohibited patrons from bothering others during performances. I could not yell 'fire' not because I did not have the right to free speech but because I did not have the right to violate the property rights of others. You need to read your Rothbard because your confusion is showing. You compromise on principle because you don't know any better and think that you must.
You may not like the truth but I will spell it out for you again. As I wrote above, when you argue for communal rights over those of the individual you are giving us another version of the old Marxist idea of classes where somehow the individual fails to be as important as the class he belongs to. You just exchanged the word class with community and came up with the same argument.
So your “evidence” is that the US told the faction it WAS supporting, to keep fighting and not give up. Amazingly damning evidence that the US killed 2 million Cambodians. You got me there.
How do you think that the KR came to power in the first place? It was the illegal bombing of Cambodia that destabilized the government and brought Pol Pot to power. The rural population, which was angry for the urban elite embracing the West and allowing the bombing was complicit in the genocide.
And after the genocide, when the KR was thrown out by the Vietnamese, the US stopped investigations into the genocidal activities because it wanted the KR, which was strong, as an ally against the common enemy, the Vietnamese.
It is the same argument as the one that the Old Right gave against Wilson's meddling in WW I. Without the American entry the war would have ended sooner and there would have been to Treaty of Versailles. Kerensky would not have fallen and the names Hitler, Stalin, and Lenin would have been largely unknown.
Whether you like it or not, central planning and top down activities have unintended consequences. Even whey they are taken by people that you support.
Interesting. The Persian Monarchy was established 2,300 years before the USA existed. I didn’t know Xerxes was put in power by Teddy Roosevelt
Stop with the lying and spinning. Iran had a legitimate election. Period. End of story. The right wing nutcases can come up with all kinds of theories why that is not true but it will not change the facts.
"So the books referenced, which you did not look at are what? Just hearsay? The actions at the UN are what? Imagined? "
A claim by someone is not a fact. (especially if you are trying to manipulate even those claims by passing them off as "obituaries" when in fact they are opinion pieces in some obscure blog)
What actions at the UN? Are you still unwilling to understand that 91 countries voted against giving the seat to the Vietnamese government? In how many ways must this be repeated, till you are willing to understand it?
"The US pushed for the Khmer Rouge to be a part of the coalition"
Now you are making sh*t up again.
"and blocked the tribunal that was supposed to investigate the genocide"
WHAT tribunal?? Jesus H. Christ. You make stuff up to get out of more made up stuff.
"Encyclopedia.com says that he was elected..
So does Answers.com.
"
Hehehe, that is about the best answer you have given so far.
"Now you could argue that no Prime Minister is ever democratically elected because in such a system voters elect the members of parliament and they in turn choose the Prime Minister. But that would be a typical diversion on your part and would not change the fact that Mossadegh was democratically elected."
Read again what I said in the beginning, and why no such thing as "democratic" elections ever existed in Iran.
"When the Iranians elected their representatives they had every right to choose who they wanted, not who you wanted. Killing people and rigging foreign elections is not legal or moral, no matter how much you may respect the power players in the CIA and State Department that make the call. "
Mossadegh canceled elections and ruled on emergency power. Go tell you democracy stories to someone else.
"You don't defend freedom by overthrowing democratically elected governments that you do not like."
No. You do it by preventing communist takeovers and stealing of property.
See, you are not going to impress anyone over the age of 13, by putting the word "democratically elected" in front of every government the US overthrew. Every dictator on earth was always "democratically elected". Kim Jong Il enjoys 99.8% electoral support. No dictator on earth has ever received less than 60% electoral support.
"You don't defend freedom by bombing countries, killing thousands of civilians and destabilizing governments. "
That is entirely conditional on the countries, the governments, and who is killed.
I assume this is referring to our friend Pol Pot again. Again you seem incapable of grasping historical facts, and understanding WHO the US bombed in Cambodia, and that the US was there exactly to fight Pol Pot and the VC. None of this matters to you, because you only have an anti-American agenda and reality is irrelevant in this agenda.
"And you certainly do not defend freedom by defending people who commit genocide because you share a common enemy. "
Only in cases when you make it up, apparently ;)
"You are a statist who defends the right of the political elite in the US to try to meddle in the affairs of other nations and create a police state at home."
You got me!! I'm a counter-revolutionary :p
You made up your version of reality, which I must say you have defended splendidly. Your mind's ability to filter out any objectionable content and keep on its chosen path, is quite admirable. You have build up dozens of windmills for you to fight, and have fought them bravely till the end.
I'm only sad that you not once addressed reality, but only imaginary issues.
Oh well, tis the way of the Libertarian Party.
"There was another alternative. The legitimately elected government, which the CIA overthrew to protect the interest of the oil companies. "
Yes we heard them a few years ago in Venezuela as well. As I mentioned earlier, every dictatorship on earth is a "legitimate democratically elected government"
Yet your main opposition is the "legitimacy" and "international law". Which is actually the highest order of "statism", because it is legitimacy and international law in the eyes of...all the governments in the world.
I personally find this whole thing just pain comical. I remember when people like you and your Leftist buddies were marching in every European capital, screaming their lungs out to protest the US bombing of the "legitimate democratically elected government of Comrade Milosevic". Of course, they also claimed it was in the name of oil (I don't know where they figured this oil was hidden, but surely it must have been there)
But what is life, without comics like you. Thank you.
"While you could have argued that the oil companies had the right to protect their interest by ensuring that they were properly compensated by the government you cannot argue that it was legitimate for the CIA to do the job for them."
CIA involvement was far more strategic and deep that the oil interests of some British companies.
“The 'community' makes no restrictions because it tolerates most of the prohibited activities. Even Clinton, Bush, and Obama smoked pot. Clarence Thomas admits to smoking pot. So have other judges, policemen, lawyers, prosecutors, and jurors. So why is some idiot who does not have their contacts and money get thrown in jail when he does the same that they did? “
That’s a good question to ask to someone who gives a c***. Obviously most people don’t which is why its not an issue.
“No. In a free society something does not become law until the community votes to accept it. Since they never voted to make drugs illegal they do not have to vote to make them legal.”
I agree. So as I asked earlier, then you would be comfortable if the decision to do this rested in local hands as opposed to federal hands? If the answer is yes, you have just contradicted yourself on every statement you ever made on this issue.
Congratulations for reaching my point of view.
“All voluntary economic and social activities should be legal because they are not the business of the state. “
And yet RIGHT above this sentence, you said it was ok for the community to vote to prevent this “voluntary action”. Amazing.
“The argument you really make is that principles do not matter in the real world.”
Principles are conditional on the reality on the ground. They always have been.
“That what is important is grabbing power over others so that some of your own ideas have a better chance of being implemented. But that is how we get socialism and national socialism and how people lose their economic and social freedom.”
Congratulations on putting up your 25th straw-man.
“You need to read your Rothbard because your confusion is showing.”
I most certainly have no such intention, but thanks for the suggestion anyway.
“I could not yell 'fire' not because I did not have the right to free speech but because I did not have the right to violate the property rights of others.”
The argument against drugs is ALWAYS and in every case an argument about the violation of someone’s rights; either as an argument of endangering other people’s safety, endangering other people’s property; or as dishonest advertising.
Whether you or I agree with these arguments is entirely IRRELEVENT to the fact that, if those arguments were made, and a local community perceived it to be so, they WOULD have the right to prevent this activity even if it were “voluntary”. At the very least, under US constitutional law.
It is you who keep insisting on FORCING your view of the issue on people who clearly don’t CARE enough to repeal the current situation. And I’ve already said that the current arrangement is the wrong one, and ought to be changed. Yet you insist on providing me with COMEDY by relating this to Marixsm of some sort.
Its all very funny, but its sad at the same time because its an example of why no one wants to talk to Libertarians of this type; you’re not even on the same planet as everyone else.
“How do you think that the KR came to power in the first place?”
WOWWW. Getting worse by the minute.
“It was the illegal bombing of Cambodia that destabilized the government and brought Pol Pot to power.”
Wow. The US bombing and ground incursion was aimed specifically at preventing the Khmer Rouge/VC coalition from overtaking the country.
PS: putting the word “illegal” in there, as I said earlier, is only going to impress 13 year olds.
“The rural population, which was angry for the urban elite embracing the West and allowing the bombing was complicit in the genocide. “
So Pol Pot was put in power “legitimately and democratically through the support of the majority of the population”?? ;)
“And after the genocide, when the KR was thrown out by the Vietnamese, the US stopped investigations into the genocidal activities”
WHAT investigations? Holy Mary mother of Jesus!!!
“It is the same argument as the one that the Old Right gave against Wilson's meddling in WW I. Without the American entry the war would have ended sooner and there would have been to Treaty of Versailles. Kerensky would not have fallen and the names Hitler, Stalin, and Lenin would have been largely unknown.”
There’s lots of instances of idiotic arguments from the past. This isn’t evidence of anything than that there are always comedians in the world.
“central planning and top down activities have unintended consequences. “
Congratulations on straw-man # 26. You’re almost getting yourself to becoming a 6-time ace.
“Iran had a legitimate election. Period. End of story.”
Lol. Was this before or after Mosaddegh canceled elections and ruled through emergency power? Was this before or after anyone in Iran could read who they were voting for?
“The right wing nutcases can come up with all kinds of theories why that is not true but it will not change the facts.”
I am well aware that arguments have never changed anyone’s mind.
Once more, completely factually wrong, and utterly stupid statement. Your rabid anti-Americanism for the sake of anti-Americanism is really silly.
You are denying that the US carpet-bombed Cambodia? I did not see any declaration of war, which is what Congress must do if a President is to fight a war against another country. I seem to recall a few protests on that front.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GXtQfXBAmM&feature=related
I thought there was no danger? Now there’s danger? So 9/11 was not the dangerous part, it is now that it is dangerous? So what caused them to carry out 9/11? I guess it all boiled down to Pol Pot.
The danger comes from the meddling in the affairs of other nations. The issue of motivation for the hijackers was brought up during the 9/11 Commission hearings but what was said by the FBI somehow never made it into the report. From what I can tell, the situation is worse because as long as the US keeps taking sides, supports foreign tyrants, and kills innocent civilians abroad some idiot will be pushed to do something stupid.
That is the problem. By attacking nations that have done nothing and are no threat you convert foolish individuals into terrorists looking for revenge. Your trillion dollar debacle has done nothing of value. The nations attacked never were a threat. But by attacking them and killing many innocent people Bush and Obama have created legitimate individual threats. I fear that I will turn on the TV some time and find out that some idiots have driven trucks full of explosives into locations where there were lots of people and set them off. Who would we attack then? And how would you answer the families of those that were hurt or killed? How would you make up for the lost economic activity? How would you stop people from being scared?
And keep in mind that by trying to make Islam the enemy a grave error was made by Bush/Obama. Muslims come in all shapes, colours, and nationalities. What if the bombers where not Middle Eastern but Indonesian born Chinese, German Roma, or black Nigerians? Who would you attack then?
Violence is for fools and idiots and using it to put yourself in a weaker position is stupid.
Oh yeah, for my own curiosity, would you happen to know WHO was organizing this "investigation" into genocide in Cambodia, what year it was, and HOW did the US prevent such an investigation?
I'm sure all those "sources" of yours ought to have this info in them, since it seems to be the main plank of their argument.
I gave you a reference to a book written by an Australian working with the UN. Try opening up the covers and reading.
"You are denying that the US carpet-bombed Cambodia? "
Carpet bombed Cambodia? Cambodia is a country of 70,000 sq. miles. Please try to make your point without saying such silly things.
The US bombed Khmer Rouge/VC bases in Cambodia, and intervened on the ground to prevent an overthrow of the government there and the KR/VC taking over.
You whole argument, on the other hand, is that the US supported the KR, which is about as idiotic as saying "the US carpet bombed Cambodia" (I assume you say such silly things because in your mind, "carpet bombing" means bombing cities ala-WW2)
By 1970 the KR/VC controlled over 70% of the country.
Had the US succeeded in doing what it was trying to do, Pol Pot would never have happened.
But of course, you have a need to turn everything into an America-bashing game, even if you have to make things up to do it.
"The danger comes from the meddling in the affairs of other nations. "
You're absolutely right. We should leave other nations to invade whoever they want, murder whoever they want and attack whoever they want. Sounds like a very "libertarian" perspective on things.
"From what I can tell, the situation is worse because as long as the US keeps taking sides, supports foreign tyrants, and kills innocent civilians abroad some idiot will be pushed to do something stupid."
Of course. It is always the US's fault. As I recall psycho Osama had it in for the US because the US went to Saudi to defend Saudi and Kuwait from Saddam. Interesting. Where did the whole "kill innocent civilians" and "support tyrants" come into play??
Of course, this is if one ignores the fact that Islamic extremism has an AGENDA of its own which is very far from "self-preservation" and 'self-defense". But one would have to be incredibly DENSE to think their actions are on the bases of retaliation.
Ask the dozens of Muslim countries that have been facing these psychos for decades now, have lost hundreds of thousands of people, and are constant threat of their expanding power. I guess all of that, has to do with "America".
"By attacking nations that have done nothing and are no threat you convert foolish individuals into terrorists looking for revenge."
Which ones are these "nations that have done nothing"?????
Why do you insist on making your points at the intellectual level of a 13 year old?
Of course, if the US had attacked a nation that had done "nothing"!, there'd be eyebrows raised. But of course, this is one of the many straw-man you have to raise up to attack, but clearly you can't address reality.
"Your trillion dollar debacle has done nothing of value. "
I can think of a lot of people who would disagree.
"The nations attacked never were a threat. But by attacking them and killing many innocent people Bush and Obama have created legitimate individual threats."
Interesting then, that 9/11 happened all before all these "murders of innocent civilians" and massive "carpet bombings".
Maybe Osama was pissed at the US "carpet bombing" of Cambodia ;)
PS: What ever happened to the "innocent civilians" Saddam and the Taliban were killing? That was an internal matter, I'm sure, and therefore legitimate in the eyes of international law. Besides, as you have already informed me, the US installed both Saddam and the Taliban in power. You read it on the cover of a book on Amazon.
"I fear that I will turn on the TV some time and find out that some idiots have driven trucks full of explosives into locations where there were lots of people and set them off. Who would we attack then? And how would you answer the families of those that were hurt or killed? How would you make up for the lost economic activity? How would you stop people from being scared? "
Thats all very interesting. But I remember something like this happening in 1994 and again in 2001 (and multiple times in between on US targets around the world). Strangely all these events predated our "massive carpet bombings of innocent civilians" ;)
The most idiotic stance Leftists and "some" Libertarians (I hate offending all libertarians. Many are sane people. They really ought to come up with a different name) take is that Islamic extremists, or just about everyone in the world, is entirely peaceful little bunnies prancing around a meadow eating grass and flowers, and ONLY end up doing acts of violence because the US either provokes them, or they are defending themselves from US "carpet bombings".
Of course, this is nothing more than fantasy. Islamic extremism has an agenda of its own. But for rabid anti-Americans, it is a necessity to create fantasy-lands in their minds to pin the blame on America for everything.
What were Jihadists from Jordan and Pakistan doing in Bosnia in the 90s? Who provoked them to go there? What were they defending there? What was their agenda? Fortunately the people of Bosnia rejected them, but the point is, they had an agenda there. Now multiply this agenda with every single country on earth which has a Muslim majority, and you will see why this has nothing to do with America.
"And keep in mind that by trying to make Islam the enemy a grave error was made by Bush/Obama. Muslims come in all shapes, colours, and nationalities."
Thank you for your lecture. I'm part Muslim myself. I already told you, stop making sh*t up because you're going to get yourself into trouble.
"What if the bombers where not Middle Eastern but Indonesian born Chinese, German Roma, or black Nigerians? Who would you attack then? "
If you had any understanding of the real world, you would not make such ridiculous comments. There's a reason why the Chinese don't blow themselves up. There's a reason why the Roma don't do so either. And there's a reason why Islamic extremists do. And this reason, clearly has nothing to do with America.
You can't comprehend this, because you think the target is "Islam" or "Arabs", or whatever other straw-man you need to raise to believe that, in the end, its all "America's fault". Muslims and Arabs are the ones who have been fighting these extremists for decades now, and who have lost hundreds of thousands of people to them.
A black Nigerian? I believe there was one of those. I didn't see American bombers "carpet bombing Nigeria" :)...as I'm sure would be the ONLY alternative in your mind. Americans after all are crazy cowboys riding atom bombs. You saw it in a movie.
"Violence is for fools and idiots"
I wish you had told that to the people in the Balkans 20 years ago. If only we had known. But alas, evil Amerikkka "carpet bombed" us into killing each other.
"I gave you a reference to a book written by an Australian working with the UN. Try opening up the covers and reading."
An Australian working with the UN? Holy cow!! Thats some solid proof and totally answers my question. In fact, I won't even ask the question again, since it has been clearly answered so well. I mean, its an Australian guy.
PS: Here's an interesting thought exercise for you. In 1979 the people of Iran voted in a referendum on whether to create an Islamic Republic or not. The referendum passed with a vote of 98.2%.
Leaving aside my obvious remarks of why this is representative of "democracy" in Iran (and why every dictator is always democratically elected), the question than becomes; is the Islamic Republic the legitimate government of Iran?
If so, were the protesters in Iran therefore violating legitimacy by trying to overthrow a government through violence and force? Had the US supported these protesters in overthrowing the Islamic Republic (assuming for a moment the fantasy-land account that the protesters were aiming for such a thing); would the US then be breaking international law by meddling into the affairs of a sovereign country which, after all, had done nothing to the US?
The Islamic Republic was clearly democratically established. Ahmadinejadi was clearly a democratically-elected leader. The protesters were trying to use violence and force to overthrow a democratically elected government, and the statements of support from the US represent a violation of international law. Had the US intervened materially, surely, it would be a crime.
Did I get this right? I'm trying to wrap my head around the logic of the point where Leftism and Libertarianism cross paths (ie hate-America), and I hope I did a good job.
But of course, now I'm confusing myself. Because we all know Ahmadinejadi was put in power because of America, and if the US supported the protesters, then they would be put in power because of America, so truly and really it is all America's fault. And truly, if America stopped meddling into other countries affairs, all other countries in the world would today be green meadows of grass and flowers and bunnies where democracy and freedom would rule. It must follow so.
Carpet bombed Cambodia? Cambodia is a country of 70,000 sq. miles. Please try to make your point without saying such silly things.
The US bombed Khmer Rouge/VC bases in Cambodia, and intervened on the ground to prevent an overthrow of the government there and the KR/VC taking over.
You whole argument, on the other hand, is that the US supported the KR, which is about as idiotic as saying "the US carpet bombed Cambodia" (I assume you say such silly things because in your mind, "carpet bombing" means bombing cities ala-WW2)
The point is simple. Nixon invaded and bombed Cambodia without a declaration of war by Congress. That made the action illegal.
From 1965 to 1973 (the bombing started under the direction of Lyndon Johnson) the US dropped nearly 2.8 million tons of ordinance on Cambodia. The bombing destabilized the government and when the US pulled its troops out of Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge came to power and millions, mainly from the cities, died.
Of course. It is always the US's fault. As I recall psycho Osama had it in for the US because the US went to Saudi to defend Saudi and Kuwait from Saddam. Interesting. Where did the whole "kill innocent civilians" and "support tyrants" come into play??
Of course, this is if one ignores the fact that Islamic extremism has an AGENDA of its own which is very far from "self-preservation" and 'self-defense". But one would have to be incredibly DENSE to think their actions are on the bases of retaliation.
Ask the dozens of Muslim countries that have been facing these psychos for decades now, have lost hundreds of thousands of people, and are constant threat of their expanding power. I guess all of that, has to do with "America".
If your government did not arm Saddam's army he would not have been in any position to threaten Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, particularly after he fought a war with Iran.
It is also doubtful that Saddam would have even tried to attack Kuwait had the Bush Administration not screwed up and told him that his disagreement with Kuwait about drilling of the southern oil fields was not an American concern.
As I said, both the Taliban and al Qaeda were armed, trained, and financed by the CIA and the State Department. In case you have forgotten, Ossama bin Laden was your guy.
Which ones are these "nations that have done nothing"?????
Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan had anything to do with 9/11. The hijackers were mainly Saudis with the UAE, Egypt, and Lebanon contributing. The financing mainly came from Saudi sources. Yet, the US attacked Afghanistan and Iraq even though Afghanistan agreed to turn over the al Qaeda suspects to a neutral third nation once evidence was presented to implicate them in the activities.
The fact is that the reasons given to justify the invasions were not valid. There were no WMDs and the governments of Iraq or Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11. Saudi Arabia, which did have something to do with the action did not suffer any consequences.
Thank you for your lecture. I'm part Muslim myself. I already told you, stop making sh*t up because you're going to get yourself into trouble.
I am not the one who is attacking Islam. The American right is doing that. And by doing so, it is getting the US in trouble.
If you had any understanding of the real world, you would not make such ridiculous comments. There's a reason why the Chinese don't blow themselves up. There's a reason why the Roma don't do so either. And there's a reason why Islamic extremists do. And this reason, clearly has nothing to do with America.
There is nothing Islamic about suicide bombers. The Tamil Tigers were the masters of suicide attacks and they are neither Arabic nor Muslim. To understand the motivation of suicide bombers I suggest that you read some of the Neocons. Blooms interpretive essay in his translation of The Republic does a wonderful job explaining thumos. I believe that Pangle may have written an essay or paper on the subject.
You can't comprehend this, because you think the target is "Islam" or "Arabs", or whatever other straw-man you need to raise to believe that, in the end, its all "America's fault". Muslims and Arabs are the ones who have been fighting these extremists for decades now, and who have lost hundreds of thousands of people to them.
You are confused. Your own government has supported tyrants in Muslim countries because they happened to be on the same side against some common enemy. And you forget that Osama bin Laden was not trained by the Russians or Iranians. He was your man. Mubarek, who is now in trouble in Egypt, was your guy. When his government falls it may well be that the Muslim Brotherhood takes over because there is no moderate alternative thanks to Mubarek's murderous police force. The Iranian mullahs only rule because the Shah, who was your man, managed to kill off any moderate opposition. Khomeini actually had some of the surviving moderates front and center in the government early on when the revolution started. After he took over they were either exiled or killed because thanks to the Shah's regime they had no viable power base that would support them.
A black Nigerian? I believe there was one of those. I didn't see American bombers "carpet bombing Nigeria" :)...as I'm sure would be the ONLY alternative in your mind. Americans after all are crazy cowboys riding atom bombs. You saw it in a movie.
No movie. In the late 1990s I read an essay by a former Russian operative who was writing about American vulnerability thanks to the stationing of troops in Saudi Arabia. He talked about well dressed nice looking Asians who would never be suspected on wrongdoing shooting up a casino. Or some FSU operative being hired by an Arab businessman to set up a bomb to go off on a bridge or a tunnel as protest against support of Israel and the Saudi Family. Many in the intelligence community actually expected attacks against US assets because of the meddling. They were actually taking al Qaeda's warnings a lot more seriously than the US government.
I wish you had told that to the people in the Balkans 20 years ago. If only we had known. But alas, evil Amerikkka "carpet bombed" us into killing each other.
Ironic how someone from the Balkans can support the propping up of tyrants. You should know better.
An Australian working with the UN? Holy cow!! Thats some solid proof and totally answers my question. In fact, I won't even ask the question again, since it has been clearly answered so well. I mean, its an Australian guy.
The evidence is very clear. It has been used to show what happened by journalists, historians, and diplomats. You choose not to see because you do not want to see. As I said, the US did carpetbomb Cambodia. 2.76 million tons of ordinance is not insignificant. The action did bring down the government and put the genocidal KR into power.
I also note the irony how someone from the Balkans can ignore the US support of the Kosovo Liberation Army, which was listed as a terrorist organization by the CIA before they were deemed 'freedom fighters.'
“The point is simple. Nixon invaded and bombed Cambodia without a declaration of war by Congress. That made the action illegal.”
Grasping at straws. So now your objection is a “statist” one; “congress didn’t authorize it!”. Silly.
“From 1965 to 1973 (the bombing started under the direction of Lyndon Johnson) the US dropped nearly 2.8 million tons of ordinance on Cambodia. The bombing destabilized the government and when the US pulled its troops out of Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge came to power and millions, mainly from the cities, died.”
Your ability to fool yourself is astounding once again. So now you argument is that when the US pulled OUT of Cambodia, the KR were able to gain hold. I agree, except that this is 180 deg from what you were saying previously. At least now you recognize what the US was doing in Cambodia and who it was fighting.
PS: And I bet you have no freaking clue what government of Cambodia you are talking about ;)
“If your government did not arm Saddam's army”
There was no a SINGLE piece of US-made weaponry in Saddam Hussein’s army (with the exception of some recon helicopters he bought from the Italian partner of Bell).
The traditional Lefto-Libertarian idiotic version of history is always “America armed Saddam Hussein”. Reality of course is that Saddam Hussein was armed by the Soviet Union and China.
Please stop making sh*t up.
“he would not have been in any position to threaten Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, particularly after he fought a war with Iran. “
Again you’re making sh*t up. So now you’re saying the US armed Saddam AFTER the war with Iran, allowing him to rebuild his military.
Sir, pretend for a moment that you are not talking to 13 year olds, or people of such an intellectual level, and provide some EVIDENCE to support such a claim.
“It is also doubtful that Saddam would have even tried to attack Kuwait had the Bush Administration not screwed up and told him that his disagreement with Kuwait about drilling of the southern oil fields was not an American concern. “
So now its America’s fault…AGAIN…for telling people that a border issue is not their concern. Amazing what EVILS this America does. It cause wars when it does nothing, and when it does something. Either way, it is always to blame.
“As I said, both the Taliban and al Qaeda were armed, trained, and financed by the CIA and the State Department.”
Yes I know you mentioned this, and it was very funny. But you forgot to mention any supporting evidence for this. Your word does not carry a heck of a lot of weight.
“In case you have forgotten, Ossama bin Laden was your guy.”
I had forgotten that in fact. Remind me again HOW this was so?? ;)
“Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan had anything to do with 9/11.”
Afghanistan may have had something to do with it. Just may ;)
“he hijackers were mainly Saudis with the UAE, Egypt, and Lebanon contributing.”
So your disagreement with the wars now, once more, is the grasping at “statist” straws by saying that we attacked the WRONG countries and should have attacked Saudi, UAE, Egypt and Lebanon (Lebanon?? Really? Hezbollah last time I checked was Shiia).
Amazing.
“Yet, the US attacked Afghanistan and Iraq even though Afghanistan agreed to turn over the al Qaeda suspects to a neutral third nation once evidence was presented to implicate them in the activities.”
So it wasn’t Osama then? But I thought he was our guy? :p
“The fact is that the reasons given to justify the invasions were not valid. There were no WMDs”
True, there were no WMD.
“and the governments of Iraq or Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11. Saudi Arabia, which did have something to do with the action did not suffer any consequences.”
I don’t know how capable you are of differentiating, in that “libertarian” brain of yours, the difference between governments of a country and peoples of a country. I thought you would be able to, and yet judging by the fact that your arguments are 110% Lefto-statism pulled out of Noam Chomsky’s rotten behind, I doubt you understand what you mean when you say “Saudi” or “Afghanistan”.
This is all really interesting. It would make a great psychological analysis of the “Libertarian” mind. Once there’s nothing more left, they invariably grasp at statist straws; “but it was illegal!”, “but you should have attacked Saudi Arabia!”, “but the legitimate democratically elected government of Afghanistan…”
“I am not the one who is attacking Islam. The American right is doing that. “
It is doing nothing of the sort. A few pastors from bum-f*** middle of nowhere do not represent “the American right”
“There is nothing Islamic about suicide bombers. The Tamil Tigers were the masters of suicide attacks and they are neither Arabic nor Muslim.“
If the argument is that suicide bombing is exclusive to muslims and arabs, of course I never made such a claim. So congratulations on destroying yet another straw-man.
“To understand the motivation of suicide bombers I suggest that you read some of the Neocons.”
I’m certain I will recognize that their motivation is “the evils perpetrated by America on poor little Islamic bunnies”
“You are confused. Your own government has supported tyrants in Muslim countries because they happened to be on the same side against some common enemy”
Yes indeed. Because in the real world there’s such things as better and worse alternatives. Libertarians are incapable of comprehending such things because they are incapable of comprehending that there are no clear cut “good vs bad” options in the world, and the best you can hope for is systems that will be marginally better than the alternative.
This is why you are clowns in the streets.
But besides that, I agree with you that the US should not have and shouldn’t get involved in the Arab world. This is a world stuck in the 13th century, and no amount of US interference is going to bring them out to the 21st century. I agree that it is a waste of time, and often counter-productive. Deal with the cases you can have success with, not with lost cases.
“And you forget that Osama bin Laden was not trained by the Russians or Iranians. He was your man.”
Yes I know you’ve said this plenty of times before. But again, there’s the matter of EVIDENCE of such a thing. I know you have read a lot of idiotism from leftist sources, and at this point can’t distinguish between reality and made-up fantasy, but a little bit of evidence would be real helpful.
“Mubarek, who is now in trouble in Egypt, was your guy.”
Mubarak is “our” guy? Mubarak followed Sadat, a “Soviet guy”. Sadat followed Nasser, a “Baath guy”. Events on the ground in Egypt had nothing to do with America, in any way shape or form.
“When his government falls it may well be that the Muslim Brotherhood takes over because there is no moderate alternative thanks to Mubarek's murderous police force.”
REALLY??? And when was this “moderate Egyptian” alternative ever in existence in Egypt? When Mohamded Ali took over Egypt in the early 19th century? Or maybe in Farouk’s time there were plenty of “moderate” alternatives to the monarchy? Or maybe Nasser was renown for his spurring on of “moderate” political discourse in society? Surely, it must have been in Saddat’s time that it was so, before “our guy” evil Mubarak took over?
Again with the “libertarian” fantasy-land accounts of reality. Evil America installs into power Mubarak who eliminates a blooming “moderate” political force in Egypt, and reduces the brilliantly educated and prosperous people of Egypt into illiterate masses of poverty.
It was clearly, America’s fault once more! Maybe if America installed the Ottomans into power, or installed Ali into power. Unfortunately for the “Libertarain” fantasy-land account, neither of these events took place.
Of course America pressuring Mubarak for the past 10 years at least to democratize and open up, does not factor into your account. Of course, the fact that every piece of educational equipment in Egyptian schools, to try and make them more educated and conscious citizens, comes from America, also does not factor into your account.
I bet tomorrow when the MILITARY overthrows Mubarak, you will once more and undoubtedly say “well the military was armed by the US, and therefore the US overthrow Mubarak and interfered with the internal affairs of the country”.
Of course, you would also not be aware that the majority of the protesters in Egypt want the military to take out Mubarak.
This is the interesting thing about “Libertarian” mind-set. They cannot comprehend that things in other nations happen on their own momentum with or without America’s consent. America in almost all cases is a spectator, on whom blame is placed for saying or not saying anything. Either way it is blamed.
“The Iranian mullahs only rule because the Shah, who was your man, managed to kill off any moderate opposition.”
Again with the “your man” fantastic claims. The particular Shah you’re talking about was installed into power in 1940, as part of a dynastic succession. You can’t seem to understand reality all too well.
PS: As far as it matters, the Shah did expand democratic voting rights far beyond what was in the time of Mossadegh. But as I said, he was a disappointment, to the grave loss of the Iranian people.
“Khomeini actually had some of the surviving moderates front and center in the government early on when the revolution started. After he took over they were either exiled or killed because thanks to the Shah's regime they had no viable power base that would support them. “
Yes Khomeini was an awesome dude. But it was clearly America’s fault that he killed off everyone else, because America had made everyone else weak. Your logic is flawless.
“No movie. In the late 1990s I read an essay by a former Russian operative who was writing about American vulnerability thanks to the stationing of troops in Saudi Arabia. He talked about well dressed nice looking Asians who would never be suspected on wrongdoing shooting up a casino. Or some FSU operative being hired by an Arab businessman to set up a bomb to go off on a bridge or a tunnel as protest against support of Israel and the Saudi Family. Many in the intelligence community actually expected attacks against US assets because of the meddling. They were actually taking al Qaeda's warnings a lot more seriously than the US government.”
You’re a genius!! Where were you in 2000 before 9/11? The CIA could have used your help. Of course, by the “late 90s”, there had already been dozens of bombings and attacks on US targets around the world, including the twin towers. But the Russian intelligence officers, as always, are sharp as a carrot.
“Ironic how someone from the Balkans can support the propping up of tyrants. You should know better.”
Of don’t worry about me. EVERY Lefto-European and EVERY “libertarian” in the world made comments to the regards of “America is supporting the breaking up of a legitimate democratically elected government, by supporting fascist tyrants in Croatia, Islamic extremism in Bosnia, Bulgarian expansionism in Macedonia, Albanian Nazis in Kosovo etc etc”
Of course the slaughters that happened in the Balkans happened because America DIDN’T intervene as fast or forcibly as it should have. It left it instead in the hands of the “respectable law-abiding Europeans” who supported no tyrants (except for Milosevic, but then again he was a democratically elected legitimate ruler. He was no tyrant!)
Your ability at self-delusion is far stronger than my ability to explain the flaws in your argument.
“The evidence is very clear. It has been used to show what happened by journalists, historians, and diplomats. You choose not to see because you do not want to see.”
Again, all I’m asking you to do is tell me WHAT this “tribunal” or “investigation” or whatever it supposedly was (since you keep changing the story every day). I just want to know what it was, who was organizing it, in what year, and HOW the US managed to stop it.
Don’t give names of authors. Give me details of the actual claim. Simple ;)
“As I said, the US did carpetbomb Cambodia. 2.76 million tons of ordinance is not insignificant. The action did bring down the government and put the genocidal KR into power. “
With all due respect, you’re an idiot. You just said a few posts above that the US pulling out of Cambodia is what allowed the KR to gain power. By 1970 the KR controlled 70% of the country. The US attacks were targeting the KR/VC, specifically to save the Cambodian government.
It takes quite a strong sense of self-delusion to say one thing one minute, and the opposite the next, all the while blaming America in BOTH instances. Amazing.
“I also note the irony how someone from the Balkans can ignore the US support of the Kosovo Liberation Army, which was listed as a terrorist organization by the CIA before they were deemed 'freedom fighters.'”
LOL! So now the KLA is a tyrannical terrorist organization which the US propped up against the democratically elected legitimate government of Milosevic, which was carpet bombed and a tyrannical Islamic state was carved out because of OIL interests of America. Did I get it right?
I also remember hearing about how Tudjman was a fascist Nazi who killed Jews, and Izetbegovic was an Islamist who ate Chiristian babies, and how America supported all of these in order to defend US OIL rights in the Balkans (I mean, forgetting for a moment the Balkans have no oil, but when did reality matter to Lfeto-Libertarians anyway).
This is all very fascinating stuff. Don’t think you’re the first one to come up with such comedy however.
So according to you America’s “meddling into the internal affairs of Milosevic”, by stopping the ethnic cleansing of 2 million people by “carpet bombing” Serbia (even though it was the cleanest and lowest-casualty conflict in history), and thus creating both a democratic and independent home for the Albanians, AND leading to a popular revolution in Serbia which overthrew Milosevic and introduced democracy in Serbia…
…according to you all of that was the evil results and actions of America supporting tyrants? You sir, are an idiot.
The Balkans today is a peaceful democratic free place ONLY and only because of America intervening to stop indiscriminate murder. The ONLY fools on this planet who oppose such an action, and such an outcome, are rabid anti-Americans who clearly have nothing to grasp at but straws.
Grasping at straws. So now your objection is a “statist” one; “congress didn’t authorize it!”. Silly.
The Constitution isn't silly at all. No President is allowed to fight a war against any other nation unless Congress declares war. And there is nothing statist about opposing the killing of innocent people.
Your ability to fool yourself is astounding once again. So now you argument is that when the US pulled OUT of Cambodia, the KR were able to gain hold. I agree, except that this is 180 deg from what you were saying previously. At least now you recognize what the US was doing in Cambodia and who it was fighting.
Your inability to understand the logic is interesting. The US invasion and bombing of Cambodia destabilized the government and the genocidal KR stepped into the void. I argue that without the interference the KR would not have come to power as it did and that the people in the cities would not have been slaughtered for supporting the pro-US government that allowed the bombing.
This is the same argument that the conservatives in the Old Right made against Wilson's entry in WW I. Without the American entry the war would have ended sooner and the conditions that made the fall of the Kerensky government in Russia and the rise of Hitler would not have been in place. Unintended consequences do not only take place in the economic sphere but are common everywhere where meddling into natural affairs takes place.
There was no a SINGLE piece of US-made weaponry in Saddam Hussein’s army (with the exception of some recon helicopters he bought from the Italian partner of Bell).
The traditional Lefto-Libertarian idiotic version of history is always “America armed Saddam Hussein”. Reality of course is that Saddam Hussein was armed by the Soviet Union and China.
Nonsense. The US funneled money and American technology to Saddam that allowed him to build biological and chemical weapons even as the CIA and State Department arranged weapons deals through Chile and other allies that added tanks, aircraft, helicopters, munitions, etc.
Again you’re making sh*t up. So now you’re saying the US armed Saddam AFTER the war with Iran, allowing him to rebuild his military.
That is not what I said, even though it might be valid. I said that the weapons that Saddam obtained came courtesy of deals arranged by the US government. It was American technology that permitted Saddam to create biological and chemical weapons. And it was deals brokered by the CIA that allowed Saddam to buy what he wanted from American proxies and allies.
Sir, pretend for a moment that you are not talking to 13 year olds, or people of such an intellectual level, and provide some EVIDENCE to support such a claim.
I offered links to countless of books, articles, and documents yet you refuse to accept anything.
Did the US bomb Cambodia illegally? Yes it did.
Did the US invade Cambodia illegally? Yes it did.
Did the US actions destabilize the government? Yes it did.
Did the KR step into the void after Congress and the American people insisted that Nixon comply with the Constitution and the law? Yes?
Did the KR kill more than 2 million? Yes it did.
Did the US prevent the UN from investigating the PK once Vietnam overthrew Pol Pot's regime? Yes it did.
The fact that your ideology does not permit you to see the links and connections is your problem, not mine.
The fact that you argue that an American president can violate the Constitution by attacking another country without Congressional declaration of war is your problem, not mine. No matter how much you argue that the rule of law and the Constitution are not relevant, it will not make it true. No matter how much you pretend that meddling has no unintended consequences in the political arena, it still will not change the reality that it does.
I would say that it is the mentality of a 13-year-old that would accept your line of argument that laws and principles do not matter.
So now its America’s fault…AGAIN…for telling people that a border issue is not their concern. Amazing what EVILS this America does. It cause wars when it does nothing, and when it does something. Either way, it is always to blame.
Frankly, yes, it is America's fault. It was the US that put Saddam's Ba'ath Party in power in the first place. It was the US that encouraged a war with Iran and made sure that Saddam had the weapons to wage it. And after the war, when Iraq was broke and threatening action against the UAE and Kuwait the American ambassador was not clear enough in her meeting with Saddam. When she stated that the US took no stance on the Kuwait/Iraq border she thought that her other words were sufficiently clear to convince Saddam to be rational. But as soon as Saddam heard that he took it to mean that the US would not intervene if he invaded, and that an invasion would solve his problem.
It is easy to see why Ambassador Glaspie thought that she was doing the right thing and sending the right message. But it is also very easy to see how Saddam interpreted Ambassador Glaspie's assurances that the US took no position on the border dispute as a green light to invade. Had she been clearer Saddam would never had made his big error. And, thanks to American actions, had he not been armed as well as he was he never could have attacked in the first place.
“The Constitution isn't silly at all.”
No no. You are silly, not the constitution.
“No President is allowed to fight a war against any other nation unless Congress declares war.”
The US wasn’t fighting any other nation in Cambodia. It was supporting the existing government against the KR/VC
“And there is nothing statist about opposing the killing of innocent people. “
Of course. Yet strangely your opposition is to the US fighting against the KR/VC, instead of opposing the KR/VC for killing innocent civilians.
For talking a lot about “principles” you are showing your true colors to be simply boiled-down anti-Americanism with no principles whatsoever.
“The US invasion and bombing of Cambodia destabilized the government”
You’re making sh*t up again.
“and the genocidal KR stepped into the void. I argue that without the interference the KR would not have come to power as it did “
You can argue all you want, if you have no relation to reality, your arguments matter very little. KR/VC controlled 70% of Cambodia by 1970. They would have gained power much quicker had the US not stepped in. They would never have gained power, had the US succeeded.
The great tragedy of Vietnam and Cambodia is that the US did not succeed.
“and that the people in the cities would not have been slaughtered for supporting the pro-US government that allowed the bombing.”
So your argument is that the KR killed the “people of the cities” because they supported the US, and therefore it was the US fault for making the KR kill them.
Makes perfect sense. Were it not for the US, the KR would probably have ushered in an era of “moderate democratically elected governments” ;)
“This is the same argument that the conservatives in the Old Right made against Wilson's entry in WW I. Without the American entry the war would have ended sooner and the conditions that made the fall of the Kerensky government in Russia and the rise of Hitler would not have been in place.”
Yes I know, you already stated this idiocy. And as I said, this only shows that idiocy in the face of reality is not a current invention. So America created both Lenin and Hiter. Amazing. Is there ANYTHING America didn’t do? :p
“Unintended consequences do not only take place in the economic sphere but are common everywhere where meddling into natural affairs takes place.”
Yes. Except that you got one thing wrong. Unintended consequences are a matter of fact, regardless if there is “meddling into natural affairs” or not. Every action, freely chosen or forced, market driven or government, has unintended consequences. The only differentiation is what the reaction to those unintended consequences is.
Unintended consequences is not an argument for “taking no action” (that itself has unintended consequences). It is something to be taken into account. In the economic arena, markets deal with unintended consequences more efficiently and quicker; either taking advantage of positive unintended consequences or assigning costs to negative ones.
When speaking about military interventions, the same dynamics do not hold true, because the other guys are not restrained by market consequences.
The “unintended consequence” of doing nothing, for example in the Balkans, would have been a further 500k dead people, several million refugees and Milosevic still in power. And who would have been assigned blame and costs for THOSE unintended consequences? America of course, cause knuckle-heads like you would be here today telling us how the US “supported a tyrant in Serbia in killing off hundreds of thousands of people”
“Nonsense. The US funneled money and American technology to Saddam that allowed him to build biological and chemical weapons even as the CIA and State Department arranged weapons deals through Chile and other allies that added tanks, aircraft, helicopters, munitions, etc.”
Making up sh*t once more. Please inform me WHAT type of tanks, aircraft, helicopters and munitions the US exported to Iraq? How many? What years?
Obviously this ought to be a simple exercise for you, since clearly you have read the cover of a book on amazon ;)
Here’s a list of Iraqi Army equipment prior to 2003. Please point out to me WHICH of these tanks and equipment were sold to Iraq by the US ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Former_Equipment_of_the_Iraqi_Army
(PS: You will note that there are about 20 M-60 tanks and some M-113s listed. These were captured from Iranians during the war, along with the British Chieftains listed on there. Can you point out to me which tanks supposedly CHILE exported to Iraq???)
While you’re at it, please show me on this list which US aircraft were exported to Iraq pre 2003: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Air_Force
This ought to be a simple exercise.
I already told you, the US involvement in “arming” Saddam was limited to a few light helicopters, most sold through Agusta in Italy.
Private US firms sold biological or chemical samples to Iraq during this time. None did so under US government involvement, but as simple business deals (interesting then that a Libertarian would object to a firm doing business with whomever it would want).
“That is not what I said, even though it might be valid. I said that the weapons that Saddam obtained came courtesy of deals arranged by the US government. “
Which you are making up, unless the US government facilitated deals between the USSR and China ;)
“It was American technology that permitted Saddam to create biological and chemical weapons. “
No it wasn’t. Saddam bought almost exclusively from Europe. I know your insatiable appetite for America-hating doesn’t care about reality, but it still doesn’t negate reality.
“And it was deals brokered by the CIA that allowed Saddam to buy what he wanted from American proxies and allies.”
Of course not. The only western equipment Saddam bought was from France, Italy, Brazil. All these countries have aggressive military export industries and actively sell to anyone and anything. It required no CIA support to buy anything one wanted from these countries.
You’re making sh*t up again.
“I offered links to countless of books, articles, and documents yet you refuse to accept anything. “
Yet not a single detail from these wonderful pieces of literature.
“Did the US bomb Cambodia illegally? Yes it did.
Did the US invade Cambodia illegally? Yes it did.”
Illegal according to whom? Lol
“Did the US actions destabilize the government? Yes it did.”
Making sh*t up again. US actions extended the longevity of that government by several years. Had the US not intervened, the KR would have been in power already by 1970.
“Did the KR step into the void after Congress and the American people insisted that Nixon comply with the Constitution and the law? Yes? “
Interesting spin on reality. I wonder if you have any CLUE what the KR were, what they were fighting for or when they started fighting the government in Cambodia. I’m certain none of that is interesting details.
“Did the US prevent the UN from investigating the PK once Vietnam overthrew Pol Pot's regime? Yes it did. “
Jesus H Christ!! Where’s the evidence!! My God…This is what I have been asking you all this time. Where is the evidence for such a claim? At least give us some DETAILS behind it. ;)
The deeper you dig yourself in your own made up sh*t, the dirtier you will get.
“The fact that your ideology does not permit you to see the links and connections is your problem, not mine. “
My mind is incapable of ignoring reality for the sake of an anti-American agenda.
“The fact that you argue that an American president can violate the Constitution by attacking another country without Congressional declaration of war is your problem, not mine.”
The fact that your argument has shifted to one of “legality”, indicates to me that you are building up yet another straw-man to attack. Of course, I never made any claims on whether the US should have gotten congressional approval or not for its actions in Cambodia, nor do I particularly care. But you are free to continue attacking your straw-man.
“No matter how much you argue that the rule of law and the Constitution are not relevant, it will not make it true.”
Lol. The interesting part is that I never argued such a thing ;) But yes, you win!
“No matter how much you pretend that meddling has no unintended consequences in the political arena, it still will not change the reality that it does. “
I never said it didn’t have unintended consequences. Unlike you, I understand that every action, or no action, has an intended consequence, whether it was taken in a free market or in a foreign intervention.
The issue at hand, is alternatives, just as it is in economics. While in economics free markets provide the best alternative, when it comes to men with guns, men with guns provides the best alternative.
Your argument not only ignores the above point, but it is hopelessly obtuse in thinking that ALL negative events are the result of unintended (or intended) consequences of US actions. This is plainly…stupid, because it reduces everyone else in the world to simple bunnies grazing on grass in the meadows.
“I would say that it is the mentality of a 13-year-old that would accept your line of argument that laws and principles do not matter”
“Laws” only matter to you when they can be used as an anti-American argument. Nothing more. Principles matter to you only as long as they can be applied to the US. There are no principled or lawful objections from you towards the actions of everyone else in the world.
Which bring me back to the original point; you guys are clowns in the streets.
“It was the US that put Saddam's Ba'ath Party in power in the first place.”
Lol. Making up sh*t relentlessly. HOW did the US put the Baath Party in power? Through what mechanism? To what end? What is Baathist philosophy? Where is the evidence?
I’m sure none of those questions will get answers.
“It was the US that encouraged a war with Iran and made sure that Saddam had the weapons to wage it”
How did the US encourage a war with Iran? Are you familiar with the history between these two countries? Are you familiar with the relentless border skirmishes between the two since 1974? Are you familiar with Iranian incursions into Kurdish Iraq since the 1960s? Are you aware of why the Shah was arming Iran so relentlessly in the 70s? Are you familiar with the territorial claims of both sides on each other? Are you aware that Saddam was armed by the USSR?
Of course NONE of these things matter to you. Reality, history; all meaningless things. In your mind, everyone else in the world is necessarily a helpless happy bunny eating grass, and its only evil America which causes them to take aggressive actions against other bunnies.
Clearly if America had never existed, Iraq and Iran would today be happy little bunnies holding hands and singing about democracy and freedom and free markets. It would necessarily have to be so.
But alas!
“And after the war, when Iraq was broke and threatening action against the UAE and Kuwait the American ambassador was not clear enough in her meeting with Saddam.”
LOL
“When she stated that the US took no stance on the Kuwait/Iraq border she thought that her other words were sufficiently clear to convince Saddam to be rational. But as soon as Saddam heard that he took it to mean that the US would not intervene if he invaded, and that an invasion would solve his problem. “
So the US not saying anything had the unintended consequence of forcing Saddam to attack. So there we have it! America caused the Gulf War by supporting Saddam to attack ;)
Flawless logic strikes again!
“It is easy to see why Ambassador Glaspie thought that she was doing the right thing and sending the right message. But it is also very easy to see how Saddam interpreted Ambassador Glaspie's assurances that the US took no position on the border dispute as a green light to invade. Had she been clearer Saddam would never had made his big error.”
Lol. But had America opposed Iraq, then it would have MEDDLED into the affairs of other countries!! And that’s ILLEGAL :p
“And, thanks to American actions, had he not been armed as well as he was he never could have attacked in the first place.”
But he bought nothing from the US.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Here's that link to Iraqi military equipment again (it seems to have been cut off before). Make sure to point out to me WHICH pieces of equipment the US sold to Iraq:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Former
_Equipment_of_the_Iraqi_Army
(and keep in mind I already told you that the only pieces of equipment sold were some light helicopters.)
Pretty simple. I'm sure you'll be able to get that info by reading titles of books from amazon.
Evil America "meddling into the internal affairs and natural course of the democratically elected and legitimate government of Egypt":
http://www.middle-east
-online.com/english/?id=43952
The US is supporting tyrannical movements in Egypt which have killed scores of people and ripped the heads of 2 mummies!!
US stop financing and arming and supporting tyrants in Egypt!! It is ILLEGAL!
:p
Yes I know you mentioned this, and it was very funny. But you forgot to mention any supporting evidence for this. Your word does not carry a heck of a lot of weight.
The fact that the US government and the CIA used the ISI to train, fund and support the Taliban, Osama bin Laden, and the Mujaheddin to fight the Russians in Afghanistan is not a secret. There are hundreds of books, articles, and commentaries on the issue. There was even a film made about it.
http://tinyurl.com/4qjcj4s
http://i46.tinypic.com/ajniqf.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlKYpzg15MA
http://tinyurl.com/4gejwrx
http://tinyurl.com/4maptwm
http://tinyurl.com/4hqmod6
http://tinyurl.com/382t94
http://tinyurl.com/24vuht
http://tinyurl.com/45ksknc
http://tinyurl.com/6ykmhnn
http://tinyurl.com/4wyyeq2
http://tinyurl.com/46rhhtc
http://tinyurl.com/47zklbv
http://tinyurl.com/4m2atev
http://tinyurl.com/4ky65pj
Actually, the Afghan story is similar to the Cambodian one. After dedicating money and arms to the country the Russians pulled out and left a broken country. With the Russians out of the way, the United States walked away and into the vacuum stepped the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. Osama bin Laden, became the symbol of the power of the jihad even though he was a minor player in the conflict with the Russians.
Afghanistan may have had something to do with it. Just may ;)
It did not. Osama bin Laden was not working with the Afghan government, which offered to turn him over to a third party if the US supplied it with evidence of his involvement. The people on the planes were not Afghans. They were mainly Saudis, and funded by Saudi money.
So your disagreement with the wars now, once more, is the grasping at “statist” straws by saying that we attacked the WRONG countries and should have attacked Saudi, UAE, Egypt and Lebanon (Lebanon?? Really? Hezbollah last time I checked was Shiia).
Amazing.
I have never claimed that you attack a country because some idiot who was from that country committed a terrorist act. That is what your side considers acceptable.
So it wasn’t Osama then? But I thought he was our guy? :p
I never said anything about who did what. All I pointed out was that the Taliban was willing to turn him over to a third party as soon as the US provided it with evidence. Bush chose not to go that route and invaded instead. Seven years, hundreds of billions, and thousands of deaths and injuries the conflict is a long way from ending and the US is less safe than it used to be.
I don’t know how capable you are of differentiating, in that “libertarian” brain of yours, the difference between governments of a country and peoples of a country. I thought you would be able to, and yet judging by the fact that your arguments are 110% Lefto-statism pulled out of Noam Chomsky’s rotten behind, I doubt you understand what you mean when you say “Saudi” or “Afghanistan”.
The 'people' of Afghanistan or Iraq did not attack you either. So why invade?
It is doing nothing of the sort. A few pastors from bum-f*** middle of nowhere do not represent “the American right”
Really? I guess that Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, O'Reilley, Coulter, Carl Rove, etc., are not part of the American right.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLX83shzJV0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLX83shzJV0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60xDmowdTCA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUcHQmUEICc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsmokAo8pmc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6przuCU822w&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cc5DI-K3vcM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H71V5FOr7Zw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev7NJMnkE3Y&feature=related
I suggest that if you do not think that the right has attacked Islam for political gain you are not paying attention. Of course, given your ignorance of historical and political events that is not a surprise.
“The fact that the US government and the CIA used the ISI to train, fund and support the Taliban, Osama bin Laden, and the Mujaheddin to fight the Russians in Afghanistan is not a secret.”
It is a secret apparenlty to the rest of the world. You are making sh*t up again. The Muj are NOT the Taliban, and the Taliban have nothing to do with the Muj. The Taliban never existed to fight the Russians, and never did anything of the sort. The Taliban are an Islamic semi-nationalist Pashtun movement.
Osama was an obscure insignificant figure which never had any contacts with the US in any way shape or form.
“There are hundreds of books, articles, and commentaries on the issue. There was even a film made about it. “
There’s lots of films about reptilians out there too.
“Actually, the Afghan story is similar to the Cambodian one.”
In that you are making sh*t up again? ;)
“After dedicating money and arms to the country the Russians pulled out and left a broken country. With the Russians out of the way, the United States walked away and into the vacuum stepped the Taliban and Osama bin Laden.”
So America’s fault, once more, is inaction? ;)
Your version of events is, as usual, fantasy. The Muj formed a coalition government by 1992. The conflict after this point was one along ethnic and religious lines. Clearly, it is America’s fault that the Pashtun hate the Hazaras.
”Osama bin Laden, became the symbol of the power of the jihad even though he was a minor player in the conflict with the Russians.”
Osama become famous because he had money. Stop making sh*t up as you go along.
“It did not. Osama bin Laden was not working with the Afghan government,”
The democratically elected legitimate government of Afghanistan??? :p
“The people on the planes were not Afghans. They were mainly Saudis, and funded by Saudi money.”
I wonder where they were based though? :p
“I have never claimed that you attack a country because some idiot who was from that country committed a terrorist act. That is what your side considers acceptable.”
Then what does it matter if the people who attacked on 9/11 were Saudis? :p
“I never said anything about who did what. All I pointed out was that the Taliban was willing to turn him over to a third party as soon as the US provided it with evidence. “
And they did provide the evidence. The “democratically elected legitimate government of Afghanistan”, didn’t agree.
“Seven years, hundreds of billions, and thousands of deaths and injuries the conflict is a long way from ending and the US is less safe than it used to be. “
Indeed the conflict was carried out poorly. As for being less safe, that’s clearly not the case.
“The 'people' of Afghanistan or Iraq did not attack you either. So why invade?”
Something to do with their GOVERNMENTS. So once more, why does it matter if the people who carried out 9/11 were citizens of Saudi or Egypt? I believe you brought it up ;)
“Really? I guess that Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, O'Reilley, Coulter, Carl Rove, etc., are not part of the American right.”
I don’t think you understand what they are saying, in the slightest. But then again, let me tell you something you don’t know ;)
“I suggest that if you do not think that the right has attacked Islam for political gain you are not paying attention.”
Attacking Islam is not the same thing as attacking “Muslims”. This is why you don’t understand.
“Of course, given your ignorance of historical and political events that is not a surprise.”
I’m still waiting for your evidence of US arms sales to Iraq. All those amazon links surely must provide you with some sort of list of the millions of tanks and planes and weapons the US sold to Saddam. Surely…
Your application of "law", your application of "principles", your application of "reality" is, as always, only conditional on as long as it is used for an anti-American purpose.
Nothing else matters in the world, and clearly nothing else exists in the world, other than American breaking of "international laws". Every problem in the world is the direct consequence of America either acting, or not acting, in favor or against, someone or anything in particular or not.
You are a ridiculous clown which are no different than some rabid AGW hippie. If its cold, its AGW. if its hot, its AGW. If it rains, its AGW, If its dry, its AGW. If it freezes, its AGW, If it melts, its AGW. All the worlds problems, from pandas to premature ejaculations, are the result of human exploitation of the environment. Nothing else matters, nothing would ever happen otherwise.
Lefto-Libertarian whack-jobs of the anti-American persuasion operate under the same mindset. It NECESSITATES that everybody else in the world be a complete monkey and incapable of the most basic actions or thought of their own, in order for EVERY problem in the world to be the result of America.
Nobody in the world hates other people, were it not for America.
No wars existed before America.
No crime existed before America.
Everyone lived in democracies before America.
There was no history before America, because nothing interesting happened before America.
No dictators could exist were it not for America.
Everyone who acts violently, does so to protect themselves against America.
No one has any agenda of violence against anyone else, were it not for America.
If America never intervened in anything in the world, the world today would be a wonderful paradise of democracy and free markets.
America created Hitler, Stalin, Ghengis Khan, Pinochet, Pol Pot, Timur the Lame, the Ottoman Empire and burned down Athens.
Even if the world today would be most communist, it would be America's fault because America created everything bad, including, but not limited to, communism.
America is to blame for not supporting opposition movements.
America is to blame for supporting opposition movements.
America created nationalism
America created Islam.
America ate my lunch.
Everyone in the world hates America because America:
a) doesn't help them
b) helps them
c) doesn't help them enough
d)helps them too much
e) helps the other guy
f) doesn't help the other guy
g) says it supports them
h) doesn't say it supports them
i) is indifferent towards them
j) has never heard of them
k) all of the above
l) all of the above plus anything else I can think of later
PS: Hint, the answer is L
Yes indeed. Because in the real world there’s such things as better and worse alternatives. Libertarians are incapable of comprehending such things because they are incapable of comprehending that there are no clear cut “good vs bad” options in the world, and the best you can hope for is systems that will be marginally better than the alternative.
Bombing other nations, killing innocent civilians, and supporting dictators is never a 'good idea.' Sending young men to die in foreign lands to advance the political goals of mountebanks and charlatans is never a good idea. Placing a huge financial burden on taxpayers to pay for an aggressive foreign policy is never a good idea. Building a massive standing army that uses up 10% of the national liquid fuels is not a very good idea. And confusing offense and aggression with defense is never a good idea.
This is why you are clowns in the streets.
No. The left is with the libertarians on the issue of protecting social freedom. The right is with the libertarians when it comes to supporting economic freedom.
But besides that, I agree with you that the US should not have and shouldn’t get involved in the Arab world. This is a world stuck in the 13th century, and no amount of US interference is going to bring them out to the 21st century. I agree that it is a waste of time, and often counter-productive. Deal with the cases you can have success with, not with lost cases.
It is not up to the US to elevate the Arab world or anyone else. And I do not see how supporting tyrants like Saddam, the Shah, Mubarak, or tyrannical monarchies will help elevate anyone.
Of course, many people who have actually had contact with the Arab world would disagree with you. Countries like Iran and Iraq had very sophisticated and educated middle classes that many would argue are a bit more moderate and better informed than Americans.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qawxS8NHtlg&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrA7qFYU84A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rxhz6CDozYI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GsTyGZ-pV8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmLwFlHRURc&feature=related
The average American student can't find Europe or China on a world map and has a very poor grasp of history. I am pretty sure that the average Iranian student will do better.
Yes I know you’ve said this plenty of times before. But again, there’s the matter of EVIDENCE of such a thing. I know you have read a lot of idiotism from leftist sources, and at this point can’t distinguish between reality and made-up fantasy, but a little bit of evidence would be real helpful.
The funding of bi Laden, the Taliban and Mujaheddin has been well established and documented. There are countless of books by historians, journalists, and diplomats that show how the CIA used the Pakistani and Saudi Intelligence agencies to funnel money to Arab fighters and Afghan groups looking to oppose the Russians. There was even a movie made about how a US member of Congress funneled money for missiles and other weapons to resistance groups in Afghanistan.
Mubarak is “our” guy? Mubarak followed Sadat, a “Soviet guy”. Sadat followed Nasser, a “Baath guy”. Events on the ground in Egypt had nothing to do with America, in any way shape or form.
You are giving him around $1.7 billion in each year so that he can play nice with Israel. The money shows that he is your guy and has been your guy just as Sadat was.
“Bombing other nations, killing innocent civilians, and supporting dictators is never a 'good idea.' “
If the alternative to that dictator is something worse, then the answer is, yes it is.
This is how the world works, on the bases of marginal improvements, most of the time.
“Sending young men to die in foreign lands to advance the political goals of mountebanks and charlatans is never a good idea.”
That of course, is a subjective comment worthy of jack sh*t
“Placing a huge financial burden on taxpayers to pay for an aggressive foreign policy is never a good idea. “
Yes I agree. But here again your argument is not one of principles, it just one of cost. And I agree that costs ought to be reduced and controlled. “Aggressive”?? Aggressive to you perhaps, but then again who gives a c*** what you think.
“Building a massive standing army that uses up 10% of the national liquid fuels is not a very good idea. “
It certainly is when there are still Ruskies and Chinese out there having bright ideas.
“And confusing offense and aggression with defense is never a good idea. “
Are you talking to yourself here??
“No. The left is with the libertarians on the issue of protecting social freedom. The right is with the libertarians when it comes to supporting economic freedom. “
“True libertarians” of your ilk are generally regarded as clowns. The “right” has always had a policy of economic freedom. They didn’t borough it from you. It comes out of classical liberalism. The “libertarians” of your ilk, on the other hand, are just confused anti-American whack-jobs which have no use for reality.
“It is not up to the US to elevate the Arab world or anyone else.”
I agree. I have been saying all along that the US should not get involved in lost causes. The US is trying to keep them from killing each other, and in the process, hurting us; ie making it a safe place for doing business.
I agree, Bush had the wrong idea when he thought about exporting democracy.
“And I do not see how supporting tyrants like Saddam, the Shah, Mubarak, or tyrannical monarchies will help elevate anyone.”
You don’t, because in your tiny mind, the US IS supporting Saddam, the Shah, Mubarak and tyrannical monarchies. In your mind, there exists no possibility that all those figures and all those governments are the result of events on the ground, determined by local players and have NOTHING to do with the US. The US is a spectator, which for the sake of maintaining peace and tranquility, maintains normal relations with them.
In your screwed-up mind, maintaining normal relations is the equivalent of “supporting”. Except that when the US doesn’t support them, then it becomes “meddling in the internal affairs of a legitimate government”.
The Saudi monarchy was not installed by the US. The Baath Party was not the result of the US in Egypt. Nor was it the result of the US in Iraq. Nor was the Iranian Monarchy the creation of the US.
Of course, considering such a scenario would be a deathblow to the fantasy-land version of reality of Lefto-Liberterians, because it introduces the possibility that things happen outside of US control, and that the US may not be involved in doing all the bad things in the world.
And if it takes the invention of alternate universes, alternate realities, alternate dimensions, anti-realities etc to come up to the conclusion that the US, did in FACT, create the Saudi Monarchy, that the US did in FACT, create the Baath Arab SOCIALIST Party, then so be it.
People in other countries, it turns out, aren't monkeys laying in wait for the US to install and uninstall governments for them. Strange, but true.
“Of course, many people who have actually had contact with the Arab world would disagree with you. Countries like Iran and Iraq had very sophisticated and educated middle classes”
Ha!! Now you’re making sh*t up again. Iran and Iraq had sophisticated educated middle classes? It had SOME “sophisticated educated” people in them. They constituted about 1-2% of the population. But of course, if to make an anti-American point requires the creation of an alternate reality where illiterate Iraq had a “large prosperous educated middle class”, then so be it.
Do you know where the Iranian “middle class” of the Shah’s period is? They’re in Long Island ;) Why do you think that is?
The Arab world has a small minority of “educated” middle-class-like people, who try their best to distance themselves from the unwashed masses and try their best to pass themselves off as Americans (if they’re Coptic Egyptians) or French (If they are Lebanese, Tunisians or Algerians). This is an unfortunate tendency, which of course is a symptom of the fact that no such thing as “middle class” exists in these societies (which of course, is America’s fault, once again :p )
40% of Iraq even today is illiterate, and you speak of “middle class”?
“that many would argue are a bit more moderate and better informed than Americans. “
They also prefer to speak French amongst themselves instead of the language of the unwashed filthy Arab masses (in their eyes). A lot of good it has been doing them
Somehow, I have a feeling this must be America’s fault. I can feel it.
“The average American student can't find Europe or China on a world map and has a very poor grasp of history. “
The average Chinese student doesn’t know who Hitler was. I’m not kidding. I managed to convince my Chinese friend that the storyline of Inglorious Bastards was an accurate historical event, after I explained to her who Hitler and what WW2 was. But then again, she is studying at an American university, so therefore it must be America’s fault she’s an idiot.
“I am pretty sure that the average Iranian student will do better.”
Ha!! Yes Iran is well known for its intellectual achievements, given its vast and prosperous and sophisticated middle class (which lives in Long Island and LA)
Of course America pressuring Mubarak for the past 10 years at least to democratize and open up, does not factor into your account. Of course, the fact that every piece of educational equipment in Egyptian schools, to try and make them more educated and conscious citizens, comes from America, also does not factor into your account.
Pressure? Your government gave him close to $20 billion in the past decade. If it really wanted change it would have cut his funding off.
Again with the “your man” fantastic claims. The particular Shah you’re talking about was installed into power in 1940, as part of a dynastic succession. You can’t seem to understand reality all too well.
I understand reality fine. T the Shah came to power when his father was forced out by the British and the Russians. But he did not have control of Parliament, which made laws and unanimously voted to nationalize the oil industry. After a failed coup attempt to overthrow Mosaddegh he finally succeeded after a second attempt. He appointed his own man to be Prime Minister and used the security forces to put down any opposition to his tyrannical rule. After a long period the people finally had lost their patience and turned against him. While many expected the few moderates that were always being shown as being a part of the opposition to form the government, Khomeni had most killed off or exiled and established a tyrannical rule that was not very different than that of the Shah.
Sadly, we may see something similar in Egypt as the moderates lose a power struggle to the Muslim Brotherhood, which will try to move Egypt backwards both socially and economically. Of course, since we live in a world of satellite television, the internet, and Twitter it will be a lot harder for anyone to control information and keep the people misinformed.
“The funding of bi Laden, the Taliban and Mujaheddin has been well established and documented.”
Once again, the Muj and the Taliban are not the same people, or even from the same historical period. Not a very hard concept to understand. The Taliban fought against all the former Muj factions.
“There are countless of books by historians, journalists, and diplomats that show how the CIA used the Pakistani and Saudi Intelligence agencies to funnel money to Arab fighters and Afghan groups looking to oppose the Russians.”
Yes. And this has nothing to do with the Taliban. Congratulations.
“There was even a movie made about how a US member of Congress funneled money for missiles and other weapons to resistance groups in Afghanistan. “
Yes. And it has nothing to do with the Taliban.
Arab /= Taliban. Mujahadeen /= Taliban. fighting the Russians /= Taliban
The Taliban have a distinct history of their own, unrelated to the Muj. They are the creation of Pashtun quasi-nationalism and Islamic medievalism.
This is all obviously irrelevant to you, because it is not anti-American. And obviously, in your immense intelligence and knowledge, equal to or at the very least approaching the level of an Iranian college student (who we have been informed by you, is much smarter and much more moderate and knows where Europe is on a map as opposed to an idiot American hill-billy toothless cowboy atom-bomb rider), you cannot distinguish between different factions of different eras of different identities, who even fought each other.
In your mind “any Afghan fighting the Russians” = Taliban. Which leads me to suspect that your knowledge base is probably antiwar.org or some other mind-numbingly dumb Leftist source.
“You are giving him around $1.7 billion in each year so that he can play nice with Israel. The money shows that he is your guy and has been your guy just as Sadat was.”
Apparently we’ve been giving hundreds of millions to the opposition too ;)
The money goes to the military, which as is being seen, is the main force that is going to get Mubarak out.
Oops. It seems like your argument is going to fall apart soon since it seems that is this money that is overthrowing Mubarak. But then again, it will provide you with the opportunity to say that the US interfered in the legitimate democratically elected government of Egypt.
Sadat was “our guy”? Sadat was a Soviet guy, who after realizing what pathetic allies the Soviets made, decided to ditch them, make peace with Israel, and play nice with America.
“Pressure? Your government gave him close to $20 billion in the past decade. If it really wanted change it would have cut his funding off. “
But apparently its been funding the opposition this whole time ;)
“I understand reality fine. T the Shah came to power when his father was forced out by the British and the Russians. But he did not have control of Parliament, which made laws and unanimously voted to nationalize the oil industry.”
Again, you’re making sh*t up again. There was no nationalization of the oil industry. Soviet oil, was not touched. It was expropriation of private property.
“After a failed coup attempt to overthrow Mosaddegh he finally succeeded after a second attempt.”
Poor ol’ Mosaddegh was ruling through emergency powers after canceling elections. What a good guy he was!
“He appointed his own man to be Prime Minister and used the security forces to put down any opposition to his tyrannical rule. After a long period the people finally had lost their patience and turned against him.”
Amazing spin on history. And then what happened?? Lol
“While many expected the few moderates that were always being shown as being a part of the opposition to form the government, Khomeni had most killed off or exiled and established a tyrannical rule that was not very different than that of the Shah. “
Interesting spin, once again. Who were these “moderates” again, if you don’t mind me asking? ;)
Somehow, inexplicably, 98.2% of Iranians voted to establish the Islamic Republic.
“Sadly, we may see something similar in Egypt as the moderates lose a power struggle to the Muslim Brotherhood, which will try to move Egypt backwards both socially and economically”
Ohhh!!! The MB might create a WORSE situation than right now? Is this a monetary lapse into clarity you are having?
Don’t worry though, all those billions into the Egyptian military will ensure that MB will get nothing.
“Of course, since we live in a world of satellite television, the internet, and Twitter it will be a lot harder for anyone to control information and keep the people misinformed.”
Judging by how misinformed you are, obviously not. :p
You’re a genius!! Where were you in 2000 before 9/11? The CIA could have used your help. Of course, by the “late 90s”, there had already been dozens of bombings and attacks on US targets around the world, including the twin towers. But the Russian intelligence officers, as always, are sharp as a carrot.
The intelligence community knew that the US meddling abroad was making it a target. The extremists had already tried to set off explosives in the World Trade Center and American assets had already been attacked abroad. The incompetence at the CIA and FBI allowed the attack on 9/11 to succeed. Had sharper people been on the job the attack would have been exposed.
Of don’t worry about me. EVERY Lefto-European and EVERY “libertarian” in the world made comments to the regards of “America is supporting the breaking up of a legitimate democratically elected government, by supporting fascist tyrants in Croatia, Islamic extremism in Bosnia, Bulgarian expansionism in Macedonia, Albanian Nazis in Kosovo etc etc”
You are confused again. The Libertarians had no problem with Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia, Kosovo, or Macedonia going their own way. But they made it clear that when they split they could not take with them communities that did not wish to live under the rule of the new government. The fact that the Europeans did not oppose such actions caused many very unnecessary deaths.
The same would be true if Quebec chose to leave Canada. Of course it would be free to do so but if the people in Hull, Montreal or the Cree chose to stay within Canada the new government could not deny them the same right that they claimed for themselves.
Of course the slaughters that happened in the Balkans happened because America DIDN’T intervene as fast or forcibly as it should have. It left it instead in the hands of the “respectable law-abiding Europeans” who supported no tyrants (except for Milosevic, but then again he was a democratically elected legitimate ruler. He was no tyrant!)
American intervention would not have changed anything. The situation in the Balkans was manipulated by nationalist thugs looking for power and they knew which buttons to push. As a result, neighbours who had known each ether for decades, attended weddings, funerals, and birth celebrations together wound up shooting and killing each other. While that was and is a tragedy there is no need for the US to make things any worse by picking sides and meddling in affairs that it does not understand. Having the CIA call a group a terrorist organization one day and have it turn around and say that its members were freedom fighters does not do much for credibility. And bombing civilians in a country that you are not at war with is not exactly smart.
Again, all I’m asking you to do is tell me WHAT this “tribunal” or “investigation” or whatever it supposedly was (since you keep changing the story every day). I just want to know what it was, who was organizing it, in what year, and HOW the US managed to stop it.
The UN was debating the genocide issue and wanted to appoint a tribunal that would look into the actions of the KR. The US, along with China and the UK opposed any such review and ensured that nothing happened. This was a very big deal at the time and was all over the news. It is covered in the books that I referenced and in some of the links that I provided to you.
Here is another example.
With all due respect, you’re an idiot. You just said a few posts above that the US pulling out of Cambodia is what allowed the KR to gain power. By 1970 the KR controlled 70% of the country. The US attacks were targeting the KR/VC, specifically to save the Cambodian government.
It takes quite a strong sense of self-delusion to say one thing one minute, and the opposite the next, all the while blaming America in BOTH instances. Amazing.
With all due respect your capacity to think seems to be limited by your political bias. The KR would not have come to power when they did without the US attack in Cambodia in the first place. When you bomb a country and force its government out and help bring to power a pro-American general who allows you to use your military to kill innocent Cambodians the people will look a chance to take revenge. They did after the troops were pulled out and the pro-American forces found most of the rural population against them. These people supported the KR, who stepped into the void and took over the country. One of the first things was to take revenge by slaughtering much of the urban population as Pol Pot sought to bring his utopian vision to life. As all lefty dictators who ignore human nature do, he failed and millions lost their lives for nothing.
“The intelligence community knew that the US meddling abroad was making it a target. The extremists had already tried to set off explosives in the World Trade Center and American assets had already been attacked abroad. The incompetence at the CIA and FBI allowed the attack on 9/11 to succeed. Had sharper people been on the job the attack would have been exposed. “
You’re a genius. Be careful not to be accidentally recruited by the CIA.
“You are confused again. The Libertarians had no problem with Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia, Kosovo, or Macedonia going their own way. But they made it clear that when they split they could not take with them communities that did not wish to live under the rule of the new government. The fact that the Europeans did not oppose such actions caused many very unnecessary deaths. “
You go from genius to idiot in the span of 3 sentences. So what cased Milosevic to go apesh*t and kill 300,000 people, was that the “Croatians, Bosnians, Slovenian, Kosovar or Macedonians” took communities with them that didn’t want to be with them.
That must be it.
Wait, where is America’s fault?
“The same would be true if Quebec chose to leave Canada. Of course it would be free to do so but if the people in Hull, Montreal or the Cree chose to stay within Canada the new government could not deny them the same right that they claimed for themselves. “
Yes, Canada and Quebec are EXACTLY like Serbia and Kosovo. There’s one little tiny bit of a difference. Canada didn’t kill 300,000 people to prevent it.
This is why Libertarians live in the clouds. They don’t understand that in the real world, you face men with guns who don’t care what your rights or freedoms are. And there’s no international law to prevent them from killing whoever they want.
This is the difference between reality and the fantasy-land you live in.
“American intervention would not have changed anything”
So it wasn’t America’s fault?? Holy cow! That’s a first.
American intervention quicker and more forcibly in Bosnia would have changed a lot. It would have spared a lot of deaths.
“The situation in the Balkans was manipulated by nationalist thugs looking for power and they knew which buttons to push. As a result, neighbours who had known each ether for decades, attended weddings, funerals, and birth celebrations together wound up shooting and killing each other. “
And then what happened?? Lol
“While that was and is a tragedy there is no need for the US to make things any worse by picking sides and meddling in affairs that it does not understand.”
The US did pick sides. Just a bit late, but either way it picked sides, for the betterment of all the Balkan people (including, and perhaps especially the Serbs)
“Having the CIA call a group a terrorist organization one day and have it turn around and say that its members were freedom fighters does not do much for credibility.”
I don’t think the CIA gives a flying rat’s a** about their credibility in your eyes ;)
“And bombing civilians in a country that you are not at war with is not exactly smart.”
Who bombed civilians? Why are you so dense?
“The UN was debating the genocide issue and wanted to appoint a tribunal that would look into the actions of the KR. The US, along with China and the UK opposed any such review and ensured that nothing happened. This was a very big deal at the time and was all over the news. It is covered in the books that I referenced and in some of the links that I provided to you.”
Again…did you read YOUR claims before? You claimed the US supported, armed, trained, and financed the KR. And at the end of the day, the best you can come up with, is that the US didn’t want to break up a coalition fighting the Vietnamese.
You change your story every day to salvage whatever little straw left in your straw-man.
“The KR would not have come to power when they did without the US attack in Cambodia in the first place.”
You’re making sh*t up again. The KR had been fighting a war against the government there for years. By 1970 they controlled 70% of the country (along with the VC).
You keep making sh*t up, but it doesn’t change the fact that you’re making it up.
The US failed to achieve what it wanted to achieve, undoubtedly. So your “confusion” in your mind is that the US was responsible, because it FAILED in stopping the KR when it tried, and therefore by trying and failing , they SUPPORTED the KR.
The logic doesn’t flow. The problem was, the US failed. That’s the unfortunate part. Had the US succeeded, you would never have read the name Pol Pot in your twisted Lefto-Libertarian websites.
“When you bomb a country and force its government out and help bring to power a pro-American general who allows you to use your military to kill innocent Cambodians the people will look a chance to take revenge.”
Once more you are making sh*t up. So now it’s a “general who killed innocent people”. Wow. Anything to create an anti-American fantasy-land. You’re making sh*t up without the slightest knowledge of what happened in Cambodia at the time.
But then again, what’s new?
“They did after the troops were pulled out and the pro-American forces found most of the rural population against them. These people supported the KR, who stepped into the void and took over the country. One of the first things was to take revenge by slaughtering much of the urban population as Pol Pot sought to bring his utopian vision to life.”
So again, your argument is that the US failed to accomplish what it set out to do. I agree, you’re a brilliant genius. Keep it up.
“As all lefty dictators who ignore human nature do, he failed and millions lost their lives for nothing.”
And then what happened?
"he failed and millions lost their lives for nothing."
And if America had succeeded, they would not have lost their lives.
And if America have never been involved, they would have lost their lives ANYWAY.
See in your tiny Libertarian mind, they were killed "because they supported America" (which they didn't but anyway). Thats not why Pol Pol did what he did.
But in the desire to assign blame to America for EVERYTHING you have convinced your tiny mind that it was America's fault.
Evil America getting involved once again in the internal affairs of sovereign democratically-elected governments in the Middle East.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/world
news/africaandindianocean/egypt/82896
86/Egypt-protests-Americas-secret-
backing-for-rebel-leaders-behind-
uprising.html
Evil America. And all this time I thought Mubarak was "our guy".
Does Egypt knows what happens when America supports you/does not support you? Pol Pot comes and eats you.
Once again, the Muj and the Taliban are not the same people, or even from the same historical period. Not a very hard concept to understand. The Taliban fought against all the former Muj factions.
I have not said that they were the same. I said that it has been established they all received American funding through the CIA or through a proxy like the Saudi or Pakistani security agencies.
Yes. And this has nothing to do with the Taliban. Congratulations.
You forget the Clinton administration support of the Taliban's rise in the hope that it could check the influence of Iran in the region. The big break with the Taliban came because of the treatment of women. You also forget the fact that American taxpayers are still funding the Taliban today because some of the cash that flows into Afghanistan is making its way as bribes and protection money to various Taliban factions.
The Taliban have a distinct history of their own, unrelated to the Muj. They are the creation of Pashtun quasi-nationalism and Islamic medievalism.
The history of the orphans created by the war against the Soviets is well known. But as I pointed out, the West and the US did fund the Taliban. And they still do today even though we are supposed to be at war with them.
Apparently we’ve been giving hundreds of millions to the opposition too ;)
The money goes to the military, which as is being seen, is the main force that is going to get Mubarak out.
You can't dance your way out of this. The fact is that the US did give Mubarak billions of dollars. Without those billions he would not have been able to stay in power. You can try to spin your way into trying to suggests that some of the money went to the military that will eventually get him out of Egypt but that same military kept him in power for all these years.
It is ironic how you can recognize the folly of the left's argument justifying meddling in economic affairs but you fail to realize that you are making exactly the same argument that justifies meddling in political affairs. Just as the intellectually challenged lefties try to argue that bailouts and interventions are necessary to prevent a worse outcome the intellectually right makes the argument that political meddling and the propping up of tyrants is necessary to prevent a worse outcome.
Sadat was “our guy”? Sadat was a Soviet guy, who after realizing what pathetic allies the Soviets made, decided to ditch them, make peace with Israel, and play nice with America.
But he was your guy. He started off with the Soviets but found out that the US could pay better and offer Egypt a better deal. So he turned on the Soviets and decided to go with American funding in exchange for recognition of Israel. Since then Egypt has been on the receiving end of a huge volume of American taxpayer funding. And from what I can see, the US has not been very insistent on free and fair elections because they fear that the Egyptians would turn to the Muslim Brotherhood instead of pro-American leaders. (Which is why I expect that Obama wants the army to take over and ensure that an acceptable president takes over.)
Again, you’re making sh*t up again. There was no nationalization of the oil industry. Soviet oil, was not touched. It was expropriation of private property.
The Iranian Parliament decided to nationalize the British oil fields so the UK and the US engineered a coup. There is no debate on this point because it has been settled for decades. Iran was a pawn in the Cold War and neither side cared much about what happened to the Iranian people.
Poor ol’ Mosaddegh was ruling through emergency powers after canceling elections. What a good guy he was!
Where did I say he was a good guy? All I said is that he was overthrown by an US/UK orchestrated coup.
Amazing spin on history. And then what happened?? Lol
Decades of crushing any moderates who demanded a political voice only left the extremists as a legitimate power. When the people turned against the Shah these extremists came to power, partially by using the few exiled moderates as cover to gain acceptance against elements in society that did not trust the religious block. The US meddling did not prevent the fall of the Shah and did not improve the lives of ordinary Iranians. Money is still being spent to deal with the aftermath.
Interesting spin, once again. Who were these “moderates” again, if you don’t mind me asking? ;)
Masoud Banisadr was one example that I gave you before. The CIA and State Department analysts were up in arms about his removal and using it as an example of how extreme Knomeni was. The irony was that at the time Banisadr was still supposedly a member of a lefty organization. (If you are interested he has written a few interesting articles about how the lefties used to use psychological pressure to keep members in line. It is a fascinating if scary description.)
Somehow, inexplicably, 98.2% of Iranians voted to establish the Islamic Republic.
At the time the new leaders were seen to make up a cross section of Iranian society, not just the extremists that comprise the theocracy. You might want to read up on your history.
Ohhh!!! The MB might create a WORSE situation than right now? Is this a monetary lapse into clarity you are having?
Ah, the same logic as the lefties keep using keeps coming up over and over again. The great harm was done by the support of tyrants for more than three decades. Had the US not meddled the situation would not have been as dire as it is. And yes, when an unsustainable system falls apart, you could see a correction that will make things worse for a while. You seem to be supporting a political version of the Ben Bernanke logic; that you keep intervening to prevent corrections time after time and that you ignore the consequences. Well, that works only up to a point after which no more meddling will postpone the correction. And at that point the consequences will be very dire no matter what is done.
It seems to me that you share the same faulty logic as the left. Your tolerance ore even preference for authoritarian action in the political and social sphere is quite amusing particularly when you recognize that the preference of the lefties for such action in the economic sphere is so misguided.
You go from genius to idiot in the span of 3 sentences. So what cased Milosevic to go apesh*t and kill 300,000 people, was that the “Croatians, Bosnians, Slovenian, Kosovar or Macedonians” took communities with them that didn’t want to be with them.
I think that you are oversimplifying the situation, which is very foolish when it comes to Balkan history, which is full of bloodthirsty fools and nationalist imbeciles.
The problem began hundreds of years ago but the tipping point came when the Serbs in Krajina declared their independence from Croatia just as Croatia declared independence from Yugoslavia. When the international community refused to recognize the Republic of Serbian Krajina, the local Serbs began to push out all non Serbs. The two sides worked out a truce, which held for around three years. During this time the Serbs were shelling surrounding Croatian towns while the Croatians were killing the odd Serb here and there and clearing out Serb villages here and there.
Eventually, local skirmishes and operations created instability that turned into an all out war. The Bosnian Croatians and Muslims joined forces and cut off the supply lines to Serbian Krajina. The Serbs inside of Croatia and Bosnia joined forces and counterattacked. All sides killed civilians and committed war crimes. I would argue that all sides were guilty of serious crimes against civilians including the Croatians against the Krajina Serbs and the Serbs at Srebrenica. More than 250,000 Serbs were expelled from their homes in Krajina. When some of these Serbs were resettled they simply pushed out Croatian families from their homes inside Serbia.
Of course, the International Court was not as harsh on its assessment. It never bothered with the Croatian acts in Krajina and cleared the Serbian government of direct involvement in genocide of Bosnians. I guess that 9,000 civilian dead were not enough.
Wait, where is America’s fault?
When it comes to the Balkans the Americans were and are irrelevant. While Clinton should be tried for bombing civilians there was little he could do to save the Krajina Serbs or the Srebrenica victims.
Yes, Canada and Quebec are EXACTLY like Serbia and Kosovo. There’s one little tiny bit of a difference. Canada didn’t kill 300,000 people to prevent it.
As I pointed out before, one of the tipping points was declaration of independence by the Krajina Serbs, who did not want to be ruled by hostile Croatian politicians. What would happen if Montreal, Hull, or the Cree did the same in Quebec? Would the US stand aside and fail to recognize their rights to be independent as it did with the Serbs? And what if the English and Cree communities defended themselves? While the hostility between the French and English in Quebec does not rise to the level of Croatians and Serbs in the Balkans it is clear that many of the communities in Quebec will try to argue that they should have the right to their own independence. What happens when the Cree decide to go their own way or to become an independent territory within Canada? Given their control of power generation capacity I doubt that the Quebec government will accept their wish to be sovereign.
We cannot be confused by the superflous and have to go back to principle. Do people have the right to determine their own laws and rules or do they have to be a part of a larger political unit that may be hostile to their community, religion, ethnicity, etc.,? Libertarians argue that they do have the right to be sovereign. Statists would argue that they do not. That is why most governments have such a hard time recognizing people who want to be independent. Why would Spain recognize the right of Krajina Serbs or Albanian Macedonians independence when it would mean that it would have to recognize the Basque demands for their own independence?
This is why Libertarians live in the clouds. They don’t understand that in the real world, you face men with guns who don’t care what your rights or freedoms are. And there’s no international law to prevent them from killing whoever they want.
I have never advocated not defending one's rights, only advocated that one should not initiate violence. I had no problem with the Serbs defending their homes against Croatian armies looking to impose their power over them. My problem was with paramilitary groups killing innocent Croatians and trying to justify it as necessary preemptive action.
This is the difference between reality and the fantasy-land you live in.
I think that your confusion keeps showing up time after time. You keep ignoring reality, which shows that meddling creates all kinds of unpleasant unintended consequences. Intervention into WW I extended the war and led to the rise of Hitler and Stalin, not exactly what Wilson was going for when he broke his election promises. Invading Vietnam and Cambodia led to lots of money printing, many American lives lost, and millons of civilians dying. Propping up the Shah produced Khomeni. Arming the Mujahideen and al Qaeda and stationing American troops in the Middle East produced 9/11. Trying to be the world's policeman produced huge deficits and reliance on Chinese borrowing.
The reality is that political intervention works no better than the economic intervention being advocated by the left. There are always unintended consequences and the central planners that come up with the intervention schemes in the political arena do not have enough information to be truly effective. To believe that a bunch of bureaucrats can come up with effective policies is delusional and not supported by sound theory or any empirical evidence.
American intervention quicker and more forcibly in Bosnia would have changed a lot. It would have spared a lot of deaths.
Actually, American recognition of the right of Krajina Serbs to rule themselves would have done a lot more. By recognizing the sovereignty of communities and individuals the US would have signalled that no external power could be imposed on people who did not wish to be ruled by it. Common customs law would still have held as neither side allowed theft, the initiation of force, or fraud.
But as you say, such acts would not stop thugs in the real world and some would clearly have died. But many fewer people would have died and far fewer people would have lost their homes as they were forced to leave the places where they had lived for generations. By choosing justice instead of sides the US could have accomplished something of value and sent a signal to the world that it was still the true beacon of liberty. But it did not do that. It chose sides and many more people died as the worst of the combatants were empowered to commit crimes against humanity.
The US did pick sides. Just a bit late, but either way it picked sides, for the betterment of all the Balkan people (including, and perhaps especially the Serbs)
As I wrote above, the US did not choose justice. It chose sides for political gain. And as I wrote above, the unresolved issues are still with us. Do the Basque people have the right to rule themselves? Can the Cree leave an independent Quebec? Can Texas or Alaska choose to leave the Union?
Again…did you read YOUR claims before? You claimed the US supported, armed, trained, and financed the KR. And at the end of the day, the best you can come up with, is that the US didn’t want to break up a coalition fighting the Vietnamese.
The links that I provided show that the US did train, arm, and fund the KR to fight the Vietnamese. As I wrote, you don't know much about history and choose to ignore the facts that do not fit your bias.
And if America had succeeded, they would not have lost their lives.
And if America have never been involved, they would have lost their lives ANYWAY.
Ah, the what if lefty argument again. If Bernanke had not bailed out AIG the world would have ended.
Well, just like the Fed justifying trying to fix a bubble that it created in the first place you have the neoconservatives try to justify the intervention that brought down the government in the first place. Had the Cambodian government not been destabilized and overthrown due to American bombing and invasions there would not have been a Pol Pot in power ready to kill all those urban civilians.
The US failed to achieve what it wanted to achieve, undoubtedly. So your “confusion” in your mind is that the US was responsible, because it FAILED in stopping the KR when it tried, and therefore by trying and failing , they SUPPORTED the KR.
The US intervention brought the KR to power. End of story. And after the KR fell the US stopped the UN from investigating the genocide and gave weapons and money to the KR. That makes it responsible.
The unintended effects of intervention are all around us. In the political sphere we see a theocratic Iran that was only made possible by American support of a tyrant. We see the US stuck in Iraq because the man it chose to rule it turned out not to be a very wise choice.
We also see it in the financial sphere. When the Fed tried to mitigate the damage from the IT crash it blew up a bubble in housing. When that ended badly the Fed created massive liquidity that permitted Americans to live above their means and keep exchanging their paper for finished products. But by exporting inflation abroad the Fed create problems for millions of people around the world who found that they could not afford the price increases for food and energy. So we see riots in the streets and many shaky regimes in big trouble.
Just as Kennedy's military planners could not predict that his Vietnamese intervention would eventually lead to a loss in Vietnam and genocide in Cambodia, the financial planners could not predict that all that liquidity will bring down the world's banking system and end the status of the USD as a reserve currency.
The logic doesn’t flow. The problem was, the US failed. That’s the unfortunate part. Had the US succeeded, you would never have read the name Pol Pot in your twisted Lefto-Libertarian websites.
It is your logic that fails. Just as lefties fail to understand that credit booms create the problems that they want to fight the neoconservatives fail to understand that their interventions create the enemies they try to fight. The best way to defeat Hitler was not to fight WW II but not to create him by intervening in WW I. If you really want to get to the root of the problem in Cambodia was not a Kennedy, Johnson or Nixon creation. It began with Wilson breaking his promises and prolonging WW I . That in turn led to the fall of the Russian Duma and the rise of the Communists. (Not to mention Hitler.) Without that intervention there would be no WW II or Cold War because Communism would still remain a fringe movement.
“I have not said that they were the same. I said that it has been established they all received American funding through the CIA or through a proxy like the Saudi or Pakistani security agencies. “
Of course not. What funding did the US provide to the Taliban? You’re making sh*t up again.
“You forget the Clinton administration support of the Taliban's rise in the hope that it could check the influence of Iran in the region.”
That is complete and total BS of the highest order.
“You also forget the fact that American taxpayers are still funding the Taliban today because some of the cash that flows into Afghanistan is making its way as bribes and protection money to various Taliban factions. “
You are also funding the Taliban because every time you smoke whatever it is you are smoking, some of that money goes to the Taliban ;)
“But as I pointed out, the West and the US did fund the Taliban.”
Pointing out fantasies in your head is not the same as proving anything.
“The fact is that the US did give Mubarak billions of dollars. “
It gave Egypt billions of dollars. It would have given Egypt billions of dollars even if they were a democracy. The money is intended to build the military and provide aid programs in education and many other things. The money is not conditional on Mubarak
The US will give billions to the government that will follow Mubarak as well.
This is why you are incapable of understanding.
The argument you OUGHT to be making, without sounding like a Leftist quack, is “is it worth for the US to give billions of dollars to Egypt?”. That’s the proper question, to which I would also say “no”.
But a Libertarian quack is the same as a Leftist quack; all that matters is anti-Americanism.
“Without those billions he would not have been able to stay in power.”
That’s utterly idiotic.
“but you fail to realize that you are making exactly the same argument that justifies meddling in political affairs.”
It is actually amazing that in your mind, economic affairs are comparable to “political affairs” with guns. Political affairs are the antithesis of economic affairs. When other guys have guns and use them against you, you get bigger guns to use against them.
This is why you are marginalized clowns.
“Just as the intellectually challenged lefties try to argue that bailouts and interventions are necessary to prevent a worse outcome the intellectually right makes the argument that political meddling and the propping up of tyrants is necessary to prevent a worse outcome.”
The two are not comparable for a simple reason; in military affairs, the use of force is the whole point. This is something far too complicated for a Libertarian to understand, apparently.
“But he was your guy. He started off with the Soviets but found out that the US could pay better and offer Egypt a better deal. So he turned on the Soviets and decided to go with American funding in exchange for recognition of Israel. Since then Egypt has been on the receiving end of a huge volume of American taxpayer funding.”
Again you confuse yourself in your appetite to pin the blame on America for everything. Did America establish Nasser? Did America put Sadat in power? Did America lead Sadat to disaster?
If the answers to any of these questions are “yes”, then he qualifies as “our guy”. Otherwise, you’re making sh*t up as always.
“And from what I can see, the US has not been very insistent on free and fair elections because they fear that the Egyptians would turn to the Muslim Brotherhood instead of pro-American leaders.”
This is once more your inability to recognize that things happen in other countries out of their own momentum and on their own agenda. This is you again thinking that everyone else is a bunch of monkeys who are waiting for America to “insist” on freedom and democracy before they can get it.
Obviously it never occurred to you that Egypt has never in its history ever had anything resembling any elections of any caliber. And in your mind, it must because “America didn’t ask for it”.
As far as Egypt is concerned, America is a spectator. But even that is too dangerous of a job when dealing with whack-jobs of the Lefto-Libertarian persuasion.
“Which is why I expect that Obama wants the army to take over and ensure that an acceptable president takes over.)”
There you go making sh*t up again, ahead of time. You think the Army is going to “take over” because OBAMA wants them to? You think the events on the streets of Egypt have ANY relation or relevance to what OBAMA wants?
Of course, its not possible that the Army runs itself as it wants for its own benefits. Of course not, they must be a bunch of monkeys taking orders from America, as everyone else in the world. Of course, its not possible that the people of Egypt WANT the Army to take over, since it is the only “moderate” force in existence in that country.
No…in your mind…Obama wants it to be so, and so it shall be. (because otherwise, HOW could you blame America for it?)
“The Iranian Parliament decided to nationalize the British oil fields so the UK and the US engineered a coup. There is no debate on this point because it has been settled for decades. Iran was a pawn in the Cold War and neither side cared much about what happened to the Iranian people. “
Yes stealing private property is not seen too kindly.
Guilty as charged.
“Where did I say he was a good guy? All I said is that he was overthrown by an US/UK orchestrated coup.”
He was the legitimate democratically elected leader of…oh never mind. What’s the point. You’ll just make up some sh*t again.
“Decades of crushing any moderates who demanded a political voice only left the extremists as a legitimate power.”
What “moderate voices”? you keep making up your own fantasy-version of history. What decades of crushing “moderates”? Centuries you mean? And where is evil Amerikkka in all of this?
“When the people turned against the Shah these extremists came to power, partially by using the few exiled moderates as cover to gain acceptance against elements in society that did not trust the religious block.”
Amazing spin once more. Whatever happened to that wonderfully educated sophisticated blooming Iranian middle class and university students?
Oh yes I forgot, America ate them for lunch.
You can try your best to spin things into an anti-American direction. You always fail because it necessitates that you invent an alternate reality of history.
“The US meddling did not prevent the fall of the Shah and did not improve the lives of ordinary Iranians.”
What are you rambling on about? First, the US supposedly put the Shah in power (of course it did no such thing). Now apparently it didn’t prevent the Shah from falling.
Obviously, in Iranian history, the only determining factor was, “the great Satan”. The Shah was a nobody. He did nothing. He never mattered. Only American desires did. Islamism didn’t exist. It never did anything. Only American provocation of Islam existed. The Iranian people were monkeys and goats. They ate grass, they peed on themselves.
In fact, the Iranian people were a blooming collection of intelligent educated sophisticated middle class scholars and scientists, who were put down by the Shah on America’s orders, and then rebelled, only to have an evil Ayatollah come into power because he used fairy dust to cover everyone’s eyes.
Quite the story. America’s meddling obviously explains everything in Iran.
“Masoud Banisadr was one example that I gave you before”
What STUPIDITY! Banisadr was as far away from a “moderate” as the Ayatollah himself. He was with the MEK, an organization operating in Iraq under the umbrella of Saddam Hussein. Saddam used them as cannon fodder to kill Kurds and whoever he didn’t like.
You see, this is how you’re going to get yourself into trouble.
“At the time the new leaders were seen to make up a cross section of Iranian society, not just the extremists that comprise the theocracy. You might want to read up on your history.”
You might want to stop making sh*t up. So now you’re claiming the 98.2% vote for establishing the Islamic Republic, as “legitimate democratically elected cross section of Iranian society”. What is a cross-section of Iranian society in 1979? 50% were illiterate then.
“The great harm was done by the support of tyrants for more than three decades.”
This is why your version of reality is made up BS. The tyrants did not rule Egypt because the US supported them, allowed them, liked them, or installed them. They ruled Egypt because they ruled Egypt. The US plaid spectator, and kept them quiet and away from war. Just as it is doing now, just as it will continue doing whoever comes into power in Egypt next.
In the real world, things happen on their own terms. In your fantasy-land world, things happen only as a result of US desires.
This, again, is why your ilk is a bunch of street clowns.
“Had the US not meddled the situation would not have been as dire as it is. “
BS. Had the US not send money to Egypt, they’d still be at 90% illiteracy and eating out of garbage cans, and would be Israel’s pet toy.
Oh wait, are you going to tell me about the wonderful Egyptian “middle class” moderates who were squashed by the evil American-installed dictators? Which Egyptian moderate middle class? The one living in Virginia?
“And yes, when an unsustainable system falls apart, you could see a correction that will make things worse for a while.”
There’s no unsustainable system in Egypt. Egypt is ruled by its military. It always has been. Egyptian leaders come to power by and through the military. The same thing will happen now.
The US didn’t create this. This is Egypt.
“Your tolerance ore even preference for authoritarian action in the political and social sphere “
My “tolerance for authoritarian action” in the social sphere only exists in your Libertarian mind. So no reason for me to address imaginary issues.
In the “political sphere” (not really political), force is a standard, it is not an exception. This is what you are incapable of understanding. But that is why you are clowns.
“I think that you are oversimplifying the situation, which is very foolish when it comes to Balkan history, which is full of bloodthirsty fools and nationalist imbeciles. “
Yes but where did America screw things up? Come on, I’m sure its all America’s fault!!
“The problem began hundreds of years ago…”
No f***ing way!!! I never knew this. And then what happened?
Lol
“When it comes to the Balkans the Americans were and are irrelevant. “
??????? How convenient. In the Balkans, American action is the ONLY thing that brought peace and democracy to all the combatents, saved millions of people, and yet somehow, in the Lefto-Libertarian land of Egyptian middle classes :p,
…”Americans are irrelevant”
You sir, are pathetic.
“While Clinton should be tried for bombing civilians”
What civilians? ;)
“As I pointed out before, one of the tipping points was…”
Oh please sir!! Tell me more about my own history. I’ve never heard of these things before.
“We cannot be confused by the superflous and have to go back to principle. Do people have the right to determine their own laws and rules or do they have to be a part of a larger political unit that may be hostile to their community, religion, ethnicity, etc.,? Libertarians argue that they do have the right to be sovereign. Statists would argue that they do not. “
This is why you are idiots. The very act of creating a sovereign state, is a statist act. These issues have nothing to do with “libertarianism” of any sense. These are purely PRACTICAL issues.
You are ask big of clowns as the communists in 1995 and 1999 who were also making identically idiotic points, of no relevance to anyone.
This is purely, an issue of no relevance to the “Libertarian quacks vs statists” discussion. Nothing at all.
“That is why most governments have such a hard time recognizing people who want to be independent.”
That is arguably the most idiotic statement ever made. This is human nature, something which in Libertarian quack mentality, is limited to “freedom vs statism”. Yet it is not.
No one had a problem in recognizing Montenegro or Macedonian or Slovenian independence. You don’t understand human nature, and other human agendas besides “statism”.
Countries, nations and peoples “breaking up” is every bit as complicated and every bit as multi-dimensional as two lovers breaking up. It can happen on good terms, or it can happen with flying objects. For a Libertarian quack observing from the outside to try and declare that the two lovers broke up because of “America’s meddling” :p is equivalent to what you are doing.
The way in which people of different ethnicities live together in one entity, is equally as complicated as individuals living with each other. Some people can have 3 lovers in one house with no problem (like Switzerland), others can’t tolerate even themselves (like the Serbs). What causes these differences? America of course!
Now stop making sh*t up, and telling me my own history, and please get to the point where it is AMERICA’S FAULT! ;)
“Why would Spain recognize the right of Krajina Serbs or Albanian Macedonians independence when it would mean that it would have to recognize the Basque demands for their own independence?”
Why would the Krajina Serbs or Albanian Macedonians give a c*** if Spain recognizes them or not? ;)
“I have never advocated not defending one's rights, only advocated that one should not initiate violence.”
That’s wonderful. And yet someone will initiate violence, whether you support it or not. This is why it is NOT like markets transactions.
“I had no problem with the Serbs defending their homes against Croatian armies looking to impose their power over them. My problem was with paramilitary groups killing innocent Croatians and trying to justify it as necessary preemptive action.”
You have no right to have a problem. Your opinions don’t matter to anyone. Your opinions don’t stop bombs nor bullets.
“which shows that meddling creates all kinds of unpleasant unintended consequences.
Again, every action creates unintended consequences. It doesn’t matter if it is an action take freely, or forcibly. This isn’t the argument. You want to make it the argument, because you want to pin blame on America for everything.
And what is the unintended consequence of America NOT intervening in the situations it intervened in? ;) Inaction, has unintended consequences too.
“Intervention into WW I extended the war and led to the rise of Hitler and Stalin, not exactly what Wilson was going for when he broke his election promises.”
That is idiotic to the highest extreme. This is why talking to whack-jobs like yourself is about as entertaining as talking to any Leftist whack-job selling SW on the street.
“Invading Vietnam and Cambodia led to lots of money printing, many American lives lost, and millons of civilians dying. “
Yes, because America failed. Failure, is not an unintended consequence. Lol
“Propping up the Shah produced Khomeni.”
No it didn’t. The Shah introducing miniskirts and bras Iran, produced Khomenei. You’re a clown who doesn’t recognize the possibility that Khomenei had an agenda of his own and reasons of his own for existing. It must have been “because America did it”
And then you call me a “statist”, when you can’t recognize that things happen outside of the control or direction of “the state”.
“Arming the Mujahideen and al Qaeda and stationing American troops in the Middle East produced 9/11. “
You’re a moron, but I don’t need to say it on every sentence. I think you get the idea by now. And what caused all the terrorist attacks PRIOR to the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan?
Again you are incapable of understanding that other people have their own agendas and their own momentum. That they exist for their own interests and ends, outside of America. That Islamic extremism is extremist because there are miniskirts and pop-music in Egypt, and evil soul-stealing voice recording devices in Afghanistan. Maybe they are extremist and want to kill anyone who isn’t like them, because they live in the 9th century BC, and are being collided with the 21st century.
The again, maybe you just can’t understand it.
“Trying to be the world's policeman produced huge deficits and reliance on Chinese borrowing. “
There are two different arguments being made here. One is a “principled” argument. Since you have no principles other than “blame America”, I don’t think I need to address that argument.
The second argument is a practical one; is it worth spending the money being spend. The answer on my part is “no”. But that is an entirely different argument, with entirely different outcomes.
“The reality is that political intervention works no better than the economic intervention being advocated by the left.”
No they don’t
“There are always unintended consequences”
You’re a genius.
“and the central planners that come up with the intervention schemes in the political arena do not have enough information to be truly effective.”
Now you’re an idiot again. The military arena is necessarily a “central planned” arena. National defense, is the responsibility of the state, and there’s a reason for that. And the reason is not a “principled” one. It is a practical one.
But Libertarians can’t wrap their minds around “practicality”, or reality for that matter.
“To believe that a bunch of bureaucrats can come up with effective policies is delusional and not supported by sound theory or any empirical evidence.”
The evidence has been that military “bearcats” are typically the ones who deliver bombs and bullets the best on their target ;)
This is why you people are clowns. You try your hardest to apply market principles to a problem that, inherently, is not a market problem.
In the Lefto-Libertarian fantasy-reality, a problem like the Soviet Union, is a problem which follows the same principles and behaviors of market transactions. It does not, because Uncle Joe kills people. And it kills fools like you first.
“Actually, American recognition of the right of Krajina Serbs to rule themselves would have done a lot more. By recognizing the sovereignty of communities and individuals the US would have signalled that no external power could be imposed on people who did not wish to be ruled by it. Common customs law would still have held as neither side allowed theft, the initiation of force, or fraud. “
You sir, are officially a moron.
“common custom law would still have held…” lol
They were slitting throats on the road to Knin. I think laws against fraud were out the window, once throat-slitting was allowed. Lol.
As if the Serbs, or Croatians, gave a flying rat’s a** what America said or not. They only gave a c*** when American bombs started falling on their heads.
As if I needed more evidence of why you people are clowns.
“But as you say, such acts would not stop thugs in the real world and some would clearly have died. But many fewer people would have died and far fewer people would have lost their homes as they were forced to leave the places where they had lived for generations.”
WTF? So it wouldn’t have worked (no sh*t), but it would have resulted in fewer people being killed.
So America’s WORDS would have convinced the Serbs and Croats to stop fighting. Whereas American BOMBS would not have done this more effectively?
I’m tired of calling you a clown at this point. Consider yourself clowned from now on.
“By choosing justice instead of sides the US could have accomplished something of value and sent a signal to the world that it was still the true beacon of liberty”
It would have send the signal that it was unwilling to do anything about anything. But far be it for you to understand.
“But it did not do that. It chose sides and many more people died as the worst of the combatants were empowered to commit crimes against humanity. “
WTF are you bumbling on about? American bombing which STOPPED the war, led to MORE people being killed?
Wow.
“As I wrote above, the US did not choose justice.”
What are you an idiotic 15 year old Leftist? What is “justice”, when the issue is slitting throats?
“It chose sides for political gain”
Yeah, gains like stopping genocide. BASTARDS!!
“And as I wrote above, the unresolved issues are still with us. Do the Basque people have the right to rule themselves? “
As I wrote above, you’re a clown. The Basque issue is a separate issue of unrelated consequence.
“Can the Cree leave an independent Quebec? Can Texas or Alaska choose to leave the Union? “
Can you stop being a clown?
“The links that I provided show that the US did train, arm, and fund the KR to fight the Vietnamese.”
It did no such thing of course, and your "links" show nothing of the sort.
“Ah, the what if lefty argument again. If Bernanke had not bailed out AIG the world would have ended.”
You keep trying to confuse yourself by making these allusions to economic issues, without realizing that it is you who are saying that “if America hadn’t intervened, better things would have happened: )
I’m saying…America intervening didn’t create nor change the facts. America precisely failed in doing so.
This is very comedic for me. Keep it up.
“Had the Cambodian government not been destabilized and overthrown due to American bombing and invasions”
Yes but you are making a fantasy-reality again. The Cambodian government didn’t fall due to “American bombing”. There were dynamics of its own there. American ground intervention didn’t even happen until AFTER the coup in Cambodia.
This is why you’re a clown.
“there would not have been a Pol Pot in power ready to kill all those urban civilians. “
Pol Pot got into power because America failed in what it tried to do. Pol Pot and the VC controlled 70% of the country, BEFORE America intervened on the ground.
You’re a clown.
“The US intervention brought the KR to power. End of story.”
You’re a clown.
“And after the KR fell the US stopped the UN from investigating the genocide and gave weapons and money to the KR.”
You’re a clown. At best you have shown evidence that the US did not want to bring up issues in the UN that would destabilize a coalition. The rest, is your whacko fantasy-reality.
“The unintended effects of intervention are all around us. In the political sphere we see a theocratic Iran that was only made possible by American support of a tyrant. “
You’re a clown.
“We see the US stuck in Iraq because the man it chose to rule it turned out not to be a very wise choice. “
You’re an idiot. You still haven’t shown me how America “chose” Saddam Hussein ;)
“Just as Kennedy's military planners could not predict that his Vietnamese intervention would eventually lead to a loss in Vietnam “
Loosing is NOT an unintended consequence lol
“The best way to defeat Hitler was not to fight WW II but not to create him by intervening in WW I.”
That’s like saying the best way for me to have an argument with you is to go back to when you were in 3rd grade and punch you in the face.
You’re a clown.
“If you really want to get to the root of the problem in Cambodia was not a Kennedy, Johnson or Nixon creation. It began with Wilson breaking his promises and prolonging WW I That in turn led to the fall of the Russian Duma and the rise of the Communists. (Not to mention Hitler.) Without that intervention there would be no WW II or Cold War because Communism would still remain a fringe movement.”
Actually, now that I think about it…
No. No you’re still an idiot.
Evil America. And all this time I thought Mubarak was "our guy".
He was your guy when he did what he was told and was useful to the US government. But now that the people have risen against him, it looks like he will be told to step down and that Mohammed al-Baradei and the Muslim Brotherhood will be Obama's new best friends. While they are super conservative, the Brotherhood is very good at delivering social services so they will be useful to keep the Egyptian economy from spiralling out of control.
In what may be the ultimate irony we could see Congress stop US wheat shipments to Egypt if the Brotherhood forms part of the government and by doing so may sabotage its own desire to meddle in Middle Eastern affairs. Many of us will be sitting back and observing with interest.
Of course not. What funding did the US provide to the Taliban? You’re making sh*t up again.
I just went to Google and did a query on Taliban funding. On one of the first links that popped up we get this:
The Obama Administration has been equally aware of the situation. The report quotes Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on December 3, 2009, as acknowledging that the U.S. is "dependent upon long supply lines", and "one of the major sources of funding for the Taliban is the protection money" paid to keep the trucks shipping.
"The Department of Defense", the report states, "has been largely blind to the potential strategic consequences of its supply chain contingency contracting."
But if the DoD has been 'blind', it has been willfully so. As the report also notes, when contractors “self-reported to the military that they were being extorted by warlords for protection payments for safe passage and that these payments were ‘funding the insurgency,’ they were largely met with indifference and inaction."
It seems to me that the US taxpayer is still funding the Taliban. But that is not what you are looking for because that is what is happening now. On that front there are several links that came up. Here are a few of them.
http://tinyurl.com/4vhpsal
http://tinyurl.com/4khpdxp
Things are pretty much as I remember it. The US was printing and distributing books for Taliban children. The CIA was using the Pakistani intelligence community funding Taliban as the Clinton administration was seeing the Taliban as a viable check on Iranian influence in the region. (To his credit, Clinton did confiscate Taliban cash at one point.) And you had both Clinton and Bush negotiating a pipeline that would bring Caspian Sea oil through Afghanistan into Pakistan and by doing so bypass both Russia and Iran.
Bush was even negotiating in 2001 up to the point where the al Qaeda terrorists attacked. Interestingly enough, the Taliban were warning of possible attacks for quite some time but the US government did not listen.
Post a Comment
<< Home