Perhaps the U.S. Should Not Have Invaded Muslim Countries

[monty16]

I do understand how the Clinton regime overstepped the UN for the Kosovo war. I understand everything about Kosovo. But you're dead wrong if you think the UN became irrelevant. If the UN was irrelevant the US wouldn't be trying to get through SC no votes on war in Syria. You bet your life that if China and Russia signed on to war, Syria would be smoldering ruins just like Iraq and many other US victim countries.

When the US leaves the UN we'll know that it's become meaningless. Until that time the US will continue to try to use the UN to fulfill it's warring agenda throughout the world.

[jbg]

Slave labour was the engine that drove economic griowth in America. For instance, half all U.S. export earnings pre Civil War were from slave-grown cotton. The slave trade was also an important link in the chain of global commodity circulation that fed the industrial revolution both in America and the old world. So no, slavery was not some fringe thing practiced by backwater hillbillies of no account or importance.

Back in the day the economies of the north and the south were actually quite separate. The south refused to be involved with the internal improvements knitting together the industrial north.

Slave labor did not really help the north.

[bush_cheney2004]

I do understand how the Clinton regime overstepped the UN for the Kosovo war.

What about the "Chretien regime" ? Or the "Blair regime" ? Or the "Chirac regime"? See how that works...Canada ignored the UN to violate the sovereignty of Serbia...very "illegal".

[monty16]

What about the "Chretien regime" ? Or the "Blair regime" ? Or the "Chirac regime"? See how that works...Canada ignored the UN to violate the sovereignty of Serbia...very "illegal".

You're right that Canada violated the sovereignty of Serbia.

[bush_cheney2004]

You're right that Canada violated the sovereignty of Serbia.

Good...and having established that fact, it is only another step to do so in Muslim nations. No difference. No exceptions. When the policy so dictates, bombings and/or invasions shall follow. Send any complaints to the UN for spirited debate in New York.

[-TSS-]

Apart from the obvious reason of oil, I think one reason for Bush*s decision to invade Iraq was a personal one as his father didn't overthrow Saddam's regime and so it happened that Saddam outlasted Bush senior.

As for overthrowing Gaddafi Europe is now feeling the consequences as there was some hidden deal with Gaddafi that he wouldn't let thousands of illegal immigrants try to cross the Mediterranean for Europe. No such deal with the new regime and the people in Italy really feel that every day but some people in powerful paces want Europe to be inundated with illegal immigration from Africa because it is sheer nonsense that it couldn't be stopped.

Edited May 12, 2014 by -TSS-

[monty16]

Apart from the obvious reason of oil, I think one reason for Bush*s decision to invade Iraq was a personal one as his father didn't overthrow Saddam's regime and so it happened that Saddam outlasted Bush senior.

As for overthrowing Gaddafi Europe is now feeling the consequences as there was some hidden deal with Gaddafi that he wouldn't let thousands of illegal immigrants try to cross the Mediterranean for Europe. No such deal with the new regime and the people in Italy really feel that every day but some people in powerful paces want Europe to be inundated with illegal immigration from Africa because it is sheer nonsense that it couldn't be stopped.

Not even I would suggest that the US under Bush2 would be so shallow, evil, and callous as to invade Iraq and slaughter 100's of thousands of Iraqi men, women, and children because of a personal grudge! I find that completely morally disgusting to even consider. It would transcend even the moral corruption of Hitler!

No doubt that the US is the pariah nation of the 21st. century but even I have to be fair to them in that respect.

[jbg]

....slaughter 100's of thousands of Iraqi men, women, and children

Did not happen.

[Rue]

I do not think anyone doubts one reason the US went into Iraaq was unfinished business between George Homer Bush and Sadam Hussein.

I also personally believe Haliburton through its executives Chaney and Rumsfeld controlled the Iraq invasion and used it as an opportunity to plunder he US Treasury with corrupt contracts.

I can not protest more strongly the use of a private army that far surpassed the US armed forces in Iraq.

Here is where I differ a bit with JBG though. I think the world had a moral obligation to remove Hussein from office after the gassing of Kurds so I am glad the US did.

I agree with the Joint Chiefs of Staff who presented a plan to go in, remove the sob, then leave.

The US Armed Forces had they been allowed their original plan, would have been in and out with no permanent presence on the ground.

The decision to blow up Iraq's infrastructure to as to justify awarding Haliburton rights to rebuild Iraq with costly contracts was inexcusable as was paying the salaries they did to private mercenaries who drove around the country doing what they wanted while US soldiers were placed in direct harm's way to protect these private sob's.

The US Armed Forces was also forced to watch as contracted civilians in the CIA and other agencies violated US Military Law.

I support the US Armed Forces. I believe their government mis-used them. I do not blame them.

I do think the interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan have proven costly and don't show much return.

Afghanistan remains a primal tribal back woods. Iraq remains crippled by a civil war as it consists of three countries not one that each are destined to hate one another and are a creation of Britain.

What absolutely annoys me is now China is in Iraq getting all the oil!

The world is nuts. The US may have made mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan sure but please do not tell me Jimmy Carter or Obama's approach which imitates Carter is the way to go.

Retreating JBG off world stage and turning inwords is something Americans tend to do in cycles. Woodrow Wilson was good at that.

How long ago was it the US turned inwards and allowed Hitler to run amuck? If the US had not intervened we could not have defeated Hitler and Japan. Impossible.

American imperialism? Sure. Is it all evil? Well? I ask any of the leftist trendies who they would prefer as their no.1 trading partner, the US or China? The US or Russia?

Give me a break. If US imperialism is so bad, then why do we Canadians allow them to take all the risks when investing in our businesses while we have sat back on our passive buttoxes?

We have had no problem relying on the US Armed Forces so as to enable us in essence not to have an armed forces for years.

Since Harper came in he has acknowledged a need for an armed force, but he has made as many cut backs as Trudeau.

The fact is we piggy back on the US and if we want to criticize it, we have to show a little bit more independence and no I do not criticize the US for

being are only protection against China, Russia, world terrorism.

What we need to do is pick up a bit of the slack. I think in fairness Harper has.

I am dead against John Kerry and Obama and their present foreign policy approach. I believe it has created a vacuum enabling China to go to war with Vietnam and Russia to invade Ukraine. I do not blame the US at all, but I do blame the indecision and weakness of Obama creating a leadership vacuum that enabled China and Russia to pick up on the weakness and run nuts in Iran, Iraq with the oil now, Syria, Sudan, the Ukraine, Georgia, on and on.

I personally believe the world is a more stable place when the US was the watchdog. Now its not I think the notion that Putin or China care about the world is absurd.

[jbg]

Here is where I differ a bit with JBG though. I think the world had a moral obligation to remove Hussein from office after the gassing of Kurds so I am glad the US did.

We don't differ. I now advocate remove bad leaders from power, and get out, rather than hold, occupy and nation-build.

[GostHacked]

I do understand how the Clinton regime overstepped the UN for the Kosovo war. I understand everything about Kosovo. But you're dead wrong if you think the UN became irrelevant. If the UN was irrelevant the US wouldn't be trying to get through SC no votes on war in Syria. You bet your life that if China and Russia signed on to war, Syria would be smoldering ruins just like Iraq and many other US victim countries.

Syria IS smoldering and in ruins. And the US only used the UN when convenient. Just like all the other UN members.

[monty16]

Syria IS smoldering and in ruins. And the US only used the UN when convenient. Just like all the other UN members.

Not in ruins as Iraq was from the US bombing. It's still simply terrorism that is aided by the US against the legitimate of Syria. It will go on longer with US assistance to the rebels but the US has no interest in the cost of human lives and so will keep supplying the weapons to maintain some sort of balance.

All countries attempt to use the UN for their purposes. But I would suggest that Israel has been stopped short many times by the UNSC which has acted against legitimizing their aggression.

Even though it might be difficult, let's all try to keep in mind that the US/Nato/Israel are the proven bad guys of the 21st. century so far. Russia and China are only acting as opposition that hasn't needed to bare their fangs so far. However, as we speak, there is little doubt that their influences are saving lives in foreign countries on which the US has future ambitions.

[Black Dog]

Back in the day the economies of the north and the south were actually quite separate. The south refused to be involved with the internal improvements knitting together the industrial north.

Slave labor did not really help the north.

So capital made through the slave trade stayed in the South? I call bullshit on that. In 1860, slaves were worth more that all the banks, factories and railroads in the country put together. The notion that all that dough stayed in the south is farcical on its face.

[Michael Hardner]

Even though it might be difficult, let's all try to keep in mind that the US/Nato/Israel are the proven bad guys of the 21st. century so far. Russia and China are only acting as opposition that hasn't needed to bare their fangs so far. However, as we speak, there is little doubt that their influences are saving lives in foreign countries on which the US has future ambitions.

You do realize that Canada is a part of NATO ?

I think that there is at least some doubt that their influences are saving lives in foreign countries. Can you provide a cite ?

[monty16]

You do realize that Canada is a part of NATO ?

I think that there is at least some doubt that their influences are saving lives in foreign countries. Can you provide a cite ?

Of course I realize that Canada is a part of Nato. What seems to stump you people is that I don't try to escape the guilt for which my country is responsible.

I don't provide cites but one example would be that Iran is being saved from US bombing because of the US failure to get it's ambitions passed through the UNSC. Russia and China of course and that's why they are the good guys. But sometimes, as with Kosovo, the US tries to get it's ambitions passed through the UNSC and fails. Then it just relies on Nato support and we all know that Nato gives the US approval on everything they ask for. Why, one would think that Nato is the US! LOL

[Michael Hardner]

I don't provide cites ...

?

Well, I suggest you read the Rules & Guidelines again:

"If you are stating a fact, be prepared to back it up with some official sources (websites, links etc)."

but one example would be that Iran is being saved from US bombing because of the US failure to get it's ambitions passed through the UNSC. Russia and China of course and that's why they are the good guys.

The US doesn't need the UN to approve their many invasions. You could make the same argument the other way for Russia vetoing UN votes on Syria.

[monty16]

Oh, I see, you want me to provide factual proof of the US sometimes doesn't get it's ambitions passed through the UNSC with a resolution to go to war. And I'm going to assume that you have stated your complaint on the basis of you being a forum facilitator. Well, my answer to that is NO!

If you want to push your weight around in your official capacity then let's have at it. And if you don't want to do that then you can back off and discuss this matter in a sane way with me.

And here's something for you to think about in the meantime: Provide me some proof that the US doesn't try to get it's warring ambitions passed through the UNSC.

You're out of line and you have overstepped your authority pal. You have no basis on which to demand proof of anything I have to say. Period!

[monty16]

And I should have also said: My opinions are going to be expressed on this forum regardless of what others think of those opinions. That is not a violation of the rules. If I violate the rules then I expect to hear from those who are acting for this forum in an official capacity. I don't want to hear from anybody who has not prepared themselves for a tough debate.

[monty16]

?

Well, I suggest you read the Rules & Guidelines again:

"If you are stating a fact, be prepared to back it up with some official sources (websites, links etc)."

The US doesn't need the UN to approve their many invasions. You could make the same argument the other way for Russia vetoing UN votes on Syria.

And yes, you can make the same argument for Russia or China vetoing resolutions on Syria. Now let's look at the resolutions to determine if they are resolutions that are consistent with the UN's charter. This will be a chance for you to learn something new.

[Michael Hardner]

Provide me some proof that the US doesn't try to get it's warring ambitions passed through the UNSC.

Proof lies with the claimant, I think the saying goes.

You're out of line and you have overstepped your authority pal. You have no basis on which to demand proof of anything I have to say. Period!

I only quoted you the Rules & Guidelines for the site. If you refuse to back up your points, then eventually people complain about you, then the moderators get involved with warnings and whatnot. It makes no difference to me how you behave, but the rules aren't going to change because you don't follow them.

[monty16]

Proof lies with the claimant, I think the saying goes.

I only quoted you the Rules & Guidelines for the site. If you refuse to back up your points, then eventually people complain about you, then the moderators get involved with warnings and whatnot. It makes no difference to me how you behave, but the rules aren't going to change because you don't follow them.

I'll do the worrying about what people think of me, thank you.

I think your biggest issue is that I criticized the US and didn't include criticism of Russia and China. But then you did that and as much as admitted that it happens with both sides, consequently providing the 'proof' you appeared to be so worried about. So in fact, me not providing any 'proof' never was an issue because it's common knowledge according to you.

Edited May 23, 2014 by monty16

[Michael Hardner]

I think your biggest issue is that I criticized the US and didn't include criticism of Russia and China.

I think I'm about average when it comes to criticizing US policy on MLW.

So in fact, me not providing any 'proof' never was an issue because it's common knowledge according to you.

Common knowledge is often dead wrong, though.

[monty16]

It's difficult not to be quite astounded by the bluster and bravado we read in the OP. It's full of 'knocking off' people in foreign lands for reasons that have little or nothing to do with the US or it's security. It literally rings with the notion that the US is going to police the world with nothing else in mind but to fulfill it's own agenda of priorities.

It can because it can send missiles to any place on the face of the earth with impunity. The objections of decent people over this are quite obvious from a humanitarian standpoint alone. The US always leaves more death and destruction in it's path than was ever present before they arrived on the scene. The current issue of saving the kidnapped girls could be seen as problematic for that very reason.

But beyond that is the fact that none of this US caused death and destruction will be forgotten by the aggrieved victims. And some will eventually find the means to strike back. In this age of nuclear weapon proliferation, we have great cause to be concerned over that fact. We, the people of Canada who are clearly aligning ourselves with US violence against those other people. It's just as likely that the next big revenge attack could be Toronto or Vancouver as well as New York city.

Are we gaining enough by preventing economic blackmail by the US to continue to put ourselves at such imminent risk of a revenge attack? I think it's time for Canada to start considering a sensible and responsible position of neutrality. Unfortunately, that's never going to be a part of Harper's agenda. And that leads to the obvious conclusion that he must be replaced by a government that at least has a record of keeping us out of US led wars.