View Full Version : a little politics(U.S president race)
Pages :
1
2
3
4
5
6
[
7]
8
9
I'm little scared that my language skill is not good enough to participaty this discussion as equal member :( I found it useless to express my opinion to your posts if I can't explain it, so....
to Havoc:
as far as I know western allies had some little other problems that time, and also USA was not soperpower those times, there were relatively equal powers of France, UK and Germany then was USSR and USA little infront, butit was more strongest of most powerfull states, kinda different situation than today, when it's military haegemon.
To Teutonic knight: Sorry I must laugh at your information that US government didn't support Saddam, tell me that they didn't support Afghan mujahediin's against Soviets and it will be the best joke I've ever heard.
Almost everybody knows that most of oil comming to USA is from american countries, but it won't last for ever and in Persian gulf, there isfar more oil than in America's, in some 30-50years there won't be any oil in America, only in Siberia and Persian gulf. Be sure your government is not so silly to fight for oil because of todays needs. It is question of future and who will controll it in few years.
It's true, that Saudi Arabia and Kuwait financed Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein in the beggining and during Iraq-Iran war (that's reason why Saddam attacked Kuwait in 1991, becaused he simply owed too much to Kuwait), but the eapons were bought from Americans. Better for them to support "lay" dictator of Iraq, than "fundamentalistic/religious" Iran. Saddam was one of very few dictators who were supported by both USSR and USA in 1980's, both against fundamentalistic Iran...
Originally posted by Elewyn
To Teutonic knight: Sorry I must laugh at your information that US government didn't support Saddam, tell me that they didn't support Afghan mujahediin's against Soviets and it will be the best joke I've ever heard.
Yeahh, it's true Elewyn - after the shan of Iran was overthrown, Iran underwent an islamic revolution with its new leader ayatolla khomeni, who came back from his excile in France, i believe it started in 1979 - the U.S had a problem with this because if this revolution spreded to other countries around the persian gulf, then it could threatening the oil supplies from the gulf and into the U.S - the is not, and hasen't been for many years now, able to cover it vast comsumption of oil by its own production - so in order to secure its supply of oil they supported Iraq, because at that time it was "the first line of defence" against the iranian islamic fundamentalists - they did it by supplying Saddam with intelligens, money and firearms.
Regarding the situation in Afghanistand it was almost the same situation except that here they tried to prevent the USSR getting at foothole - ie. they tried to prevent communism from spreading - so they supplied the mujahadins with ground-to-air missiles ( stingers ), because the mujahadins has major problem with moving on the ground while the USSR had the air supremacy - but that ended when they got those stinger missiles.
IMHO, the idea of kicking Saddam's *** wasn't very bad, in fact. People were really freed. The problem is that USA can't keep peace and order in Iraq now and many people are still dying. That's what Bush's administration has to be blamed for.
About USA supporting mujahedins against USSR.
Remember Churchill: "If Hitler would invade hell, I'd offer to make an alliance with devil" (not exactly the same words, I guess:)
That's the same:
Americans made an alliance with Bin Laden(devil) to fight soviets. Simple...
And there is nothing bad in it. That's politics.
Angryminer
13-04-2004, 19:01
That devil-thingy is very short-sighted. In fact the USA are producing their own problems.
I don't think it was a good idea to make Saddam such a thread that we have to send soldiers into their graves now...
There were many lives to be saved - what a pity.
Angryminer
And remeber, USA put him there in the first place...
Good point, Bagpipe :go: but who's sure that today's devil (ally against bigger evil) won't grow to even worse evil tomorrow?
Those alliances (with Stalin in WW2, mujahadiins and Saddam in 1980's) are not to defeat the evil, but to make illusion of fast success by defeating today's enemy hand in hand with tomorrows (General Patton and especially Chrchill) was since 1942 more affraid of Stalin than Hitler. Not about Roosevelt, nor American presidents in 1980's and Bush dynasty.
Only GWB did some progress. Instead of supporting local dictators he tries importing democracy.
Democracy, which is turning into crisis (waht else can be called the situation, when former actors and people with more charisma than political program can succeed in elections such as Terminator), cannot be imported into civilisation which is far somewhere else with strong belief. Russians tried to import western "democracy model in 18th century, but where did it turn? into totally despotic rule of communism which killed 200 millions of people during 80years.
I know it's very uneasy to deal with the fact that supporting local dictator or half-traditional ruler (no ruler.supported-by-west can be traditional, because is forced to use at least little of western civilisation, weapons at least) is a way to Hell and military invasion is way to total chaos in occupied land. Those people want freedom they know, not freedom of western values. When most of Afghan women lost their burkas, they won't be more free, they only loose their tradition, life they lived before, theri roots.
You cannot import democracy based on christianity, ideas of enlightment, positivism and postmodernity now. But temporarily western civilisation cannot live by itself, witohut stealing resources (human or things like oil etc.) from other world. What's that? higher level of development, or some kind of decadence?
I'm not sure. Many terrorists are recruited from 2nd generation of arab imigrants to Europe. Their parents seeked higer level of life, they got it, a little at least. But when traditional guy come into postmodern society where nothing is sure, he and especially his son (who has nothing sure since his birth) won't be satisfied by wealth and power with no better values. Something sure (the faith) is for them more than some abstract freedom where you need to be sure of what you want.
Paople of Iraq now complain they were more free in times of Saddam, when they had to follow rules of one man, but if they do, nothing can righten them. Now they are affraid to go out of their homes. They were far from freedom as we (people of the west) imagin it, but hey were far more free than today.
Many innocent people died before, other were affraid of their job, today many innocent people die, others are affraid of their lives.
Teutonic_Knight
14-04-2004, 00:43
To Teutonic knight: Sorry I must laugh at your information that US government didn't support Saddam, tell me that they didn't support Afghan mujahediin's against Soviets and it will be the best joke I've ever heard.
I don't believe I said that the United States never supported Iraq, what I said was that the United States wasn't even the number three supplier of money or weapons to Iraq, much less the main financing party as is often misquoted. When Iraq invaded Iran who prodded them, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait because they feared the same thing that happened in Iran would happen to them as well, this is admitted by both Kuwaiti and Saudi governments.
Iraq received very little money from the United States in comparison to what Kuwait and Saudi Arabia gave them. The weapons that were chiefly used were German and Soviet made weapons, NOT American so tell me again how did we "arm" Iraq?
America didn't really prove much help at all until they went "open" in 1982 and even then it was to protect shipping, yes oil it that was ALL shipping regardless of what country it was going to or coming from not just American, and they mainly provided intelligence, which is essentially what we did for Britain before Pear Harbor. Once the United States went open that they were supporting Iraq Sadaam tried to broker peace with Iran which Iran refused because they felt they could get some revenge for the Iraqi invasion.
As far as Afghanistan goes, yea we supported the Mujahedeen which started in 1979 which I don't think I ever said we didn't.
We didn’t however support Bin laden as he didn’t get to Afghanistan "indefinitely"(I use this term lightly because he often went between Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan) until around 82 and didn't trust America then either. Most of what Bin Laden used was financed by himself or the Saudi government as he didn't have any need or use for American materials.
Teutonic_Knight
14-04-2004, 01:05
And remeber, USA put him there in the first place...
And whom did the US put into power? If you’re talking about Sadaam then how might we have put him in power? He was thrown in jail by his own party but later released after his cousin intervened on his behalf then rewarded Sadaam with a position as leader of his secret police. Sadaam later made his way up the ladder then, with support of most of the party, asked his cousin al-Bakr to step down and guess what, Bakr did...was it the United States who threatened al-Bakr nope, so please enlighten me as to how we, America, put Sadaam in power?
Originally posted by Elewyn
Almost everybody knows that most of oil comming to USA is from american countries, but it won't last for ever and in Persian gulf, there isfar more oil than in America's, in some 30-50years there won't be any oil in America, only in Siberia and Persian gulf.
This is not entirely correct. The US imports much more than one would think http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/topworldtables3_4.html
Also there are many oil exporters/resources around the world http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/rankings/totimportsby_country.htm
sorry when i made this thread i didnt think every 1 would jump on the Americans and blame them for all the problems in the world today. I persenally give all the Americans that might have been hert here a very Big sorry(im sure every 1 feels the same way)
Very sorry 4 this thread....:(
Originally posted by Rnett
This is not entirely correct. The US imports much more than one would think http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/topworldtables3_4.html
Also there are many oil exporters/resources around the world http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/rankings/totimportsby_country.htm
well all i get from the links is that so long as America has Canada its all good!!!(so Americans meet Your nabour to the North Havoc :hug:)
Sorry. I don't wanna blame Americans for all world's problems. I don't think it's their fault. I only want point out that many of THEIR problems were made mainly by their own not so well considered foreign policy.Almost everybody knows that most of oil comming to USA is from american countries, but it won't last for ever and in Persian gulf, there isfar more oil than in America's, in some 30-50years there won't be any oil in America, only in Siberia and Persian gulf. Be sure your government is not so silly to fight for oil because of todays needs. It is question of future and who will controll it in few years.
Originally posted by Rnett
This is not entirely correct. The US imports much more than one would think http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/topworldtables3_4.html
Also there are many oil exporters/resources around the world http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/rankings/totimportsby_country.htm That explains very much.
Some my notes to this:
1) I meant my post asreaction to Teutonic knight who said USA has no serious interests in Mid-east's oil. I wrote it to lower the importance of oil there. Here we can see that oil's role there is more than significant
2) Oh, how could USA import oil from Iraq (7th biggest importer!)when there was embargo by UnitedNations? :scratch:
I must agree that main supporter and supplyer of Saddam in 1980's were Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, but tell me, what is Saudi Arabia? Main American ally in Middle East (after Israel, ofcourse, but it can be defined that USA is ally of Israel, and Israel is american trade and military customer). Saudi Arabia is today a state from which global terorism is getting most of money, but without Saidi oil, what will USA do?
But why invade my main trade partner which is loyal to me? (terrorism is not supplied officially, but inofficially and from oil trade).
And do you think that US intelligence services didn't agreed with that supplies to Iraq?Do you think that american governments were that silly to let geow some dictatorship in so important region without theiragreement? All, Kuwait, SA and USA were able to do everything to stop islamic revolution in region with importance of Middle east(Saudi and Kuwaitian own region)
George Bush in 1990's didn't dethoroned Saddam because he knew that import of democracy to islamic society will bring only totall chaos and instability. But when GWB now needed some argument for war, he must try to import democracy there. If his reason was: "dethronisation of Saddam, because he has weapons of mass destruction (had them really?-if yes, so already destroyed it, he's not silly like...)and puting another dictator, loyal to USA," none of his allies will support him, maybe only czech and Poland's government (and their only reason is to get some stronger position in Europe as main american ally in Europe after UK and Spain-Poland, and personal ambitions of czech (former-)defense and foreign ministers), but nobody, including Tony Blair will go to war to help somebody other!!
GWB: "will you go with me to war aggainst Saddam?"
Tony Blair, Leszek Miller(pol), Vladimir Spidla(cze): "and what will WE have from such a war?"
GWB: "Disloyal Saddam will be replaced by dictator loyal to ME."
Tony Blair: "no, thanks"
Miller and Spidla: "Yes, that's great. We're going with you"
:D
We must frist get that western democracy is system for western countries, possible with some little changes in South Africa, Russia, Japan and India, but not in islamic and african states and China
niether south Korea not Taiwan is democracy of western standards!!!!
PS: I can simply imagine what will happen if Saudi government asks americans to leave their military bases in SA and will behave disloyal: invasion. But this won't happen until a smart guy rules in SA. Why to provoke "my" main trade partner who can (and after some provements of disloyality WILL) invade my country. It's better to sell him my oil and get money from it ;)
timurlenk
14-04-2004, 10:56
Originally posted by Havoc
sorry when i made this thread i didnt think every 1 would jump on the Americans and blame them for all the problems in the world today. I persenally give all the Americans that might have been hert here a very Big sorry(im sure every 1 feels the same way)
Very sorry 4 this thread....:(
hmm... :scratch:
1.
im sure most of people here can differentiate between american people and usa government.
2.
who said america is responsible for all problems in the world? of course its not!
@ elewyn
reagan was an actor too...
I can see that there are many post about basicaly saying we don't like America ! well, that isn't the truth - the major problem with america today is its foregin policy seen from a european point of view ( and probably the rest of the world too )
we tend to forget that lots of us has much to thank america and its citizens for also like: help ending both WW1 & WW2 - the marshall plan that helped europe regain its strength after the WW2 - and keeping us safe from communists expansion into western europe etc.
I'm sure that after the US presindtial election the issues we talk about will be a little different, coz i firmly believe that if John Kerry are elected then the US will change it foregin policy for the better, because lots of both europeans & americans can see that this is not the way to have a "relationship"
- it's just the way i see it :)
hmmmm.. well said :go:
I don't like when disagreement of Europeans is interpreted as manifestation of hate or dislikeness.
"You don't agree with me? why? because you don't like me or you are not as smart as I am", but the reason is simple-only different point of view. And it's not fault of the rest of the world that disagree with your foreign polica. Maybe is not as smart as you are, that's possible.
America owes to Europe it's colonisation and foundation of system of values, free Europe the help in WW's.
Clever as always, Elewyn.
I see you have probably read Huntington's "The Clash of Civilizations", or heard about it. Democracy is the product of Western civilization and can't be succesfully adapted to other civs, such as Russian (recent elections), Islamic (no coment) and others. It was Bush's mistake to explain his war as "export of democracy".
Lithuania is also a member of Anglo-American coalition and I must say, most people here support it, especially youth. You see, we are still worrying about our eastern neighbours (and not without reason, IMO), so want to be protected from potential threats. Idea: to atack Lithuania, or any member state of NATO (where USA dominates - have to say it), means to atack NATO, means to atack USA. That's the reason.
During some periods of XXc Eastern european countries, which were "liberated" by soviets, suffered most brutal ocupation. In those dark periods USA was seen as a symbol af freedom. After WW2 most subjugated Lithuanian people were PRAYING FOR WAR, between Western Allies and soviets. But this hasn't happened and it couldn't has (even now, there are some older people, who blame American for not helping our partisans). This is why Eastern European countries express such support to all USA actions.
Originally posted by Bagpipe
During some periods of XXc Eastern european countries, which were "liberated" by soviets, suffered most brutal ocupation. In those dark periods USA was seen as a symbol af freedom. After WW2 most subjugated Lithuanian people were PRAYING FOR WAR, between Western Allies and soviets. But this hasn't happened and it couldn't has (even now, there are some older people, who blame American for not helping our partisans). This is why Eastern European countries express such support to all USA actions.
------------------
------------------
Yeah.. USA especially for Baltic States has been as country of freedom but these country's as Britain and USA didn't help as when we really needed them but was our ally for freedom. And freedom we got not due USA but due our selfs we got back that what we fight for and i don't like when someone say that we(Baltic States) got our freedom thanks to USA or some other country.
Our best freedom fight was when all the Baltic States get together and take their hands together and make a line from Lithuania till Estonia(in middle Latvia)
Angryminer
14-04-2004, 22:09
Just a short comment on "PRAYING FOR WAR":
Nuclear weapons are pretty bad. Glad that there was no WWIII...
Angryminer
Originally posted by Angryminer
Just a short comment on "PRAYING FOR WAR":
Nuclear weapons are pretty bad. Glad that there was no WWIII...
Angryminer
Also glad. If there would have been WWIII, big chance I wouldn't sit here and right this post now.
My short comment: USSR obtained nuclear bomb only in 1949 and before (from 1945) there wasn't any threat of selfdestructive nuclear atack. However, there were many people in Baltic states, who thought democratic countries will not let to "rape" small states. But there was Jalta and so on and so force... you now.
Teutonic_Knight
15-04-2004, 02:09
1) I meant my post asreaction to Teutonic knight who said USA has no serious interests in Mid-east's oil. I wrote it to lower the importance of oil there. Here we can see that oil's role there is more than significant
I said that we were trying to become less dependant upon ME oil which we are and have been. You said, everybody knows America gets most its oil from within the United States. Oil is of strategic importance to most everybody in an industrialized society so to try and differentiate between one country and their love for oil and another is very short sighted. True we are the biggest oil using country by far, but we are also the biggest economy by far as well, so that kind of makes it an automatic that were going to use more petrol.
Oh, how could USA import oil from Iraq (7th biggest importer!)when there was embargo by UnitedNations?
First off Iraq had and oil for food program in which oil was traded for what humanitarians said would be enough to sustain the country and its services. Who is in front of the US? France, Germany, Russia Belgium all receive more oil than the United States does.
All these people saying America is protecting its interest in oil in Iraq and France, Russia, Germany and China are being “good Guys” by not supporting the war need to look into Iraq’s financial pages. Do you know who the top three trade partners of Iraq were before the invasion? I know you don’t because your argument won’t hold water if you did, and well now you will know. In order the top three trading partners in oil, oil revenue via trade deals, and trade in general are: 1) Russia 2) China 3) France. America doesn’t even break the top five. Jordan is Iraq’s largest trade partner excluding all oil and oil relations. Further more Russia alone controlled over 1/3 of all Iraqi oil exports, so I ask you who is protecting whose oil interests?
Saudi Arabia is today a state from which global terorism is getting most of money, but without Saidi oil, what will USA do?
Without Saudi oil what will most of the world do? If the United States really wanted Iraq for oil then why in the hell would we want a Democratic country in place where we can actually be shut out of trade, why not deal with one all powerful person in form of a dictatorship because it will be a lot easier to broker a deal by catering to that persons ego?
As far as terrorism goes I agree with you on that as most does come out of Syria and Saudi Arabia. However, Saudi Arabia is doing more than you might imagine. Did you know that the Saudi government actually tried to kill Osama Bin Laden in 96?
And do you think that US intelligence services didn't agreed with that supplies to Iraq?Do you think that american governments were that silly to let geow some dictatorship in so important region without theiragreement? All, Kuwait, SA and USA were able to do everything to stop islamic revolution in region with importance of Middle east
I'm sure they knew about them, but do you think they could stop them? Further more your point initially was that America was the main supplier of arms and money which wasn't true at all, not even close. Did Germany, Russia and the other countries that supplied arms to Iraq stop because they were dealing with Sadaam? Certainly not, then why is it fair to try twist and contort facts to blame America when we didn’t even supply a tenth(1/10) of what Iraq had?
Hey, almost every nation in the region feared the same thing; Jordan, UAE, Yemen, it wasn't a conspiracy by what you initially claimed was America then changed it by adding two more other countries.
George Bush in 1990's didn't dethoroned Saddam because he knew that import of democracy to islamic society will bring only totall chaos and instability. But when GWB now needed some argument for war, he must try to import democracy there. If his reason was: "dethronisation of Saddam, because he has weapons of mass destruction (had them really?-if yes, so already destroyed it, he's not silly like...)and puting another dictator, loyal to USA," none of his allies will support him, maybe only czech and Poland's government (and their only reason is to get some stronger position in Europe as main american ally in Europe after UK and Spain-Poland, and personal ambitions of czech (former-)defense and foreign ministers), but nobody, including Tony Blair will go to war to help somebody other!!
I don't think GHB not taking Iraq out has any relevance on what’s going on now. Remember it was the United Nations who said that the only thing the coalition was to do was push Iraq out of Kuwait. Then you have the same people who say GHB should have taken Sadaam out the first time and screw the UN, are now saying we should have listened to the spineless UN and not go into Iraq!
You don't think Democracy can work in the ME, you think everybody should be under the heel of a dictator, or a pitiful Monarchy? I think Democracy can work as shown by Turkey and it's just a matter of time before it happens. If I had to make a choice as to who would likely be next I would say either Egypt or Iran.
vBulletin v3.5.4, Copyright ©2000-2007, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.