Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Antarctica is not a country. It is a territory administratively held by 28 signatory countries.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
( except Canada, they're always our friend, plus they shot Dark Angel there

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
As for France, Germany and Russia... If you caught them shipping arms to the freedom fighters of Iraq, wouldn't you call them your enemy ?

---

Yeah, that’s the question I just asked you. France, Germany and Russia sold arms and/or provided assistance to Hussein right up to and possibly after the fall of the Hussein’s regime. So based on your argument, France, Germany and Russia are actively trying to kill Americans and therefore are enemies? Right?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Since the end of WorldWar 2, US foreign policy has interfered with / helped wipe out / promote tyranny/ etc / etc. Not in all cases, I'm not saying you can't do good, but in the many cases you have and continue to make enemys for no good reason.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

According to you, “doing things like giving money and arms and training to tyrants” means that the US “has actively been trying to kill off” certain people. France, Germany and Russia did things like “giving money and arms and training to tyrants” (in this case Hussein’s regime) who were in the process of killing Americans, then according to you, France, Germany and Russia are trying to kill off Americans. Is France, Germany and Russia actively trying to “kill off” Americans?

If you are so confident in this line of thinking that you would presume the above statement without supporting evidence, you must surely be able to answer this simple question. Or is it rather arrogance that leads you to make these kinds of statements? Are you just bashing the US, or do you have some kind of coherent policy?

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Gino, one can't deny the US has done major crappy stuff ( Contras, anyone? ), It's just that your argument is too absolutist. Many nations 'back' questional regimes, and those regimes may have a hand in getting people of yet another nation killed. It's a sick, dirty game- I wish it were different, but it's not.
Japan tried to take over the world with Germany, and failed. Is the world their enemy now?
I can agree with you that the US has made a LOT of enemies, and continues to do so to this day, but it's not a black and white issue. Too many elements are in play.

That's all Chrisisall

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
To begin, I ask again... what was your answer to that question ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
There must be some reason be all the crappy things your country does, I'm no conspiracy nut but. . .

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lynchaj:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

Sure, it is a complicated issue. But it is coming to the point where everyone will be forced to take sides.

---

Who do you think the "sides" really are?

Which side are you going to choose?

I know what side I am on.

Andrew Lynch

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
To begin, I ask again... what was your answer to that question ?

---

Is France, Germany and Russia actively trying to “kill off” Americans?

This question is important because it points out the absurdity of your argument. France, Germany and Russia do what they do because they have agendas and interests that are separate from the US, and this sometimes puts them at odds with the US. But to say they are trying to “kill off” Americans is simply ridiculous. Much like the argument that you make that the US is trying to “kill off” other countries is ridiculous. But the real problem is that while you are willing to use this kind of absurd language to describe the US, you are unwilling to use it to describe countries other then the US which are doing to same thing.

Now you want to claim that the US “provid[ed] arms and instructors to Iraq during its war of aggression against Iran.” Which is true, but it suffers from the same kind of distortion, because less then 0.5% of the Hussein’s arsenal came for the US, which is basically nil. Most of Hussein’s arsenal was purchased from Russia/USSR and China. In fact, the top three arms dealers to Hussein’s Iraq were Russia/USSR, China and France. Now one can argue that that 0.5% of Hussein’s arsenal that came from the US is 0.5% too much, but one cannot make absurd statements about the US “trying to kill off” certain countries because of these arms deals and not make those same comments about other countries that have sold as much as ~200 times more weapons to Iraq.

If you like conspiracies so much, here’s one for you:
The top three biggest arms dealers to Iraq are also permanent UN Security Council member-states who adamantly opposed the coalition invasion of Iraq: Russia, China and France. Coincidence? I won’t even mention that these countries also had the largest oil vouchers in the Oil-for-Food program, and billions of dollars of oil-capital in Iraq.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
There must be some reason be all the crappy things your country does, I'm no conspiracy nut but. . .

---

Are you sure about that?

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
There must be some reason be all the crappy things your country does, I'm no conspiracy nut but. . .

---

Quote:

---

Now you want to claim that the US “provid[ed] arms and instructors to Iraq during its war of aggression against Iran.” Which is true, but it suffers from the same kind of distortion, because less then 0.5% of the Hussein’s arsenal came for the US, which is basically nil. Most of Hussein’s arsenal was purchased from Russia/USSR and China. In fact, the top three arms dealers to Hussein’s Iraq were Russia/USSR, China and France. Now one can argue that that 0.5% of Hussein’s arsenal that came from the US is 0.5% too much, but one cannot make absurd statements about the US “trying to kill off” certain countries because of these arms deals and not make those same comments about other countries that have sold as much as ~200 times more weapons to Iraq.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lynchaj:

I have more confidence than you that European and Asian nations are not going to turn on the US anytime soon. So many unappreciated things that the US does now that if left undone would force it to stop and those nations know it. For example, if the US decided to stop enforcing sea lanes how long would Japan or Taiwan last? Or China's economy? Not long. They would have to enthusiastically remilitarize and the entire region would destabilize like it did in the 1920's and 1930's.

If the US did not protect shipping and international trade then Europe would have to militarize as well rather than relying on soft power diplomacy. Their economies are weak enough without an additional 5%-10% GDP premium for an effective military not counting the rebuilding costs to fix the dilapitated shape most European and Asian militaries are actually in. How many aircraft carriers does the European continent actually have? I count only one (the very poorly performing French carrier the Charles De Gaul) which is more a menace to itself and her crew than a real threat to anyone.

Mind you, I am not talking about the US actually attacking international shipping, rather that if the US Navy were no longer a presence you would see a wholesale return to shipping lane piracy and/or regional blocking of sea lanes.

---

Quote:

---

That is just one facet of the disaster the world economy would see. With weakened economies and revitalized militaries in Europe and Asia it would be just a matter of time before the old rivalries and genocidal nationalist tendancies of the past resurface. Without safe passage, you would see non locally produced fossil fuels surge in price and the resulting economic carnage of those dependent on it.

---

Quote:

---

I believe the European nations would quickly become Eurostan as Islamic influences and unchecked migration would soon overwhelm them. You just can't have weak militaries in an environment where safe international trade by sea is not possible. The US is that guarrantor.

---

Quote:

---

I think you very much underestimate the positive US influence on the world economy and its role in political stability. For example, how effective would the UN security council actually be if the US were removed? The UN may continue but it would be an empty gesture and useless. Many western countries are only viable in the presence of a strong US acting as its security guarrantor.

---

Quote:

---

It is a popular fantasy of the hard core left to think that the world would suddenly rise up and throw off the imaginary yoke of US capitalistic oppression. I think it will remain in the fantasy category for a good long time if not forever.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
I think you may be referring to these statistics: www.sipri.org/contents/armstrad/atirq_data.html
Click on the link to the .pdf file showing the TIV of arms transfers to Iraq.

---

Quote:

---

... In short, the US has done incredible things although you rarely hear about it. Most of which is the US provides a infrastructure where less powerful democratic nations can thrive. "Soft Powers" like diplomacy only work with they can be backed up with military means. The US acts as a guarantor of diplomatic efforts through the implicit use of force as necessary. The US does thankless tasks like keep the sea lanes clear, suppress rogue regimes, and acts as the bulwark defense against aggressive wars in Europe and Asia.

The US also endlessly promotes international law and diplomatic solutions such as the UN even when they are contrary the to US objectives -- for example President Bush spent at least six months trying to get more UN resolutions against Saddam Hussein when apparently his advisors had written them off. President Clinton didn't even bother getting one for Desert Fox because I think he knew it was futile.

However, as important as what the US does is what the US *DOES NOT* do and has not done. When given many opportunities for empire building, the US has walked away (ie, Europe and Asia after WWII). When offered the chance to destroy its foes, the US has repeatedly shown mercy and even rebuilt defeated nations frequently turning them into direct competitors(Germany, Japan, etc). If the US were an empire we would see Carthage style "salt the earth" treatment, unrestrained use of WMDs, and a lot more aggressive military actions. The US does not allow military control of the military, rather, it insists on civilian control and has bred a tradition of a nonpolitical military. These traits are very different from previous great powers and superpowers.

When did the US achieve that status? I do not know but I believe it is intrinsic. The US philosophical basis really an outgrowth of the European renaissance in many ways so maybe it started then prior to the actual establishment of the US in 1776.

I believe anti-US sentiment is and has been prevalent in Europe since prior to WWII. It is very strong in Asia, especially the Middle East. I think the basis is many of the nations in those areas suffer or have suffered from despotic regimes and failing economies. It is not too hard to be envious and learn to hate when your own country is struggling. Numerous regimes have uses anti-US as a distraction to their own people to keep them from focusing on their own problems. Specific examples should be fairly obvious -- France and South Korea.

I hope this helps explain and answers your questions. I take it from your question you do not share this viewpoint?

Thanks!

---

Quote:

---

US leaders did not supply Hussein with Chemical or biological weapons. This is a myth. Some US companies, Dow Chemical for instance, did sell Iraq chemicals that could have been used as precursors to the Iraqi manufacture of certain chemical weapons.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
And yet the military is an organization that seems quite beyond the power of the aggregate of US civilians to either stop it or control it, either politiclaly or economically.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
The Washington post quotes several senior officals about your so called " myth "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&conten
tId=A52241-2002Dec29Found=true

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
And my quote was not to claim that the US is trying to kill off certain countries, I believe I said groups of people or words to that effect.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
The article also discusses that very same policy towards Iran, the victim of aggression in this particular war that the US decided to support. Could it be because the US had a bit of a black eye after their picked ruler, the Shah fell and the Iranians dared to be openly hostile to the “freedom loving nation " which help to inflict that despot on them for over twenty-five years......

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
You seem quite up on military forces. You'd be a good resource for anyone wanting to learn about that.

Yes, base closures, and yet at the same time "US Plans More Plutonium" (or words to that effect, today's headline), 'Star Wars' and 'Missile Defense': basically cutting forces but throwing $$$ down the toilet at other things. I've read that the buds over in industry and think tanks dream up these lovely ideas, sell their notions to their buds in policy development groups, by the time it gets to the Pentagon appointees it's been corn-fed and pampered to a healthy size .... and it matters some who's in office, but the military industrial complex is not totally under their control either ...

I would blame the hand of course, I'm just not sure who has a hand (so to speak) in it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
The Washington post quotes several senior officals about your so called " myth "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&conten
tId=A52241-2002Dec29Found=true

---

This article talks about diplomatic relations between the US and Hussein’s regime, which intelligent minds can differ on. As I said, there is legitimate criticism of US foreign policy here. You're just too far out there in Leftfield with the crazy talk to find it.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
And my quote was not to claim that the US is trying to kill off certain countries, I believe I said groups of people or words to that effect.

---

Yeah it was “something to that effect.” Are France, Russia and Germany trying to kill off certain “groups of people” who are American?

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
The article also discusses that very same policy towards Iran, the victim of aggression in this particular war that the US decided to support. Could it be because the US had a bit of a black eye after their picked ruler, the Shah fell and the Iranians dared to be openly hostile to the “freedom loving nation " which help to inflict that despot on them for over twenty-five years......

---

Or possibly it was that the militant Islamic terrorists who took control of Iran held almost a hundred Americans hostage for 444 days, recommencing widespread repression as bad as, if not, worse then the Shah.

---

Quote:

---

Although US support for the Shah, at least from about the mid 60’s was probably ill-conceived, at least to some degree.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Ok, this contradicts your entire stance :from the same link

" The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague. "

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
You still haven't answered your own question there ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
The hostage crisis was in response to the US refuing to turn over the Shah for trial in Iran ( for all the nastyness you help him commit )

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
So then you would say overthrowing an elected government to install a brutal dictator to expand your own economic interests to not be ill-conceived until a decade later ? hmmmmm

---