Anti-American Sentiments

[prometheus]

WRONG .


The second front opened on November 8th 1942, in Morroco and Algeria.

You are right, it was called the third front. I forgot.

Ending on May 8th 1943 in Tunisia, the North African campaign cost the Germans 250,000 to 350,00 soldiers, equal to or more than the Stalingrad casualties,

The USSR had 8 to 11 million casualties in the war agaisnt germany. There have even been estimates of 23 and 26.4 million but they are often considered incorrect. So these numbers are the conservative ones.

Germany had 2,5+ million casualties. Nothing compared to the casualties in North Africa, which count from 55,000 to 70,000 depending the source of the estimate. As far as I know the british were outnumbered 35,000 to 500,000 so I don't know where you got your numbers from.

I also never said that the USSR didn't get support from the UK and the US. I just don't know the details about that.

This is waht I mean about the Germans being defeated by their own (or Hitler's) sense of superiority.

I am not ignorant of Hitler's mistakes. It is just that this was made as a point, or seeming point, against my comment that the USSR defeated Germany. Where I live people believe that the US defeated Germany. But that's just not true. This is why I corrected that. Hitler's strategical blunders are irrelevant to this point.

[mephisto]

The war against Vietnam.

Please Arensky defend it.

[gruffalo]

That matches with what I have read. Hitler would not allow his Generals even a tactical withdrawal ans sent thousands needlessly to their deaths. I believe that he even promoted one of his Generals to a Field Marshall in the belief that he would not surrender because no German Field Marshall had ever done this.

withdrawal was not needed, simply a more defensive tactic. this was the case also at Moscow and Stalingrad. The Russians were actually prepared for a winter war, whereas the Germans didnt no shizzle. had Hitler adopted a firm defence tactic, there may have been a different outcome, but i dont think it is possible to argue whether or not the Russians would have been able to do it on their own.

the incredible thing about Barbarossa is that the Russians outnumbered the Germans in personnel, technology and resources, yet Hitler managed to advance some 400 miles in 3 weeks during the beginning of Barbarossa.

[arensky]

However, its rather difficult to establish whether the war on the Eastern front was won by the Russians because of the aid from US and tactical advancments and decisions of newly appointed defence leader, Zhukov, or whether it was because of Hitler continuosly cocking up.

All three.

As for lisztis4kids, Stalin did beat Germany, but this would not have led to a communist western world, because it didnt. yes, we did see the devision of Germany and the East become a communist state, but Russia were not powerful enough to take on the US and Brits, which is why the west is not communist. I dont think Stalin's intentions were to conquer the west.

Also for Prometheus, Roosevelt isnt the hero people think. He chose not to stop the Russians containing Poland as a communist nation so that the US could keep airbases in Russia overlooking Japan. Maybe you have more reasons to brand him a good man, but he certainly wouldnt be on my list for good American things.

Stalin wasn't going to attack the West without nuclear weapons. This never happened, thank god.

Roosevelt was a hypocritcal ****. He saved the American economy in the 1930's via massive government intervention in financial matters that are still controversial today. He deliberately ignored the warnings about the imminent Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, which his diplomatic actions had provoked,  desiring that that "Japan commit the first overt act of agression", cynically sacrificing the lives of about 3,000 American military men and women and civilians, so he could have his war. On 12/6/41 most Americans were opposed to participation in WWII. The next day, a different story. He sent the USA on the course it maintains to this day, global superpower. Time for a change, IMO.

[prometheus]

the incredible thing about Barbarossa is that the Russians outnumbered the Germans in personnel, technology and resources, yet Hitler managed to advance some 400 miles in 3 weeks during the beginning of Barbarossa.

Only 300 Spartans stopped an army of 2,5 million persians at Thermopylae Though all Spartans died this lost battle won the war.

Of course one has to take the numbers of Herodotus with a grain of salt...

[thalbergmad]

the incredible thing about Barbarossa is that the Russians outnumbered the Germans in personnel, technology and resources, yet Hitler managed to advance some 400 miles in 3 weeks during the beginning of Barbarossa.

I do not know if it is true or not and I am certainly no scholar, but i have read that the Germans were allowed to advance as Stalin was happy for them to be sucked into the vastness of Russia.

Hitler was then faced with the impossibility of supplying and protecting a front of 1500 miles.
Many men were lost to the cold before the fighting really got going.

[arensky]

You are right, it was called the third front. I forgot.

The USSR had 8 to 11 million casualties in the war agaisnt germany. There have even been estimates of 23 and 26.4 million but they are often considered incorrect. So these numbers are the conservative ones.

Germany had 2,5+ million casualties. Nothing compared to the casualties in North Africa, which count from 55,000 to 70,000 depending the source of the estimate. As far as I know the british were outnumbered 35,000 to 500,000 so I don't know where you got your numbers from.

I also never said that the USSR didn't get support from the UK and the US. I just don't know the details about that.

I am not ignorant of Hitler's mistakes. It is just that this was made as a point, or seeming point, against my comment that the USSR defeated Germany. Where I live people believe that the US defeated Germany. But that's just not true. This is why I corrected that. Hitler's strategical blunders are irrelevant to this point.

I am including prisoners of war in my figures, which are out of my memory, I could be mistaken, but I don't think so. These are individuals who are lost to a nation's fighting ability, just as if they were casualties.

Strategic and tactical bluders are never irrelevant in warfare. They are often as much a deciding factor in victory or defeat as what "the other guy" does.

We have discussed this before, and it is clear that we have different opinions about this.

Just looked at a book on the shelf. 275,000 Axis prisoners were taken at the surrender of Tunis... whatever. Have to practice.

[thalbergmad]

I love Americans.

They kept my mum in nylons during the war.

[arensky]

I do not know if it is true or not and I am certainly no scholar, but i have read that the Germans were allowed to advance as Stalin was happy for them to be sucked into the vastness of Russia.

Hitler was then faced with the impossibility of supplying and protecting a front of 1500 miles.
Many men were lost to the cold before the fighting really got going.

It's true, but the Russins ****** up majorly. Barbarossa was 5 or 7 weeks late starting, because of the Germans having to save Mussolini whose invasion of Greece was screwing up. This delay may have been the deciding factor of the "Great Patriotic War", as the Russins call it. The Germans were unable to capture Moscow before the weather got really bad. BTW in 1941 capturing Moscow meant control of European Russia to the Urals, because all roads and railways led there and went through there. I don't think it would have been as close an affair as it was 9if the Russians were letting the Germans into Russia deliberately; it worked for the Russinsa, but I don't think it was deliberate. 

[arensky]

Only 300 Spartans stopped an army of 2,5 million persians at Thermopylae Though all Spartans died this lost battle won the war.

Of course one has to take the numbers of Herodotus with a grain of salt...

Their defensive position at the pass was virtually unassailable; the Persians are to be commnded for winning!  Check it out if you visit Greece, it's cool.

[prometheus]

Strategic and tactical bluders are never irrelevant in warfare. They are often as much a deciding factor in victory or defeat as what "the other guy" does.

OK the POW number sounds right. But on the east front there were also POW's. The numbers I gave do not include POW's that died in captivity.

They are essential for the outcome of the battle.

The scale of the battles on the eastern front was much much bigger than anywhere else. So this is the reason why I say Stalin defeated Hitler. He also was the first one in Berlin. Hitler killed himself because of the sovjet soldiers in Berlin.

The end of the war was just land grabbing. This is why there was a third front. To deny territory from the USSR. The allies even considered dropping paratroopers to take Berlin. This fits in perfectly with how you describe Roosefelt.

[prometheus]

Their defensive position at the pass was virtually unassailable; the Persians are to be commnded for winning!  Check it out if you visit Greece, it's cool.

I have only been to some of the Islands. If I remember correctly the Persians managed to win only because a Greek Sheperd showed them a track through the mountains that allowed them to attack the greeks from two sides. Of course because the Greeks used a Phalanx this was desisive.

[arensky]

The war against Vietnam.

Please Arensky defend it.

I will not. It was a tragic mistake.

[gruffalo]

I do not know if it is true or not and I am certainly no scholar, but i have read that the Germans were allowed to advance as Stalin was happy for them to be sucked into the vastness of Russia.

Hitler was then faced with the impossibility of supplying and protecting a front of 1500 miles.
Many men were lost to the cold before the fighting really got going.

well, this has been the Russian's tactics for many a time (although not anymore, obviously), however, the reason why Hitler got so far into Russia so quick was not because of this tactic. Stalin was completely blinded by the Nazi-Soviet pact made after the invasion of Poland. Stalin was completely convinced Hitler was almost an ally and would not invade Russia. He shot anyone who persisted in giving him intelligence of German forces ready on the Russian border. it wasnt till something like 4 weeks after the initiation of Barbarossa that he realised Russia had been invaded. Still after, he continued to refuse his generals' advice, so instead of retreating and regrouping into larger more organised units, he ordered no ground to be given. Blitzkrieg tactics just mopped them to bits. thinnly spread lines are the worst defence tactics for Blitzkrieg attack. thats also why Poland fell so quickly due to a political decision to defend all ground at the borders instead of defending key targets and cities.

[lisztisforkids]

The war against Vietnam.

Please Arensky defend it.

Why would anyone want to defend Vietnam?

[rimv2]

The US has given us many great things, among them, randomly, are Sylvia Plath, Andy Warhol, gonzo journalism, Timothy Leary, Harper Lee, Lou Reed, J D Salinger, Michael Moore and Courtney Love.

However, equally randomly, this is how some people may view America:

A country that has used a nuclear weapon of mass destruction on a civilian population. A country that manufactured anthrax as part of its biological weapons program.

A country that defied the international community and invaded another nation. A country that used a concerted propaganda campaign (a calculated lie) to justify its action.

A country that  uses torture and defies the Geneva Convention in its treatment of prisoners of war.

A country that has large stocks of weapons of mass destruction and refuses to ratify nuclear non proliferation treaties, as well the Kyoto Protocol on controlling greenhouse gas emissions.

A country that produced Jerry Springer.

 A non-team player on the international stage that is bent on maintaining its Top Nation status.

These are some reason why people in some parts of the world have negative perceptions of the United States.

Politics. Not people.

Springer was a politician.

Don't be silly. This isn't a "my country is better than yours" competition.

For the record, I am not British.

And unlike many Americans I am capable of criticising my own country.

A country that invaded an occupied land and attempted to commit genocide against the indigenous population.

A country that allowed nuclear testing in areas were people were living. A country that had a policy of forceably removing an entire generation of children from their parents.

A country that backed the illegal invasion of of Iraq, and like the US is a non-signatory to the Kyoto Protocol.

A country that sold East Timor out to Indonesia.

A country that was lining Saddam's pockets with kickbacks even as it followed the US into war.

A lackey of the US.

A country that produced Kylie Minogue.

When I am abroad, I always make it a rule never to criticize or attack the government of my own country. I make up for lost time when I come home.

-Churchill

While playing Halo I came across a group a foreign sore losers. British or Australian I wasnt sure. Since they'd lost badly, they began to criticize America in any way they could.  While listening to their rant, I heard them pose the question, "Why are you even over there?" Ordinarily I supplement the loser's rant with a "but who lost though?" But this time I was actually agrevated. I began to explain to them (or shout at them) that Americans had no idea we were going to go to war and that the war was forced on us. Our goverment, seemingly out of nowhere, made it seem like Saddam was such a threat to us that his immediate removal was necessary. WMD is all the American people heard. And still people didnt even want to go to war. Soldiers there know they were lied to, but they are proud to have removed someone by the likes of saddam from power. But not all soldiers. Some hate the fact they were sent over there. Even enough to wound themselves to be sent home.

They stopped their rant...

I believe the reason they were silent is because they encountered american on the internet before, insulted america, and sent them on a flag trip. They expected I would respond as the others. I'm not so patriotic.

I dont believe anyone actually explained the situation to them from the perspective of an american.

Does anyone honestly think the American people would agree to instanteously taking thousands of lives? There would be a few, but the majority recognize the absurdity and inhumanity of such an action.

There was no A-bomb vote for the american people, no vietnam vote, no korea vote, no gulf vote, and no iraq vote.

Defining choices in our country's history arent even made us.

I believe this is the same with every country.

We, as Americans, dont search through other countries' mistakes and use them as basis for criticizing people.

I understand that today we expect more than what is being shown.

But this problem isnt just limited to one country.

We are a global society. One country's actions affects the rest. It's saddening to see people cheering at genocide. Especially when the one's being killed live so near to them. Im diverging.

"Every country has its problems even now". Always when an American makes this argument its responded with yes but we didnt invade another country.

Yes WE did. If the world felt so strongly, America would have went in alone. But America didnt go in alone, it was just left to clean up the mess. And if the world truly felt so strongly about it - and I feel a bit uneasy saying this -  America cannot take on the entire world by itself. If the entire world agreed it was a horrible idea, I guarantee we wouldnt be there. But i diverge again.

Maybe, if we've learned anything, it's that we havent learned anything.

Not just Americans but people.

There are still atrocities committed.

There's still crime.

The rich still steal from the poor.

The more things change, the more they stay the same, right?

What if our evolution was merely a fabrication of our own egos?

Ah have completely lost where ah was going with this

[mephisto]

Why would anyone want to defend Vietnam?

Arensky seams to defend everything about the USA. He seamed like a person who whould think that the war against Vietnam was a good thing. After all you killed a lot of communists

[rimv2]

Arensky seams to defend everything about the USA. He seamed like a person who whould think that the war against Vietnam was a good thing. After all you killed a lot of communists

See above

[gruffalo]

why do you guys think that everyone is only anti-american and that everyone hates America. rim, i get that kinda crap from Americans all the time. it goes both ways. dont think you are the only ones who get insulted.

[arensky]

Arensky seams to defend everything about the USA. He seamed like a person who whould think that the war against Vietnam was a good thing. After all you killed a lot of communists

 When the Japanese conquered Southeast Asia in abut 5 months from 12/41 to 4/42, they were viewed as liberators by many of the inhabitants of the conquered territories, French Indo-China ( present day Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam, this was occupied "peacefully in July 1941), Netherlands India (modern Indonesia) Malaya & Sarawak (m1469sia), Singapore, Burma (Myanmar, these were all British) and The Philippines (USA). The Japanese made a strong impression on the colonial Asians with their subjugation of the white overlords. After the Japanese surrender in 1945 the colonial powers attempted to reasert their rule over their colonies, except for the USA   . The Philipines became independent in 1946. The USA retained military bases there and a measure of financial control, and sent massive aid to help the Philippine government supress the armed insurrection of Communist insurgents known as the "Huks". At the same time, the Vietnamese and Indonesians were waging war against the French and Dutch respectively, they had sent military forces to retain control of their former colonies. The Dutch gave up in 1949, and the non-aligned nationalist regime of Sukarno took control. The French were defeated in 1954 by the Vietnamese Communists and were forced to grant independence to Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. For reasons too complicated for me to remember and to list here Vietnam was split into two nations, the Communist North Vietnam and the "democratic" South Vietnam, which retained a pro-Western alignment. This was the begining of the trouble.

I am very tired... I will resume this later...

BTW I have been to Vietnam, and have nothing but respect and admiration for the country and it's people, who may be the friendliest people I have met in all of my travels, and I have visited 29 different countries, not including the USA.

[musik_man]

Arensky seams to defend everything about the USA. He seamed like a person who whould think that the war against Vietnam was a good thing. After all you killed a lot of communists

Communism killed tens of million people in the 20th century.  Anyone who holds it on a level different that Facism is a m o r o n.

[mephisto]

Communism killed tens of million people in the 20th century.  Anyone who holds it on a level different that Facism is a m o r o n.

------------------------

[mephisto]

When the Japanese conquered Southeast Asia in abut 5 months from 12/41 to 4/42, they were viewed as liberators by many of the inhabitants of the conquered territories, French Indo-China ( present day Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam, this was occupied "peacefully in July 1941), Netherlands India (modern Indonesia) Malaya & Sarawak (m1469sia), Singapore, Burma (Myanmar, these were all British) and The Philippines (USA). The Japanese made a strong impression on the colonial Asians with their subjugation of the white overlords. After the Japanese surrender in 1945 the colonial powers attempted to reasert their rule over their colonies, except for the USA   . The Philipines became independent in 1946. The USA retained military bases there and a measure of financial control, and sent massive aid to help the Philippine government supress the armed insurrection of Communist insurgents known as the "Huks". At the same time, the Vietnamese and Indonesians were waging war against the French and Dutch respectively, they had sent military forces to retain control of their former colonies. The Dutch gave up in 1949, and the non-aligned nationalist regime of Sukarno took control. The French were defeated in 1954 by the Vietnamese Communists and were forced to grant independence to Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. For reasons too complicated for me to remember and to list here Vietnam was split into two nations, the Communist North Vietnam and the "democratic" South Vietnam, which retained a pro-Western alignment. This was the begining of the trouble.

I am very tired... I will resume this later...

BTW I have been to Vietnam, and have nothing but respect and admiration for the country and it's people, who may be the friendliest people I have met in all of my travels, and I have visited 29 different countries, not including the USA.

I can`t se how this has any relavance at all. And your use of the  sign makes your post lose all its value(if it had any at all). Come on don`t you think that I know my history?

[musik_man]

This is just to sad.

First of all communism is a political belief. Just because some communist have killed millions of people doesn`t mean that communism itself is a bad thing. Just look at the USA. They have killed 10000+++ people. Should we then sy that democracy is a bad thing?

Communism belives that evreybody are created equal and that there shouldn`t be any classes in society. Communists are against a socity were 5% of the world owns 90% of the ressurces available. Doesn`t seam that bad to me.

Name a Communist regime that hasn't actively repressed its people.  Seriously, you'd think that China, Cambodia, and Russia would be enough evidence that Communism is evil.

The US hasn't done anything even close to what these regimes have done.  In the US people enjoy freedom of speech and religion.  If you can't spot the difference, you are either being willfully ignorant.  When the Democratic party is put in front of kangaroo courts for show trials, you can say there is a moral equivalence. 

I'm sorry but your ignorance is what is truly sad.  Your views are no different than an apologist for Facism (especially since both ideologies have their roots in Marxism.)

[mephisto]

Name a Communist regime that hasn't actively repressed its people.  Seriously, you'd think that China, Cambodia, and Russia would be enough evidence that Communism is evil.

The US hasn't done anything even close to what these regimes have done.  In the US people enjoy freedom of speech and religion.  If you can't spot the difference, you are either being willfully ignorant.  When the Democratic party is put in front of kangaroo courts for show trials, you can say there is a moral equivalence. 

I'm sorry but your ignorance is what is truly sad.  Your views are no different than an apologist for Facism (especially since both ideologies have their roots in Marxism.)

-------------------

[musik_man]

Arguing with an right-wing facist like you is like trying to explain how colours look like to a blind man.

It wouldn`t suprise me if you are pro-Israel.

You have to resort to this, because you have no arguement to counter the tens of millions killed.  No arguements to counter the people tortured for months(Bukharin was tortured for 6 months before he broke) until they'd testify against themselves.  No arguements to counter the millions who starved during the collectivization of agriculture.  No arguements to counter people sent to labor camps for criticizing the government.  No arguements to counter the slaughter of teachers and professors.  If a being against these things makes me a facist, then I guess I am one.

I find it odd that so many Atheists who deride the religous for their faith will turn around and support ideologies like Communism against all evidence.  You'd do yourself good to buy a basic economics textbook.  You might learn how the economy really works(hint: it isn't about the bourgeois repressing the proletariot.)

"When a man stops believing in God, he does not believe nothing.  He believes in anything"
G.K. Chesterton

BTW considering that I deride Communism by comparing it to Facism, you'd think that I wouldn't get called a Facist.

[mephisto]

You have to resort to this, because you have no arguement to counter the tens of millions killed.  No arguements to counter the people tortured for months(Bukharin was tortured for 6 months before he broke) until they'd testify against themselves.  No arguements to counter the millions who starved during the collectivization of agriculture.  No arguements to counter people sent to labor camps for criticizing the government.  No arguements to counter the slaughter of teachers and professors.  If a being against these things makes me a facist, then I guess I am one.

I find it odd that so many Atheists who deride the religous for their faith will turn around and support ideologies like Communism against all evidence.  You'd do yourself good to buy a basic economics textbook.  You might learn how the economy really works(hint: it isn't about the bourgeois repressing the proletariot.)

"When a man stops believing in God, he does not believe nothing.  He believes in anything"
G.K. Chesterton

Okei.

[musik_man]

Okei. I do NOT support all the murders done by communists regims( I don`t like people like Stalin. But many communists hate him to). But why do I have to say this. I bet that you are for democracy. But many democratic states have killed and suppressed millions of people. This doesn`t mean that the idea of democracy is plain stupid.  Most communist regims starts good, but the leader just wants more power. But communism can work. Just look at Cuba. Tell me all the millions of people Castro has murdered. And tell me about Castro`s war against Iraq. Tell me about Castro`s millitary coup in Chile. Tell me about Castro`s war against Corea. Tell me about Castro`s war against Vietnam.

Yes I am socialist, maybe not a communists, and I am not ashamed of it. I am proud of it.

Castro executed thousands when he came into power.  And to this day he represses any dissent in his country.  He doesn't hold elections.  He runs a totalitarian state.

And please inform me of the actions democratic nations have taken that are comparable to the crimes I've listed.  I'd be very interested to hear about them.

BTW you do realize that both North Korea and North Vietnam started their respective wars.  And started them with Soviet and Chinese backing.

[mephisto]

Since this is an internett forum and I lack the english to say what I really mean( I a norwegian), I am going to quit this topic and just say that you are right.

[musik_man]

Since this is an internett forum and I lack the english to say what I really mean( I a norwegian), I am going to quit this topic and just say that you are right.

It's ok.  Unfortunately my Norwegian is a bit... non-existant.

[mephisto]

Just to name places where democratic goverments have killed people:
Iraq.
Afganisthan.
Vietnam.
Japan.

There are of course more. But I feel no need to mention them.

Just before I leave: Why are the USA allowed to have nuclear weapons, while Iran isn`t? Other nations that have nuclear weapons: Israel!, England, France, India, Pakistan. I wonder why they are allowed

I am personally against nuclear weapons.

[gruffalo]

I can`t se how this has any relavance at all. And your use of the  sign makes your post lose all its value(if it had any at all). Come on don`t you think that I know my history?

i, personally am not convinced by you. and that's not because of your belief in communism as not being so bad. simply because you have'nt presented a decent argument, and you lack conviction in your opinions.

[prometheus]

I am probably more leftist than Mephisto and I have argued with Music_Man. But he is no fascist. At least not as far as I can tell

Anekdote is more facist-like, I can't imagine he really is one but 'at least' he is a a lot closer.
 
Well, it is not that hard to finda democratic country that committed a lot of atrocities. The question is how far back in time we are allowed. Of course Europe was partly democratic during WWI. Democracies elected fascists and we had WWII too. Democracy didn't prevent them.

Then during the war the sides with democratic governments committed war crimies by firebombing and later nuking whole cities.

After WWII we have Israel, one can debate if the country can be called a democracy, that committed atricities. Sure, they were in brutal wars and most of the wars were forced on them after the decision made to make a country in that place in the world. This act requires responsibility to be taken for.

Then we have the US committing terrorism against the state of Nicuragua. This case is very strong, it has been ruled by the world court. The US ignored it and continued killing civilians. The UN SC even tried to take on a resolution calling on states to adhere international law regarding terrorism. This was actually aimed at trying to force the US to pay the fines they were condemned to by the World Court.

And this kind of support of right wing people, including fascists, neo-nazi's, paramilitary gangs, is seen all through South America. Niceragua, El Salvador, Guatamala, Panama, Grenada(this one is totally silly), and of course Cuba itself as well. And Chile as pointed out before. But also Argentina. Some of these countries had democracies. Some of these countries were doing well. But they were just too leftist. Remember, there was total communist paranoia.

I mean people like Chaves, Morales, would be deposed by the US. Not I am not concerned about if these people to their job well. At least not when talking about deposing a democratically elected leader. Those people want these leaders. It's like the rest of the world funding people that oppose G.W.Bush in the US. Trying to get them to attempt a coup. Helping them kill 'soft targets', etc. It is state terrorism.

Actually, there was a coup in 2002 against Chaves, so times have not changed that much. Now the US did not condemn this coup. Maybe their were even behind it after all.

This is just like calling for democracy in Palastine and when you don't like the result call off the support anyway. The US does nothing to promote democracy in the world. I mean, the countries they condemn sometimes have more democractic elections that they themselves have. I mean, in Bolivia they had a real election, not a marketing campain run by the PR industry where people do not even know the position of the candidates on important points.

But back to supporting terrorists and para-military forces. That's what they did with Bin Laden. The US just has to stop this. I mean this is one of the reasons why there is so much terrorism in the world. Because the US keeps supporting the terrorism they like.

Then they support dictatorships as well. Most democratic countries do this when they think they can gain from this. Iraq was supported by the west through and after the usage of nerve gass against Kurdish towns and Iranian soldiers.
They also supported countries like South America, Turkey and Israel through immoral acts.

The UN recently published their failed states list. Haiti, Iraq and Afghanistan were on the top. Three countries that have suffered a lot of US influence. Haiti is a good example. They suffered the most interventions of any country in the Mexican guld, they are also the poorest country in the Mexican guild.

This is not because the people in the US are bad people, at least not worse than other people. It is just because the US is a superpower. The amount of violence is equal to their power. They do so many bad things because they have so much power.


As for Vietnam. The people of South Vietnam weren't supported by the US. The government of South Vietnam was supported. Actually there was a lot of disagreement between the S-Vietnam military and the president. There was a military coup and the S-Vietnamese president was assassinated. The S-Vietnamese military leaders claimed they did this with "at least the knowledge and approval of the White House and the American ambassador in Saigon".

Then there was a civil war. The US wasn't helping the people of S-Vietnam. They were using S-Vietnam in a fight against communism. They first had to conquer S-Vietnam.



About Cuba. I stronly dislike communism. But from an economic point of view it doesn't seem that bad. Cuba does ok, they almost have first world social services. Look at the literacy, the number of doctors per capita, infancy rate, etc. It is not that bad. And this while suffering boycots from their closest neigbour, who also is the single superpower in the world. Actually, it would be more correct to call it an economic war. Some people have calculated how much this would have cost them. Some economists have called 'Cuba' a miracle.
Now this has nothing to do with Fidel Casto's killing of the opposition. I would be a dissident in Cuba, obviously. But one cannot claim that communism doesn't work.

I find it also very bad that those democratically elected leftist leaders in South America assosiate with Casto. Well, they are kind of forced to do it by the US. But in the end they have their own responsibility. You see, in the end they apply the same nasty machiavellian policies as the US, only with a lot less power.

[mephisto]

i, personally am not convinced by you. and that's not because of your belief in communism as not being so bad. simply because you have'nt presented a decent argument, and you lack conviction in your opinions.

I said I was going to leave. But I just want to know one thing. Why did you quote that message. I can`t see how the quote and your reply have nothing in common. Enlighten me.

[gruffalo]

sorry, i should have quoted the bit "come on, don't you think that i know my history". i dont want to assume that you dont know your history, however, my comment didnt come in any spite or bad taste, i'm simply giving pointers that you need to provide more clarity in your debates and use facts to back them up. i dont think you should leave the argument, you are obviously intelligent and you are interested in laying down your opinions, and that's a good quality. just try and link your opinions with facts from good books or sources, and try and review what you say before you post it. keep at it though, im not completely doubting your abilities at historical debating.

[lisztisforkids]

Just before I leave: Why are the USA allowed to have nuclear weapons, while Iran isn`t? Other nations that have nuclear weapons: Israel!, England, France, India, Pakistan. I wonder why they are allowed

I am personally against nuclear weapons.

This thread is hard for me to keep up with.

Because Iran makes statmenets like 'Israel must be wiped of the map'. Do you really want a nuclear holocaust in the middle east?

[mephisto]

sorry, i should have quoted the bit "come on, don't you think that i know my history". i dont want to assume that you dont know your history, however, my comment didnt come in any spite or bad taste, i'm simply giving pointers that you need to provide more clarity in your debates and use facts to back them up. i dont think you should leave the argument, you are obviously intelligent and you are interested in laying down your opinions, and that's a good quality. just try and link your opinions with facts from good books or sources, and try and review what you say before you post it. keep at it though, im not completely doubting your abilities at historical debating.

Thank you.

[mephisto]

This thread is hard for me to keep up with.

Because Iran makes statmenets like 'Israel must be wiped of the map'. Do you really want a nuclear holocaust in the middle east?

So the USA do just have nuclear weapons for fun. Oh, stupid me, could it be more obvious

[lisztisforkids]

Arguing with an right-wing facist like you is like trying to explain how colours look like to a blind man.

It wouldn`t suprise me if you are pro-Israel.

You should see that Communism cannot work, and will not work.

And stop calling anybody you disagree with a Fascist. Its immature.

[lisztisforkids]

So the USA do just have nuclear weapons for fun. Oh, stupid me, could it be more obvious

Uhh.... The Nuclear weapons we posses are the remants of the cold war. Just like all the other Eruopean countrys that have nukes, there all from the cold war.

[gruffalo]

debating without getting too heated, cocky or oppressive towards the other person(s) is just as much a skill as being able to lay out your argument in an organised and logical style.

[lisztisforkids]

Arensky seams to defend everything about the USA. He seamed like a person who whould think that the war against Vietnam was a good thing. After all you killed a lot of communists

Arguing with an right-wing facist like you is like trying to explain how colours look like to a blind man.

It wouldn`t suprise me if you are pro-Israel.

This is one of the reasons why I posted this thread.  Mephisto, Such hypocrisy, such ignorance,such bias.

[gruffalo]

This is one of the reasons why I posted this thread.  Mephisto, Such hypocrisy, such ignorance,such bias.

alright, give him a chance now. i've told him where his mistakes lie, now let him work on it.

[mephisto]

Uhh.... The Nuclear weapons we posses are the remants of the cold war. Just like all the other Eruopean countrys that have nukes, there all from the cold war.

But why aren`t USA making sanctions(sp?) against Israel and India and Pakistan. Maybe becuase  they are friends of the USA?

[prometheus]

This thread is hard for me to keep up with.

Because Iran makes statmenets like 'Israel must be wiped of the map'. Do you really want a nuclear holocaust in the middle east?

Mephisto's arguments may not be strong. But I think the point is that Israel, Pakistan and India all have nuclear weapons which they are 'allowed' to have while Iran cannot even enrich uranium for 5%. Now of course this can be very dangerous and should not be allowed. The problem is one of hypocrisy. These countries are ignored while Iran is condemned. The US themselves develop tactical nukes and they even don't deny they may use them agaisnt Iran. Well, actually it took them some time. They tried to use the momentum of that threat, I think. These kinds of games hard hard to understand.

You must realise that when Iran aquires nuclear weapons they are safe. Look at Iraq and N-Korea. Iraq had no weapons or army whatsoever. For some reason the US wanted to invade Iraq. Now the US may be a democracy, the US government was able to coerce their population to invade them. Every country in the middle east was freaked out. The US government can apperently coerce their population to support any war. I mean, Iraq and the argument given is WMD; that was laugable. Hussain in his arrogance, and the problems of his lessers not daring to tell him te truth, though he may be able to decive the US in thinking he did actually had WMDs. If he had then the US would not have invaded. It would not be worth it. Look at N-Korea. The only way to be save is to have nukes. So that is what Iran is trying to do.

Another problem is that Iran has the right to do what they are doing. They have the right to enrich uranium for civilian purposes. They need to read 80 to 90% enrichment for a 'good' nuke. Iran has signed the non-prolifiration treaty which allows them to develop this technology. Pakistan, India and Israel all have not. And they posses nukes.

The west wants people to believe Iran has been doing all this in secret. But that is just not true. Only recently, after some escalation, the IAEA has been kicked out. Up till 2002 there was 'no problem'. Iran was developing enrichment technology for peaceful purposes, IAEA was checking, no one was angry. And then suddenly in 2002 a lot of fuss was made about it.

This is why Iran is so angry about Israel. Israel is their enemy. And they enemy can develop nukes, which no one knows anything about, without having signed the NPT and Iran cannot even enrich up to 5% under the IAEA.

Nuclear Proliferation is really important. Iran should not be able to posses nukes. But what to do? The start of non proliferation should start with the US, Israel, Pakistan and India. The US doesn't seem very interested in NP. Pakistan is run by a military coup government. The US wants to develop weapons for use in space and tactical nukes. Etc. It is not pretty and all the fuss is made about Iran and their, up till now, civilian project.

[gruffalo]

We have to be extremely careful in dealing with these countries, it could all end in disaster.  this tension, although it seems impossible, has to be resolved peacefully. unfortunately there is too much power in the wrong hands, ie. Israel, Pakistan, Palestine and, to be side-tracking a little the same can be said to North-Korea.

[gruffalo]

although Iran's equiping of Uranium doesn't violate any rules (otherwise we US and UK and many other would be too), it's simply a matter of trust. i wouldnt trust the Iranians and i wouldnt like to give em a chance and then suffer consequences. i think we should do what we can, first peacfully (this is where we made the mistake about Iraq, ie. not letting the UN carry on their job), and if this fails then firmer action should be taken.

Anyways, i got Maths revision to do.

Later all.

[mephisto]

  Palestine

are you suggesting that the palestinians have a lot of power and even nuclear weapons. Sorry if I missunderstood.

[lisztisforkids]

As Grufallo puts it, 'I wouldent trust the Iranians' either would I. It would be perfectly acceptable if the Iranians used Uranium enrichemnt for civilin purposes. But I do not beleive this to bo the case. Just look at what the Iranian president has said in the last 6 months in refernce to Isarael. Do we really want to let a Iran posses Nukes? How are you so sure Irans purposes are not military?

[johnny-boy]

"Now the US may be a democracy, the US government was able to coerce their population to invade them. Every country in the middle east was freaked out. The US government can apperently coerce their population to support any war" - Prometheus

Actually we as individuals have very little power in these decisions. I was whole-heartedly against that action from the beginning, but bomb-hurling Bush was hell-bent on getting even with Saddam Hussein for his attempted assassination of his father (his oil interests was the icing on the cake).

In our Democracy we have a right to vote politicians into the government, but after they’re elected they make these outrageous decisions. We have a right to protest, but our protests meet with deaf ears – especially with arrogant presidents like Bush (he doesn’t seem to care about public opinion).

I think most countries in the World share this helplessness pertaining to the decisions their governments make.  

Best, John