A good regime to bump off

[9sublime]

Very weak, mate. South Korea was a "pretense"? Holding the soviet union at bay so you you could sit in the pub with your pint unmolested for 40 years was a "pretense"? Kuwait wasn't liberated? The US efforts in the Balkans was "pretense"?

Oh yeah, sure, you held the Soviet Union at bay. Give me a break, you just weren't stupid enough to send a nuke over. The US got involved in Kuwait because it was oil under the pretence of help, just like Iraq. For every success you mention such as South Korea, theres dirty tricks being played in South America and elsewhere in the name of liberation for economic or political gain which are far more important motivations for your government.

How about this UK war crime?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/sep/20/iraq.military

Did americans run around afterward and prattle about the UK having no "credibility"? Noooooooo...........

The abuse of prisoners by rogue elements of an army or individual soldiers who snap happens in every war. To confuse this with or misrepresent it as the policy of a belligerent is silly.

I agree. I'm not saying the UK is perfect by a long way - but regardless the US has a much larger recent history of cock ups and placing dictators in South American companies or liberating a country for financial benefit.

I have no clue what you are talking about.

Its evidence that while you claim to be liberating Iraq, you are selling its ports and oil off to American companies in the background.

 

[Libsmasher]

Oh yeah, sure, you held the Soviet Union at bay. Give me a break, you just weren't stupid enough to send a nuke over.

Yeah, the US spent trillions of dollars, kept hundreds of thousands of troops in europe for forty years, and you DON'T KNOW WHY? Are most euros as unforgiveably ignorant as you? How old are you - 12?

The US got involved in Kuwait because it was oil under the pretence of help, just like Iraq.

That this is manifest nonsense is easy to prove - whoever held those territories would sell oil to the US and DID. Saddam sold oil all the way up to the invasion of iraq, and the iraqi oil production has never got back up to the pre-invasion level, so how could it possibly be because of oil? Obviously, your claim is ridiculous.

For every success you mention such as South Korea, theres dirty tricks being played in South America and elsewhere in the name of liberation for economic or political gain which are far more important motivations for your government.

This is the standard, ignorant, revisionist anti-american canard - a full tilt distortion of history. The US had to deal with many unsavory regimes during the Cold War in the context of the worldwide struggle against the soviet union. Euros don't grasp this, because they spent the whole cold war sitting on their asses getting drunk in the pub, giving themselves eight week vacations while the US spent trillions of dollars on defense budgets so that at least ONE democratic country would stand up to the soviets. You criticize from the sidelines - when the game was on you were nowhere to be found.

I agree. I'm not saying the UK is perfect by a long way - but regardless the US has a much larger recent history of cock ups and placing dictators in South American companies or liberating a country for financial benefit.

STILL don't get it? This had nothing gto do with the UK per se - it was a few out of control soldiers.

Its evidence that while you claim to be liberating Iraq, you are selling its ports and oil off to American companies in the background.

This is simply a total bald-faced lie - Iraqi Oil is controlled by by the Iraqi Oil Ministry, the US has nothing to do with it.

 

[ilikeboobs]

The people of Burma (illegitimately renamed "Myanmar" by the equally illegitimate regime which runs it) are suffering tremendously because the thugs who run it won't let aid workers into the country. The regime has no substantial popular support. This regime would be an excellent target for an international expeditionary force.

While I normally agree with you, this is one of those instances where I would say to you that Burma is the world's problem, not the US's problem.
If the world (read UN) wants to do something about this, they might...in about 100 years...long after hundreds of thousands are tortured and murdered.

Good thing the UN is a morally upstanding group of great people who only want what's best for the world!

Thhhpppttt!!!
(me spitting on a UN flag)


If the US gets involved in any way possible, we'll be blamed for everything that goes wrong. You and I both know it. So to those ingrates out there who hate it when other nations try to help, I salute you with a great big middle finger.

 

[Libsmasher]

If the US gets involved in any way possible, we'll be blamed for everything that goes wrong. You and I both know it. So to those ingrates out there who hate it when other nations try to help, I salute you with a great big middle finger.

This would be a chance for this dictator-loving, morality-free "world", whose credibility we are supposed to regain, to show that it has even a shred of decency, to not do nothing while so many people are suffering. The US would have a minor ground role, but would be the main source of logistical support and air power. I wouldn't even try to get the UN's help - people have to realize that the UN is an enemy of democracy and freedom, that's why I've called for a new organization to be created, the United Democratic Nations.