Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Is Russia right to oppose sanctions?

KeyboardJockey said:
They've invaded and occupied their neighbours territory. Oppressed a proportion of their own Arab citizens, induldged in ethinic cleansing, allowed atrocities to happen when they occupied Lebanon etc etc.

Israel has been at war with the PLO and its successors for decades. While they have acted imperfectly, as all nations have, I don't think it legitimate to characterize those actions that are undertaken in the course of a war for survival as "rogue". Lebanon was helpless to control or expel the PLO, the PLO was attacking Israel from Lebanon, what was Israel to do? Sit there and absorb blow after blow aimed at their civilian population, or soldier up and take the fight to the enemy?
 
spring-peeper said:
I was not aware that your country was responsible for all shipping lanes though out the world - cool.

This is only in international waters, right? You leave the waters owned by other countries alone, right?

We are not "responsible" in the sense of owing anyone our protection, we just do it because it contributes to the world being the way we want it to be. As for respecting others' territorial waters, I'm not aware of any outstanding complaints in this regard.
 
rogue yam said:
Israel has been at war with the PLO and its successors for decades. While they have acted imperfectly, as all nations have, I don't think it legitimate to characterize those actions that are undertaken in the course of a war for survival as "rogue". Lebanon was helpless to control or expel the PLO, the PLO was attacking Israel from Lebanon, what was Israel to do? Sit there and absorb blow after blow aimed at their civilian population, or soldier up and take the fight to the enemy?

They could have secured their borders with Lebanon they didn't have to breach them nor did they have to occupy the West Bank or Gaza or the Golan Heights etc etc etc. Yet again I have countered your point but you continue to be ill mannered and ignorant in refusing to answer mine.

Like your flag yammy boy. Its more appropriate for you than the stars and stripes as it contains your emblem -- the white feather of cowardice. :D
 
rogue yam said:
We are not "responsible" in the sense of owing anyone our protection, we just do it because it contributes to the world being the way we want it to be. As for respecting others' territorial waters, I'm not aware of any outstanding complaints in this regard.

:(

That's not at you specifically, just a general comment on how US infridgements on others soveriegnty are left out of the media. Oh well.

I'm from Canada, and I'm really not happy with the perceived lack of respect for our borders.

Recent events have me worried for my country, that's all.

end of topic - sorry for the derail.
 
KeyboardJockey said:
They could have secured their borders with Lebanon they didn't have to breach them nor did they have to occupy the West Bank or Gaza or the Golan Heights etc etc etc. Yet again I have countered your point but you continue to be ill mannered and ignorant in refusing to answer mine.

Like your flag yammy boy. Its more appropriate for you than the stars and stripes as it contains your emblem -- the white feather of cowardice. :D

Could you please make your point without resorting to insults and stereotyping?

Thanks ever so much.
 
spring-peeper said:
Actually, you were asked for a link to prove your claim that the US threatens other countries with nuclear weapons.

If ry can get chased around for not proving a link, then I suppose I can too.

So again, please provide the link or retract the statement.

There are far too many. I'll start with this one:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20050802&articleId=791

Then there's the extreme left-wing hysterical Washington Post. Pentagon revises nuclear strike plan:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/10/AR2005091001053.html

And this:

http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=7246
"Along with the NPR, which called for the development of new delivery systems for nuclear weapons and noted that China, North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Libya could all be targets, the new view was expounded by Bush himself in his September 2002 National Security Strategy document. "We cannot let our enemies strike first,"

Some concern expressed here...and a few choice quotes. A bit out of date though. More here...

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2005/3221conplan_8022.html

some opinions here:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_ted_bohn_051207_bush_s_nuclear_proli.htm


http://www.larouchepub.com/pr/2003/030224nukefirst.html
 
Groucho said:
Some concern expressed here...and a few choice quotes. A bit out of date though. More here...

some opinions here:

An observation: None of this has anything to do with Pres. Bush "continually threatening" nuclear attack.

A question: Do you have any idea who Lyndon Larouche is, and what could possibly possess you to quote his cult propaganda?
 
Groucho said:
I opposed the invasion and the sanctions. But then, unlike the US and UK I would not have supported Saddam in the first place, nor did I agree to selling arms to Iraq.

I would support an arms trade embargo, just as I did re Iraq in the 1980s when UK and US were still selling arms to Iraq.

On the Groucho 'lies' - why not just google 'pre-emptive nuclear US' ? The repeated threat of a US pre-emptive nuclear strike seems clear enough to me to be so described. If it makes you happier insert 'implied' before threat - but Bush et al have not exactly been subtle.

So before the war you have have lifted sanctions. Western companies back into Iraq. Billions of dollars under the table (well that was going on anyway with the oil for food scandal)

Instead of taking out Saddam or holding his regime back with sanctions you wanted a return to the 1980's. Sounds great
 
spring-peeper said:
Could you please make your point without resorting to insults and stereotyping?

Thanks ever so much.

I'm not the one who started it SP I've been having the word 'retard' thown at me every time I have challenged RY on a point. I've been trying to get a straight answer out of this fucking arsehole for the last four days. I've answered RY's point and he is being an illmannered coward not to answer mine.

I think that other posters on this and other threads will confirm that every time RY has slipped and evaded and made another (sometimes irrelevant) point I have answered his point using my knowledge, sources and pov. He still refuses to do me the honour of answering my questions though - can't think what he is frightened of because it certainly seems like fear to me.
 
rogue yam said:
A question: Do you have any idea who Lyndon Larouche is, and what could possibly possess you to quote his cult propaganda?

No. I just picked a random selection from the net very quickly. Point is there is huge amounts. If I had time I would select the more reliable but I don't.
 
rogue yam said:
Yes we nuked Japan, and no, we have never said we wouldn't nuke anyone else .
This isn't a criticism per se, I just don't understand how some people identify so completely with an abstract notion like 'my country' regardless of political party, or policy, or any other considerations such as personal morality, religious beliefs, etc.

Do you not find it at all odd to think in terms of 'we' when the other part of the 'we' is, by definition, an amoral, self-serving political entity - especially when that interest is half a century old ?

Do you not more naturally, and perhaps even exclusively, think in terms of 'I' ?
 
mears said:
Instead of taking out Saddam or holding his regime back with sanctions you wanted a return to the 1980's. Sounds great
so you don't believe in the principle of self-determination?
and you think the US should invade every country that isn't a liberal democracy.
YES/NO?
 
KeyboardJockey said:
He still refuses to do me the honour of answering my questions though

I never promised you anything. And American military actions are known to all. But out of slight boredom with the monotony of your incessant whining, and with only the barest hint of curiosity about what you intend to do with the obvious information once its provided, here then is your holy grail:

(Notifying you in advance: Of what I'm sure with be your voluminous and unhinged reaction, I'll only respond to that tiny fraction which surprises all by containing some vestige of intelligence and character. I really am completely bored with you.)


1945 -- China. In October 50,000 U.S. Marines were sent to North China to assist Chinese Nationalist authorities in disarming and repatriating the Japanese in China and in controlling ports, railroads, and airfields. This was in addition to approximately 60,000 U.S. forces remaining in China at the end of World War II.

1948 -- Berlin. After the Soviet Union established a land blockade of the U.S., British, and French sectors of Berlin on June 24, 1948, the United States and its allies airlifted supplies to Berlin until after the blockade was lifted in May 1949.

1950-53 -- Korean War. The United States responded to North Korean invasion of South Korea by going to its assistance, pursuant to United Nations Security Council resolutions.

1950-55 -- Formosa (Taiwan). In June 1950 at the beginning of the Korean War, President Truman ordered the U.S. Seventh Fleet to prevent Chinese Communist attacks upon Formosa.

1983 -- Grenada. On October 25, 1983, President Reagan reported a landing on Grenada by Marines and Army airborne troops to protect lives and assist in the restoration of law and order and at the request of five members of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States.

1989 -- Philippines. On December 2, 1989, President Bush reported that on December 1 U.S. fighter planes from Clark Air Base in the Philippines had assisted the Aquino government to repel a coup attempt. In addition, 100 marines were sent from the U.S. Navy base at Subic Bay to protect the U.S. Embassy in Manila.

1989 -- Panama. On December 21, 1989, President Bush reported that he had ordered U.S. military forces to Panama to protect the lives of American citizens and bring General Noriega to justice. By February 13, 1990, all the invasion forces had been withdrawn.

1991 -- Kuwait. On January 18, 1991, President Bush reported that he had directed U.S. armed forces to commence combat operations on January 16 against Iraqi forces and military targets in Iraq and Kuwait, in conjunction with a coalition of allies and U.N. Security Council resolutions. Combat operations were suspended on February 28, 1991. On May 17, 1991, President Bush stated in a status report to Congress that the Iraqi repression of the Kurdish people had necessitated a limited introduction of U.S. forces into northern Iraq for emergency relief purposes.

1993 -- Bosnia-Hercegovina. On February 28, 1993, the United States bagan an airdrop of relief supplies aimed at Muslims surrounded by Serbian forces in Bosnia. On April 13, 1993, President Clinton reported U.S. forces were participating in a NATO air action to enforce a U.N. ban on all unauthorized military flights over Bosnia-Hercegovina.

2001 -- Afghanistan. On October 7, 2001, the United States began military actions that resulted in the removal of the Taliban dictatorship.

2002 -- Iraq. On March 18, 2002, the United States began actions that resulted in the removal of the government of Saddam Hussein.
 
London_Calling said:
Do you not find it at all odd to think in terms of 'we' when the other part of the 'we' is, by definition, an amoral, self-serving political entity - especially when that interest is half a century old?

Do you really expect everyone on Earth to agree that the United States is "by definition" amoral?
 
And I'm bored with your load of old bollocks as well.

And at first glance ( I shall go in to more detail later) these just look like (with the exeption of Berlin and that was a hangover from the WWII situation - and Kuwait which is an invasion that could have been avoided if the US had not intimated to Iraq that it had no interest in Kuwait) situations where the US has intervened either to protect their own interests or backed elites against rebellion or gone after those they considered 'commies'.

I can't see anything in there where the US has actively gone out and helped to liberate a nation from oppression.

And as for your laughable inclusion of Iraq...well what can I say if you see that as a success then maybe your definition of success is different from that of the rest of the world.

rogue yam said:
I never promised you anything. And American military actions are known to all. But out of slight boredom with the monotony of your incessant whining, and with only the barest hint of curiosity about what you intend to do with the obvious information once its provided, here then is your holy grail:

(Notifying you in advance: Of what I'm sure with be your voluminous and unhinged reaction, I'll only respond to that tiny fraction which surprises all by containing some vestige of intelligence and character. I really am completely bored with you.)


1945 -- China. In October 50,000 U.S. Marines were sent to North China to assist Chinese Nationalist authorities in disarming and repatriating the Japanese in China and in controlling ports, railroads, and airfields. This was in addition to approximately 60,000 U.S. forces remaining in China at the end of World War II.

1948 -- Berlin. After the Soviet Union established a land blockade of the U.S., British, and French sectors of Berlin on June 24, 1948, the United States and its allies airlifted supplies to Berlin until after the blockade was lifted in May 1949.

1950-53 -- Korean War. The United States responded to North Korean invasion of South Korea by going to its assistance, pursuant to United Nations Security Council resolutions.

1950-55 -- Formosa (Taiwan). In June 1950 at the beginning of the Korean War, President Truman ordered the U.S. Seventh Fleet to prevent Chinese Communist attacks upon Formosa.

1983 -- Grenada. On October 25, 1983, President Reagan reported a landing on Grenada by Marines and Army airborne troops to protect lives and assist in the restoration of law and order and at the request of five members of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States.

1989 -- Philippines. On December 2, 1989, President Bush reported that on December 1 U.S. fighter planes from Clark Air Base in the Philippines had assisted the Aquino government to repel a coup attempt. In addition, 100 marines were sent from the U.S. Navy base at Subic Bay to protect the U.S. Embassy in Manila.

1989 -- Panama. On December 21, 1989, President Bush reported that he had ordered U.S. military forces to Panama to protect the lives of American citizens and bring General Noriega to justice. By February 13, 1990, all the invasion forces had been withdrawn.

1991 -- Kuwait. On January 18, 1991, President Bush reported that he had directed U.S. armed forces to commence combat operations on January 16 against Iraqi forces and military targets in Iraq and Kuwait, in conjunction with a coalition of allies and U.N. Security Council resolutions. Combat operations were suspended on February 28, 1991. On May 17, 1991, President Bush stated in a status report to Congress that the Iraqi repression of the Kurdish people had necessitated a limited introduction of U.S. forces into northern Iraq for emergency relief purposes.

1993 -- Bosnia-Hercegovina. On February 28, 1993, the United States bagan an airdrop of relief supplies aimed at Muslims surrounded by Serbian forces in Bosnia. On April 13, 1993, President Clinton reported U.S. forces were participating in a NATO air action to enforce a U.N. ban on all unauthorized military flights over Bosnia-Hercegovina.

2001 -- Afghanistan. On October 7, 2001, the United States began military actions that resulted in the removal of the Taliban dictatorship.

2002 -- Iraq. On March 18, 2002, the United States began actions that resulted in the removal of the government of Saddam Hussein.
 
rogue yam said:
I never promised you anything. And American military actions are known to all. But out of slight boredom with the monotony of your incessant whining, and with only the barest hint of curiosity about what you intend to do with the obvious information once its provided, here then is your holy grail:

.
you lying little scumbag. YOU made a claim. YOU got called on it. YOU cowarded out of it - until now.
tho' frankly, you might as well have not bothered, if that's the best you can do.
 
Red Jezza said:
you lying little scumbag. YOU made a claim. YOU got called on it. YOU cowarded out of it - until now.
tho' frankly, you might as well have not bothered, if that's the best you can do.

Its a bit of an arsewipe of a list isn't it. No mention of any national liberation movements that the US has assisted in -- or maybe even RY is embarrased to call the 9/11/73 coup against Allende 'liberation'.
 
KeyboardJockey said:
Its a bit of an arsewipe of a list isn't it. No mention of any national liberation movements that the US has assisted in -- or maybe even RY is embarrased to call the 9/11/73 coup against Allende 'liberation'.
Guatamala as well :(
 
rogue yam said:
Uh...because they have no oil or gas deposits to speak of and are subject to economic boycott and military attack by all of the energy producing nations of the Middle East.
While iranian oil will last for ever and will never run out?

rogue yam said:
If pressed to forswear the use of nukes, or the first-use of nukes, he will say exactly what every single U.S. President since WWII has said, which is "War is always the last resort, and a nuclear strike is the war tactic of absolute last resort, but we will not take it off the table."
I thought that "taking it off the table" was one of the things agreed in the non-proliferation treaty.
:confused:

rogue yam said:
One would think that the world would be used to this posture by now given its long-standing consistency.
Yeah, I don't understand why everyone is so 'surprised' by the long standing anti-israeli rhetoric coming out of iran either.
 
rogue yam said:
Do you really expect everyone on Earth to agree that the United States is "by definition" amoral?
What is this "United States" of which you speak; I'm aware of the Republican and Democrat political parties, which rule alternately, and are, by definition, self-serving and amoral political entities, but this notion you cling to of "we/us", seems an absurd product of too much propaganda-led faux 'emotional investment'.

The "United States" does not act, politicians act, and they have their own agendas. You seem to associate with all US politicians and actions, without having an identity of your own.
 
mears said:
Was sanctions a good idea.
I think sanctions might have been a good idea, if there had been clear quantifyable / testable criteria which could have been used to decide when the sanctions should have ended, and if the population had been looked after properly.
 
rogue yam said:
I never promised you anything. And American military actions are known to all. But out of slight boredom with the monotony of your incessant whining, and with only the barest hint of curiosity about what you intend to do with the obvious information once its provided, here then is your holy grail:

(Notifying you in advance: Of what I'm sure with be your voluminous and unhinged reaction, I'll only respond to that tiny fraction which surprises all by containing some vestige of intelligence and character. I really am completely bored with you.)
Then why not take the opportunity to fuck off somewhere where your pratings receive the applause you so desperately deisre, somewhere like "FreeRepublic?

Oh, that's right, they share the opinion of many of the posters on this forum, namely that you're a foul-mouthed intellectual vacuum.

1945 -- China. In October 50,000 U.S. Marines were sent to North China to assist Chinese Nationalist authorities in disarming and repatriating the Japanese in China and in controlling ports, railroads, and airfields. This was in addition to approximately 60,000 U.S. forces remaining in China at the end of World War II.
IIRC the "50,000 marines" were the force sent to relieve "Vinegar Joe" Stillwell and his men, who'd been fighting through the India/Burma/China theatre for nigh on 3 years, rather than them being asupplementary force specifically designated to help remove the Kwantung army.
Claiming the action of one of "loads" (your words) where the US has brought freedom can only be done if you set it outisde of it's proper historical context. Why am I not surprised that you're happy to engage in revisionism?
1948 -- Berlin. After the Soviet Union established a land blockade of the U.S., British, and French sectors of Berlin on June 24, 1948, the United States and its allies airlifted supplies to Berlin until after the blockade was lifted in May 1949.
"The United States and it's allies"?
Do me a favour.
More revisionism.
1950-53 -- Korean War. The United States responded to North Korean invasion of South Korea by going to its assistance, pursuant to United Nations Security Council resolutions.
As did (as you've already grudgingly admitted many other nations, under the same UN mandate.
1950-55 -- Formosa (Taiwan). In June 1950 at the beginning of the Korean War, President Truman ordered the U.S. Seventh Fleet to prevent Chinese Communist attacks upon Formosa.
Realpolitik, but perhaps allowable.
1983 -- Grenada. On October 25, 1983, President Reagan reported a landing on Grenada by Marines and Army airborne troops to protect lives and assist in the restoration of law and order and at the request of five members of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States.
Mendacious crap.
The so-called "request" was post-invasion. Cowboy Ron needed a grandstander to set himself up for re-election. The Grenadans (whose new airstrip was part of the casus belli for the invasion) merely wanted a longer runway to facilitate tourism. The Oval office decided to interpret the longer airstrip as a move toward stationing Soviet aircraft within bombing distance of the US mainland, even though Grenada was politically stable.
1989 -- Philippines. On December 2, 1989, President Bush reported that on December 1 U.S. fighter planes from Clark Air Base in the Philippines had assisted the Aquino government to repel a coup attempt. In addition, 100 marines were sent from the U.S. Navy base at Subic Bay to protect the U.S. Embassy in Manila.
The Philippines have been part of the US "empire" for over a hundred years. It pays the US to maintain either a stable centre-right government, or a right-dictatorship there. Realpolitik again.
1989 -- Panama. On December 21, 1989, President Bush reported that he had ordered U.S. military forces to Panama to protect the lives of American citizens and bring General Noriega to justice. By February 13, 1990, all the invasion forces had been withdrawn.
And the sub-text?
Come on, everyone (seemingly except you) knows why Panama was invaded. At least have the personal and intellectual honesty to admit the reason.
1991 -- Kuwait. On January 18, 1991, President Bush reported that he had directed U.S. armed forces to commence combat operations on January 16 against Iraqi forces and military targets in Iraq and Kuwait, in conjunction with a coalition of allies and U.N. Security Council resolutions. Combat operations were suspended on February 28, 1991. On May 17, 1991, President Bush stated in a status report to Congress that the Iraqi repression of the Kurdish people had necessitated a limited introduction of U.S. forces into northern Iraq for emergency relief purposes.

1993 -- Bosnia-Hercegovina. On February 28, 1993, the United States bagan an airdrop of relief supplies aimed at Muslims surrounded by Serbian forces in Bosnia. On April 13, 1993, President Clinton reported U.S. forces were participating in a NATO air action to enforce a U.N. ban on all unauthorized military flights over Bosnia-Hercegovina.

2001 -- Afghanistan. On October 7, 2001, the United States began military actions that resulted in the removal of the Taliban dictatorship.

2002 -- Iraq. On March 18, 2002, the United States began actions that resulted in the removal of the government of Saddam Hussein.
The last four, what can one say to this one-sided, self-admiring portrait of US military intervention except that in all cases Mr Yam has ignored reality in favour of presenting a "feel-good" story of the kind even an idiot is not fooled by.
 
Red Jezza said:
you lying little scumbag. YOU made a claim. YOU got called on it. YOU cowarded out of it - until now.
tho' frankly, you might as well have not bothered, if that's the best you can do.

Amen.

What is it with freepers and their belief that presenting an unproveable "fact" in pompous language, and then defending it with abuse makes their delusion more valid?
 
ViolentPanda said:
Amen.

What is it with freepers and their belief that presenting an unproveable "fact" in pompous language, and then defending it with abuse makes their delusion more valid?

I've chased this arsehole round the boards for nigh on four days (sorry about that other normal posters) and when he finally comes up with his much vaunted (and much requested) list -- it turns out to be cack. I'm very very disppointed I thought there would be more meat in there than that. :( ;)
 
KeyboardJockey said:
and the destabilisation of Nicaragua.
:(

The backing of the junta in Argentina.

Not forgetting (just on their own "doorstep") the Dominican republic, Haiti, El Salvador, Honduras and Cuba.
 
ViolentPanda said:
Not forgetting (just on their own "doorstep") the Dominican republic, Haiti, El Salvador, Honduras and Cuba.

Oh yes.

And the interference in the post war govt of Italy when the people of italy wanted to elect a socialist govt.

The mess in Vietnam would need a whole bulletin board on it's own
 
KeyboardJockey said:
I've chased this arsehole round the boards for nigh on four days (sorry about that other normal posters) and when he finally comes up with his much vaunted (and much requested) list -- it turns out to be cack. I'm very very disppointed I thought there would be more meat in there than that. :( ;)

Tell me about it!

IMHO what is going on is he's presenting as "historical fact" data he's culled from partisan sources, rather than reading the primary sources and working from there. If the only "history" you're reading is the kind of self-congratulatory spew that "patriots" come out with then you have a pretty narrow base to proceed from.

It's like his claim about US marines in China. I happen to know about that part of history because it ties in quite closely with the history of the regt that 7 generations of my family (incl. me) served in, so I knew all about Stillwell, the Burma Road, and the push to China, I also know that Stillwell's construction battalions (mostly black) and their infantry support were replaced by marines. I've read British and US regimental histories as well as academic papers and books on the subject, so I know his claim to be a partisan re-interpretation of reality.
 
Back
Top Bottom