Jonny7 wrote: » He's playing the home-crowd very well over this - he has to, they have an unsurprisingly different take on the conflict, fueled by Kremlin controlled press. The consummate politician. Perhaps Hollande or Obama should suggest if the Russians are so committed to the well-being of Syria, perhaps they donate a sizeable portion of the 1.5 billion they are making on arms sales to Assad - to the UNHCR instead of the pittance they are currently donating.
Godge wrote: » What about Ireland? We stood idly by while the Second World War waged on, we stood idly by while we allowed Argentine aggression to take the Falklands and we continually refuse to take sides against evil regimes and take our part in the defence of our European neighbours. We are the kettle to the American's pot.
karma_ wrote: » How could a country that had been independent for less than 20 years at that point enter into a World war? And why would Ireland want to get involved over the Falklands? Are the Swiss monsters too?
realweirdo wrote: » As Dwight Eisenhower said, "the buck stops here".
bumper234 wrote: » Unlike Obama and Kerry who tend to throw the word TERRORIST'S into every second sentence to scare the American people into thinking that they want to bomb Syria for reasons other than oil.
Jonny7 wrote: » The last time they apparently invaded a country "'for oil" it ended up costing them rather a lot (trillions) and they didn't get any oil contracts.
Seaneh wrote: » But the former VP's company made (and is still making) billions per year on contracts to "rebuild". Funny that.
esteve wrote: » That is entirely besides the point. While I am happy you had a good time there, better so in the US than Russia, it really doesnt matter in the context of the discussion. For one it is entirely subjective, ignoring facts but based on your opinion of both places. Others may in fact prefer Russia to the US after visiting both, but it doesnt really matter. When the UK controlled India, London was a centre for innovation, development, art, culture and civilization, while at the same time it was crushing human rights abroad and taking part in some horrendous acts of oppression, terror and murder. Its foreign policy was barbaric and uncivilised, a complete paradox to London itself.
Godge wrote: » My view of America and Russia isn't solely based on my time there. In fact I had a great time in Russia. How my time was spent and whether I had enough beer doesn't stop me from reflecting on what I saw there and adding to what I read. There is no doubt that Russia is an oppressive state, homophobic, misogynist and racist with a policy of supporting other oppressive regimes. America was all of that too, but it has grown significantly as a nation and despite many problems remaining is probably a better place and has a higher moral standing than a country which allowed an Indian woman to die in a rural hospital because we don't do abortions and has refused the moral obligation to share in the defence of its neighbours. The hypocritical knee-jerk anti-americanism rife in Ireland is unbelieveable.
Godge wrote: » My view of America and Russia isn't solely based on my time there. In fact I had a great time in Russia. How my time was spent and whether I had enough beer doesn't stop me from reflecting on what I saw there and adding to what I read. There is no doubt that Russia is an oppressive state, homophobic, misogynist and racist with a policy of supporting other oppressive regimes.
Godge wrote: » America was all of that too, but it has grown significantly as a nation and despite many problems remaining is probably a better place and has a higher moral standing than a country which allowed an Indian woman to die in a rural hospital because we don't do abortions and has refused the moral obligation to share in the defence of its neighbours. The hypocritical knee-jerk anti-americanism rife in Ireland is unbelieveable.
bumper234 wrote: » What he means is the average American taxpayer lost trillions. The rich folk in power lost feck all and in fact made billions.
Seaneh wrote: » The war only happened so that Chaney and the boys could make money hand over fist at the taxpayers expense.
Godge wrote: » America was all of that too, but it has grown significantly as a nation and despite many problems remaining is probably a better place and has a higher moral standing than a country which allowed an Indian woman to die in a rural hospital because we don't do abortions and has refused the moral obligation to share in the defence of its neighbours.
esteve wrote: » America does this also, just as much as Russia. With me saying this, it is not anti-american, it is a fact.
bumper234 wrote: » The same can EASILY be said of the United States! Oh please America KILLS it's own people! There have been 1,264 prisoners executed in American prisons since 1976. Up to 7000 prisoners a year die in US prisons where gangs are allowed to rule and murder and rape is an everyday occurrence. America regularly bombs innocent men, women and children with impunity and this is in a country who it is not at war with!. Save the morals lecture.
Godge wrote: » This is another bad argument. America has foreign policy weaknesses, much less than before but the scale of it is much less than Russias. To say that it is "just as much as Russia" is false. I do not agree with the death penalty, you have picked on one of the faults of the Americans that I would accept they have. However, they are not alone. The Chinese execute much more. In their puppet regime in North Korea you can be executed because the President's wife is jealous of your past relationships. At least the Americans have some sort of trial. The Russians have a moratorium on executions - you go to Siberia instead to die slowly, have a read of some of the information on Russian prisons.As for the statement that "America regularly bombs innocent men, women and children with impunity", that is simply not true. And it certainly does not do it to its own people like in Chechnya. The lengths people go and the regimes they defend in order to pursue their anti-american jingoistic positions never fails to amuse me.
Godge wrote: » This is another bad argument. America has foreign policy weaknesses, much less than before but the scale of it is much less than Russias. To say that it is "just as much as Russia" is false.
esteve wrote: » Im afraid its not a bad arguement. I already gave one example, i.e. their implicit involvement in the genocide of nearly one million East Timorese. America has a huge list of such atrocities, as does Russia, but to say that the US has a better foeign policy than Russia in this regard is based on nothing except your own desire for it to be so.
The Commission estimates that the minimum-bound for the number of conflict-related deaths during the Commission's reference period, 1974 to 1999, is 102,800 (+/- 12,000). This estimate is derived from (i) an estimate of 18,600 total killings (+/- 1000) using multiple systems estimation (MSE) techniques and (ii) an estimate of 84,200 (+/- 11,000) deaths due to hunger and illness which exceed the total that would be expected if the death rate due to hunger and illness had continued as it was in the pre-invasion peacetime period.
bumper234 wrote: » 4 Americans killed in drone strikeshttp://abcnews.go.com/Politics/eric-holder-americans-killed-drones/story?id=19236300 Plenty of drone strikes here. Suspected militants but no proof. That seems like bombing with impunity to me.
Cork boy 55 wrote: » A million dead in East Timor where are you getting that from?!? there's not even a million people there That's not what the Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation in East Timor sayshttp://www.cavr-timorleste.org/en/chegaReport.htm Also those killings where by Indonesians the annexation of east timor was welcomed by the Seen at the time all over the world as a de-colonization effort same as Indians kicking the Portuguese out of Goa inclduing the "left" O TBW the communist democide outways by a order of magnitude any democide committed by USA allies during the cold war There is no comparison.
Cork boy 55 wrote: » Also those killings where by Indonesians, the annexation of east timor was welcomed seen at the time all over the world as a de-colonization effort same as Indians kicking the Portuguese out of Goa including large tracts of the "left"
Jonny7 wrote: » It's a contentious issue alright. How does the world deal with people like those who blew up the twin towers, or bombed London, or killed 400 people in a school.Generally speaking, the government classes them as dangerous enemy combatants - which they often are. They can't exactly send along the cops with a pair of handcuffs to pick up these guys. Likewise they often don't fancy sacrificing the lives of their own security forces to pick them up either.
Jonny7 wrote: » So what we're left with is a grey area. The US uses drones to take them out, Russia uses special forces, the ISI welcomes them with tea and biscuits and so on. Idealistically it's not the best way to deal with it, nor is it the best moral/legal/fair way of dealing with the issue - however it's probably the most realistic solution to a very real modern problem.
esteve wrote: » Wow, just wow. East Timor was occupied illegally by Indonesia. After Portugues rule fell, it had a one year civil war and then became an Idependent state. A couple years later Indonesia invaded, with the full support of the UK and US, and 25% of its population were killed. This is a fact, it was not welcomed by any sane person, only by those who gained from it. Even nowadays, for the majority, the true story of the poor people from East Timor, is not known, or has been warped and twisted.
Cork boy 55 wrote: » I am not saying it was right I am saying how it was perceived internationally East Timor declared itself independent from Portugal on 28 November 1975, but was invaded by neighboring Indonesia nine days later.
esteve wrote: » You are right, I made a mistake, I am sorry, I was getting my genocides supported by the US confused. In East Timor approx 200,000 were killed, more or less a quarter of their population. It is a shocking number, something that the small nation has never recovered from. The figure of a million I refer to relates to a connected incident that precedes East Timor but led the way for it to happen, again involving Indonesia and Suharto, with the full backing and involvement of the US. It is the little known Indonesia killings of 1965-1966, also known as a purge, or could be called a genocide if you so please, ether way approx 1 million Indonesians were slaughtered due to their political beliefs. The US could not let these people ever be in power, so they helped annihilate themhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_killings_of_1965%E2%80%9366 There is this fascinating film where Generals who were involved in this massacre, reenact some of their mass killings.http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2375605/?ref_=sr_1
Communism has been the greatest social engineering experiment we have ever seen. It failed utterly and in doing so it killed over 100,000,000 men, women, and children, not to mention the near 30,000,000 of its subjects that died in its often aggressive wars and the rebellions it provoked. But there is a larger lesson to be learned from this horrendous sacrifice to one ideology. That is that no one can be trusted with power. The more power the center has to impose the beliefs of an ideological or religious elite or impose the whims of a dictator, the more likely human lives are to be sacrificed. This is but one reason, but perhaps the most important one, for fostering liberal democracy.
Cork boy 55 wrote: » 500,000(patriotic campaign) + 100,000(east timor) = 600,000
Cork boy 55 wrote: » Most of those 500,000~ liquidated by the Indonesian people in the patriotic campaign where PKI communist operatives and cadres PKI = The Communist Party of Indonesia Considering historical Communist behavior in power, good riddance.
bumper234 wrote: » Hold on a minute America considers ALL military aged men as enemy combatants!
So you say it's ok for America to kill someone in a foreign country with a drone strike if they SUSPECT that person to be a militant?
Jonny7 wrote: » The definition keeps changing, esp since 911, I can barely keep up with ithttp://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2009/March/09-ag-232.html It's just a legal icing on the cake so that whatever country can kill bad guys that it deems are a threat to the country (pretty broad definition there) It's very debatable. On the one hand they are seriously infringing the human rights of that person - on the other, if they have credible substantiated information that said person is about to undertake an attack to kill 100 people... It's the age-old question, what do they do? In the absense of being able to capture and try - like I said before.. reality generally wins - they just kill them. When I say they, I am not uniquely referring to the US government either.. plenty of governments act in the same way, they generally just do it in a more low-tech fashion.
bumper234 wrote: » And this is ok with you? You preach about human rights in Syria and then say it's ok for the US to sweep human rights aside?
Jonny7 wrote: » You are trying to compare apples and oranges The government is responsible for the safety of it's citizens not the other way round. If you join an extremist group and are intent on bombing and killing a lot of people - you'll quickly find that most governments respect the human rights of those potential victims a lot quicker than they will respect yours.
