- #36
Pengwuino
Gold Member
- 5,124
- 20
Stoned, what exactly are your sources of information. You act as if any news organization is wrong and biased and that you are getting your information from some divine source...
Since the US and the USSR were at odds before the creation of the UN and the world had significant power struggles before the creation of its predicessor - the League of Nations - I can't see why you would assert that the US would have ever thought the UN would be a puppet. So to answer the question: no, the US never intended or expected the UN to be a puppet.2CentsWorth said:The UN was initiated by the US to be a sandbox in which to play with friends who would support US interests. This quickly went awry with fallout between the US and the USSR. Did the US really expect other countries to stand aside and not want a piece of the pie too? Oh the webs we weave.
That's funny stoned, you assume a pro-jew bias where none exists, revealing your anti-jew bias. If he comitted crimes why should his religion be relevant to whether or not he should be tried? Of course he should!stoned said:If Khodorovsky was not jewish you would not mind at all his trial is that right ?
Burnsys said:I think more funny and hypocritical is to support saddam hussein in the first time, give him inteligence data, aiding him and don't say nothing when he was actualy using chemical weapons becouse he was killing a lot of iranian, and that was good for America, and then totally turn around and say he is a cruel dictator (he always was, even when he was killing iran people and gassing the kurds.)
Why is that? Allow me to join the others who have already asked you to reveal your unbiased, credulous and undoubtedly professional sources of information. Maybe your definition of "biased" is, well, biasedstoned said:I know about Russia quite a lot and I don't need to read any BBC biased reports, BBC is British state controlled information network.
What makes you believe that? Is that too something you learned from your omnipotent sources of information?stoned said:If Khodorovsky was not jewish you would not mind at all his trial is that right ?
I'm sure you can find some perfectly logical explanation for that in one of your ever-correct sources. Please enlighten me and the other members of this forum as to what exactly I am meant to "think".stoned said:There is one very interesting story from recent weeks connected to the Khodorovsky trial but not so obvious, read beetwen the lines:, Russian Duma voted on May 9 to forbid dual citizens the right to head the Russian Cabinet.
You know to whom is that directed at ? think.
russ_watters said:As you note, the entire world is complicit there. But at least the US is now standing up and putting a stop to him. Better late than never.
Here's your proof, loseyourname - and it's not past; it's present: click on this link to a Washington Post article entitled "Bush's Words On Liberty Don't Mesh With Policies: U.S. Maintains Close Ties With Repressive Nations".loseyourname said:I'm going to point out here the same thing I just pointed out to SOS in another thread. To show hypocrisy on the part of anyone, it is not sufficient to demonstrate that the US had, in the past, supported dictatorial regimes prior to removing Saddam from power. Such a stance fallaciously assumes that there exists some unchanging body politic that is "The US" and is responsible for every action taken historically by distinct administrations. In fact, each administration institutes its own foreign policy and is responsible only for the actions that it takes. To demonstrate hypocrisy implicit in the act of removing Saddam, it is necessary for you to show that the administration that removed him had, in the past, supported equally brutal dictators. That is, you must demonstrate that Bush and Powell and Rice and Rumsfeld, etc.; the persons who developed the policy under which Saddam was removed, had previously done the opposite.
President Bush's soaring rhetoric yesterday that the United States will promote the growth of democratic movements and institutions worldwide is at odds with the administration's increasingly close relations with repressive governments in every corner of the world. - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24581-2005Jan20.html
Pre-Gulf War Iraq was also supplied with European-made weapons and weapons fabrication means, though not through government aid.Burnsys said:No.. the entire world didn't HELP him. may be they didn't do nothing, but they didn't actively help him, they didn't give him inteligence data, they didn't give him aid, they didn't
Well, I didn't say "help" - but regardless, a great many countries, including some of the loudest complainers (France, Russia, China), did actively help him.Burnsys said:No.. the entire world didn't HELP him.
Bush did no such thing.Burnsys said:I think more funny and hypocritical is to support saddam hussein in the first time... and then totally turn around and say he is a cruel dictator...
loseyourname said:That is, you must demonstrate that Bush and Powell and Rice and Rumsfeld, etc.; the persons who developed the policy under which Saddam was removed, had previously done the opposite.
russ_watters said:Well, I didn't say "help" - but regardless, a great many countries, including some of the loudest complainers (France, Russia, China), did actively help him.
alexandra, that's awfully thin: Putin may be a kgb throwback, but he doesn't throw dissidents into plastic shredders like Saddam did. He's not in the same category. Other countries mentioned (Egypt, Saudia Arabia, Pakistan, etc.), and the US's policy toward them don't compare either.
But that's besides the point anyway. The hypocrisy that Burnsys (and others) have alleged requires you (or him or others) to show that Bush supported Saddam Hussein directly: Bush did no such thing.
Burnsys said:No.. the entire world didn't HELP him. may be they didn't do nothing, but they didn't actively help him, they didn't give him inteligence data, they didn't give him aid, they didn't give him dual-use equipment to Iraq's nuclear program and they didn't give him helicopters and heavy trucks and the most important.. they didn't transport iraki oil trhu iran and syrian piplines...
2CentsWorth said:The original contention is that the US does not have a foreign policy of removing dictators, not historically, nor even now. In the case of Iraq, removal of a ruthless dictator has been used as one of many justifications for invasion. But this does not mean it is US policy now, or going forward, or even on a case by case basis. Other related reasons, such as human rights violations, etc. are a more consistent aspect of US policy, though even with this one can see inconstancies.
The Bush administration has changed reasoning for invading Iraq on a regular basis, including removal of a 'bad' dictator. It has been made clear that all the justifications, from connection to 9-11, to WMD, and so forth has been nothing but propaganda. Removing a dictator is just more of the same. You are the one in denial.Pengwuino said:Thats actually simple denial. Even if its case by case, your still showing a complete attitude of denial. You would have shown a lot more credibility if you said say "oh maaaaybe .. on a case by case basis there might be a good policy for the US" but no, you showed how your mind is set on completely supressing any idea that the US might have a good foreign policy at some point now or in the future.
russ_watters said:Hey, you posted the quote, not me. It says quite clearly that the reason they didn't cooperate more is because of those issues.
"Tariq Expressed apreciation for US Support of resolution 549 at te UN. I (Rumsfeld) Offered our willinges to do more.
CENSORED CENSORED CENSORED CENSORED CENSORED CENSORED CENSORED CENSORED I made clear that our efforts to assist were inhibited by certain things that made it difficult for us, citing the use of chemical weapons, possible escalation in the Gulf, and human rights. I pointed out that we where improving our contingency planning with gulf states as to our goal of keeping straits open.
From US standpoint, obiusly anything that is done that complicate lifes for iran and syria is helpfull and contributes to stability in the region"
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq32.pdf
There are many publications on the topic of UN formation and evolution, and there are those who argue the UN not only has been used as a puppet (your words), but also through countries with leaders who are puppets of the US. Just because one may not agree with this view, it does not mean there is no such view.russ_watters said:Since the US and the USSR were at odds before the creation of the UN and the world had significant power struggles before the creation of its predicessor - the League of Nations - I can't see why you would assert that the US would have ever thought the UN would be a puppet. So to answer the question: no, the US never intended or expected the UN to be a puppet.
alexandra said:Here's your proof, loseyourname - and it's not past; it's present: click on this link to a Washington Post article entitled "Bush's Words On Liberty Don't Mesh With Policies: U.S. Maintains Close Ties With Repressive Nations".
Here's the first paragraph of that article:
Pengwuino said:Whats with people like you Burnsys? It was IRAN. Do you ever read any history books and learn the context of our actions?
Pengwuino said:What nations are our puppets? I want a puppet nation of my own :D
Ok that's the last post from me for a few i think lol. I had 3 finals today, one at 6 :30am... and my math final was like... i got tricked into walking onto a nuclear testing range... boy am i exausted
Burnsys said:If you can't see i am quoting US declasified documents, i think there is no history book better than that...
Burnsys said:For example my goverment. Argentina goverments... it has been a puppet since 50 years...
And i can surely tell you, Bolivia, Colombia, Chile, Peru, Paraguay, And all centroamerican countrys are us puppet, for example tell me.. what kind of country could give an island of their own to US so they can test their missiles? a puppet government only...
And by the way. did you know that Georgian senators Salary is paid by america? haha yeah. amazing...
Just for example. somenthing i posted the other day..
To show how America and the imf controls our economic policy..
Pengwuino said:Yes but that doesn't mean you understand the situation. If you can understand, we were helping iraq, as the document also states, because we hated Iran more and they were our big problem at the time.
"Because of the real and psychological impact of a curtailment in the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf on the international economic system, we must assure our readiness to deal promptly with actions aimed at disrupting that traffic." It does not mention chemical weapons"
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq26.pdf
Rumsfeld met with Saddam, and the two discussed regional issues of mutual interest, shared enmity toward Iran and Syria, and the U.S.'s efforts to find alternative routes to transport Iraq's oil; its facilities in the Persian Gulf had been shut down by Iran, and Iran's ally, Syria, had cut off a pipeline that transported Iraqi oil through its territory
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq31.pdf
National Security Study Directive (NSSD 4-82) from Ronald W. Reagan. "U.S. Strategy for the Near East and Southwest Asia," March 19, 1982.
President Reagan calls for a review of policy for the Middle East and South Asia, to prepare for decisions regarding procurement, arms transfers, and intelligence planning. Revised guidelines are needed because of regional diplomatic and global oil market developments
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq14.pdf
National Security Decision Directive (NSDD 114) from Ronald W. Reagan. "U.S. Policy toward the Iran-Iraq War," November 26, 1983.
President Ronald Reagan directs that consultations begin with regional states willing to cooperate with the U.S. on measures to protect Persian Gulf oil production and its transshipment infrastructure. The U.S. will give the highest priority to the establishment of military facilities allowing for the positioning of rapid deployment forces in the region to guard oil facilities.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq26.pdf
Pengwuino said:Any real proof of all those countries? Were you re-payed financially for the use of that island? Any proof of the salary thing? Are the US the creditors for Argentina? As an american (well this istn specifically a problem i have), its very apparent what kind of power a creditor can choose to have over a person that has oustanding debts owed to them. If you can give me suitable proof that the Argentine government does not owe the United States anything, I'd understand your position completely.
1.You still didnt answer my question about how much argentina owes the US.
2. Taxes, tarrifs, export restrictions... any of htis ring a bell?
3. Ohhh yah communists, got to love em. But wait... they pointed 10,000 nuclear warheads at us remember?
4. The bank could decide to demand all the money back and take all your stuff if it decided too. If they had no control over you, why don't you just stop paying your bills? As you can see, if they wanted to, they sure could decide how much you should give to your kids, how to manage your money (which you actually do anyways if you have debt... if you have a budget), how much food to buy and what you should charge for your work.
5. And how exactly does raising prices on oil help us?
@your previous post
Again you obviously show your lack of a basic understanding of this world. The resources we actually purchase should be protected just like you protect your money with an armored car.
I don't know how to convey common sense to you... but you should remember that when you want to deal with a worse problem, you sometimes have to do less evil things
Err, and then you wonder why people living in other parts of the world don't like what your administration is doing, and why those who are incapable of doing a proper political analysis generalise and 'hate Americans'? Well, Pengwuino, how would YOU feel if someone living in another, more powerful, country made such a statement and the USA happened NOT to be the most powerful country in the world? Such arrogance - and such lack of empathy for the plight of other people. But never mind, Pengwuino, one day, one way or another, the shoe will be on the other foot, so to speak. Then, perhaps, you'll understand what emotions such statements provoke. But of course, you simply don't care: you're OK, and bugger the rest of the world! (You think!)Pengwuino said:Our governemnt doesn't get told what to do because we could tell the world to screw off and stop buying or selling to them and sine we're the largest economy on earth... ouch that'll hurt them.
"...very few people care about it..."? What do you mean, Americans? I doubt that this is true - but even so, there are people who care about the environment living in other countries. Oh right, of course - silly me: THEY don't count as people. Only Americans are people, in your view. In effect, your arguments boils down to this: big capital has the right to destroy and risk the environmental integrity of OUR PLANET. Wow! Talk about arrogance - and even stupidity: do you have no sense of self-preservation, even? Where, exactly, do you propose to go live once the environment is totally destroyed and can no longer support life on earth? It is a blatant lie, by the way, that 'No study has come out saing there there's any significant danger in drilling...'. Here's an extract from one of the *milder* reports:Pengwuino said:And yes, we should be able to drill for oil up there. Its our land and very few people care about it. No study has come out saying that there's any significant danger in drilling according to the plans for the environment. Unless of course you have sources...
But of course, in typical style, you'll ignore this evidence - because it just doesn't suit. Oh well, so be it... But really, Pengwuino, you are not immune to whatever environmental effects such schemes have: even if we don't all live in the US, we all live on the same planet.MIXED VERDICT OFFERED ON ALASKA OIL DRILLING;
SCIENTISTS SEE BENEFITS, BUT CITE ADVERSE IMPACT
The Washington Post
March 05, 2003
Edward Walsh, Washington Post Staff Writer
The National Academies of Science and Engineering yesterday delivered a mixed verdict on the cumulative effects of oil and gas exploration on Alaska's North Slope, crediting the oil industry and government with doing much to minimize the environmental impact but warning that adverse consequences have not been eliminated and will continue to accumulate in the region.
Reference: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/prb/In_the_News.html
So why Iraq? It WASN'T about 9/11 (Iraq had NOTHING to do with that), and it WASN'T about WMD (there were none there) and it WASN'T about 'removing tyrants' (is Karimov being removed?), and it WASN'T about improving the lives of Iraqis (ha! I can't even BEGIN to address this one)... So why Iraq?Pengwuino said:And no, I didnt say we start wars for oil. You simply assumed that hoping to further your belief which is of course, wrong. We have a very large demand for oil and as the largest economy on earth, we need to secure transportation, thus, need a military presence. That does not mean we go to war with a nation for more oil. Maybe Europe would seeing as how they illegally profited from oil...
Evidence, please?Pengwuino said:Oddly enough the most money contribution to alternative fuels are those same big bad evil war mongering oil companies... hmm... makes you think eh?
Oh yes, because when the military comes in people's lives are saved! Without counting how many innocent civilians ('collateral damage'!) have already died, untold innocent Iraqis (mostly children) are going to die terrible deaths for years and years and years, from depleted uranium poisoning and the cancers that result from it getting into the food chain. How humane! Well, bravo.Pengwuino said:Oh yes and "its still an evil thing" is the pacifist do-nothing let people die view on life. Its a far greater evil to let evil men have control over the lives of $25 million others. You are proposing that if something can't be done niec and easily and without a problem, it shouldn't be done at all. This leads to millions of people dieing because you want to have the imaginary high moral standard to say "its still evil, you can't do it".
It says how much argentina own to US..That first list of numbers doesn't make any sense. Please clarify what it actually is.
For #2, you failed to even make a coherant statement towards how other countries do not use economic tools to hurt/help other countrie such as America.
We all know who is the number 1 in oberthrowing goverments... THE CIA..And that list of people is pretty much useless as we all know who is capable of overthrowing a government. Hell, many senators of the United States in the past were being bought off by the KGB in an attempt to undermine our government as discovered by the Venona project : http://www.answers.com/topic/venona-project .
And i remember a certain President defending your nation by saying any attack on this entire side of hte planet would have resulted in a massive response. I suppose that included you in our protection. I guess I wouldn't feel very safe either if the #1 military power in the world swore to protect me :-/. Right.
And i sure would love some sources on those 10's of millions figure because all i can see is... : http://www.factcheck.org/article261.html
And no, I didnt say we start wars for oil. You simply assumed that hoping to further your belief which is of course, wrong. We have a very large demand for oil and as the largest economy on earth, we need to secure transportation, thus, need a military presence. That does not mean we go to war with a nation for more oil. Maybe Europe would seeing as how they illegally profited from oil...
Show me proofOddly enough the most money contribution to alternative fuels are those same big bad evil war mongering oil companies... hmm... makes you think eh?
Oh yes and "its still an evil thing" is the pacifist do-nothing let people die view on life. Its a far greater evil to let evil men have control over the lives of $25 million others. You are proposing that if something can't be done niec and easily and without a problem, it shouldn't be done at all. This leads to millions of people dieing because you want to have the imaginary high moral standard to say "its still evil, you can't do it".