myata

If you aren't to be bound by any rules, then what's this squeaking all about? US kill some children by dropping bombs, them by blowing up cars. Isn't it, like, the winner takes all? And one will win - in time we'll know who. Wanna make bets?

And it was discussed in another thread. There was no direct or immediate threat to the US in its Pacific war. Yet they dropped the nukes as they used napalm in Vietnam and shelled Fallujah in Iraq. Tell us that those were, like, Stalingrad or Berlin.

You'd seriously claim that America's aventure in Iraq can be compared to WWII? Sorry, one can't have a serious discussion on this level. It belongs in the kindergarten.

No better argument, eh? Thought so.

Sure, matters. You stir the mud, you got the blame. Can't have it both ways, morally. US, knights of the moral good dropping a few bombs (on occasion, nuclear) here and there for greater good vs them incarnations of evil resisting our enlightning efforts every inch of the way.

Yeah, keep laughing out of your moral superiority while people are dying. As they were dying in Vietnam, Latin America, and countless other places where US had tried to impose its will. Honestly, I can't care less whether and how "intentional" or not it had been. I doubt that those who had to die would care much either.

Well, yes because the US barging in there created a chaos situation which extremists use to promote their ends with all tactics available to them, including, if proven, using people as human shields. You can't blame ones while supporting the others. Both are wrong. Both methods are disgusting. Both lead to death and suffering of innocents.

C'mon jbg, we here aren't bound by the post 9/11 self-censorship for the sake of greater good. You see, that's the problem. If the actions don't live up to the ideals, how do we know that them ideals "are always good"?

Well, post WWII is simply to signify certain reference point from which international politics was supposed to become more rational. I certainly agree that US is entitled to its geopolitical and so on interests. What is a bit discomforting, is the amount of goodness (i.e. liberty peace democracy and so on) talk what is being produced in it on subjects in virtually every corner and nook of this planet. The talk that can be in stark contrast with its actual policies, which are more often than not unilateral, selective and self-serving. Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if it's only in the US itself that the talk would be noticed - or maybe it's mainly produced for internal consumption in the first place?

Well, do you happen to think the children suffered worse fate than those who died (I won't go into numbers) of phoshorus, napalm, cluster bombs as collateral damage, while the lesson was being taught? Not to mention hunger and epidemics. All this is simply a red herring. No one asked you there - you shouldn't have gone there. Maybe and quite likely it would have saved a few children's lives.

Yeah, right. They may be barbarians, terrorists or whatever you want to call them. That does mean that you should be there teaching them how to live. In other words: who made you the manager here?

I don't think it ever had it in the first place (the moral right to "guide" other people), but its post WWII policies, including most recent ones in Iraq/Iran, consistently show that it just isn't up to that task.

Right. However, with that kind of argumentation ("because I can") it'll have real tough going trying to convince anyone in it its global universal and so on attachement to the values of justice, peace and whatever.

Well, having talked to a "farmer" who makes ~12 bucks monthly, working six days a week with a family on his hands and who can't even own the animals he tends, I won't jump in to idealize the regime. Life may not be so bad for a government bureaucrat in Havane; I've little doubt that for most people it means poverty with no end. The question is, whether Cuba (i.e., majority of its population) would have done any better if it followed the path of the other countries of South America (apparent answer being, "No", regardless of the amount of open or clandestine "assistance" and/or "influence" supplied by US) and whether that latter has any standing to dictate other countries what they should do. Because, as no credible reasons for imposing or continuation of embargo were given, one is bound to conclude that its' sole intent was/is to subjugate the non-behaving country to its will.

Welcome - however there's nothing new you said that wasn't already addressed in the thread. Sorry I can't waste my time repeating over and again for those slow to take in (or too important to read entire thread).

In that case, there's nothing to complain about. You do things, things happen to you. C'est la vie.

Care to specify, which "abuse"? Abuse of not following the dictates which resulted in universal poverty and sell-off of country's resources to multinationals? You must be having problems with short-term memory. Didn't you like bring it up that we shouldn't have used sanctions against the apartheid South Africa. If you have problems with sanctioning apartheid overseas it's only natural to extend that position back home.

Are you saying that for some (divine?) reason, the state of Isreal is relieved of the obligation to conduct its business in a legitimate manner? FYI (and bush_cheney too) this country's relations with the aboriginal population can give some insight. It's far from perfect, I know, but also by far superior to simply uprooting the indigenous population and throwing it away.

Because people who expelled them were from outside, foreigners. People living in Miami left then their own countrymen expropriated their property. It's up to the people of Cuba to decide if and when the property will be returned, but Palestinians can do little against the superior power that robbed them of their lands.

You needn't to "assume" - it's right there, in the second post of the thread. If only you cared (or could?) read.

And I have no problem with that. As long as its the people of Cuba, and not someone overseas decide when and on what conditions. Several thousand people confirmed dead, many brutally tortured to death. Thousands more disappeared without trace. That's Pinochet's record. If anything like that was happening in Cuba, this world would be filled to the stratosphere with US whizzing and whining of human rights abuse.

Maybe you should have tried to read the rest of the thread too before sharing your valuable comments? Just a suggestion - feel free to use in the future.

And maybe you should learn some basic grammar (in addition to brushing on your reading skill, that is).

Oh I see. Their real crime is that they "keep sticking their finger to the US". A big No-No. Just do what they tell and all kind of brutality (Pinochet, Saddam pre Kuwait, Taleban pre 9/11, etc) will be forgiven. And sure, we should have kept apartheid in South Africa going (and maybe, by extension, segregation in the US proper - what's your take on that, jbg?). Now all is so clear, morally.

Now, let's take it one at a time. Definitely the situation with South Africa was hugely different. There we were talking about colonial minority subjugating and enslaving majority of aboriginal population. Canada's position as member of Commonwealth was fully justified from from both moral and legal (apartheid and racism cannot be accepted as a state policy by a member of Commonwealth). In addition, it was a collective decision. This deserves a separate discussion. I'm not versed in the history of that episode, but I agree that there may (potentially) have been issues with it, depending on the exact sequence of events. You're welcome to post more details for a discussion, but probably in another thread. Government cannot be held responsible for all acts of private businesses any more than those of country's citizens. It is however obliged to obey and enforce the law. If you know of specific cases where Canadian government failed this obligation, please post them here. Embargo of Cuba, on the other hand, is absolutely a government policy for which it will and does bear moral and legal responsibility.