And I was just filling in the details... At the end of the day WHY a great power acts matters at times... Further, normally it is only what SOME think is in the national interest which is acted on... There were many Japanese who opposed going to war with America...
On May 21, 5:37 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > jgg, > > What is wring with you? I said the reason made sense to the RUSSIANS > and to THEIR agenda, NOT to ours. > Guess what? It made perfect sense to the Japanese to attack Pearl > Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941. WE had problems with it. Nations/groups act in > what THEY believe to be in THEIR best interests at any given time. > That's WTF we are talking about. I'm not defeding anyone's actions, > just telling you the facts of life. > > On May 21, 12:00 pm, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > To protect their puppet which came about by a coup de tat led by the > > Russians... Unlike Iran, Russia overthrew the exist government in > > Afghanistan while in Iran in 1953 the US stopped a overthrow of the > > Shah by the PM who was seeking to upend the then Constitution... > > > On May 21, 12:09 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > KIT, > > > > Yep, and I'm sure that Russia had a perfectly good reason, according > > > to THEIR goals & interests at the time, to invade Afghanistan as well. > > > Would you not fight an armed invader of YOUR country, no matter what > > > the "good reason", they claimed for doing so? > > > > On May 21, 10:45 am, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > The distinction Holly, is that the United States invaded their land, > > > > because > > > > the Afghanistan (lack of) government allowed for training camps to train > > > > homicidal murderers to fly jet airliners into our skyscrapers, construct > > > > dirty bombs, and in general, to destroy yours and my way of life, as > > > > compared to the Soviets, who invaded Afghanistan as a part of world > > > > domination and a desire to spread Soviet style communism throughout the > > > > world. > > > > > A major distinction. > > > > > On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Hollywood > > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > jgg, > > > > > > Uh yeah, they changed from killing Russians invading their land to > > > > > killing Americans & Brits invading their land. Thought I had explained > > > > > that. > > > > > > On May 21, 9:54 am, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Or maybe it depends on the circumstance... Like how OBL and AQ > > > > > > changed over the years... Another example is supporting Stalin in > > > > > > 1942-45 and fighting him from 1948-1953... Why the change??? > > > > > > Simple > > > > > > Stalin's actions post WWII... > > > > > > > On May 21, 10:26 am, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > jgg, > > > > > > > > WHAT arguement of "because we helped S.H. we are responsible for > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > end result?" Look at my posts, what I ACTUALLY said. Where did I > > > > > > > say > > > > > > > any such thing? > > > > > > > OF course our political policy is based on what is convient for > > > > > > > us at > > > > > > > the moment. One decade Osama Bin Laden is a "deeply religious > > > > > > > freedom > > > > > > > fighter" another decade the same man is a "murdering Muslim > > > > > > > terrorist". All depends on wheter he's killing Russians or Brits > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > Americans. Duuuuuuh. > > > > > > > > On May 20, 10:31 am, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Another of your straw-men Hollywood... Especially as I never > > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > been of the attitude ""your either for us or against us"... > > > > > > > > Neither > > > > > > > > was Bush for that matter... Now the LW anti-war fringe WAS and > > > > > > > > IS... > > > > > > > > Hence Pelosi's new dance step... > > > > > > > > > Now my point with Russia IS and was, geopolitical alliance > > > > > > > > normally > > > > > > > > are temporary based on convenience... As was our help to > > > > > > > > Saddam, > > > > > > > > our interest was not to let either Iraq nor Iran win... And > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > policy drove our actions... Second, the arms we supplied > > > > > > > > helped us > > > > > > > > and the Russians defeat Hitler --- the question here is the > > > > > > > > refusal > > > > > > > > of Russia to WITHDRAWAL to its pre war borders WAS a > > > > > > > > consequence of > > > > > > > > that win... This included incorporating the Baltic and much of > > > > > Poland > > > > > > > > into USSR... > > > > > > > > > ANd the argument used with with Saddam is BECAUSE we helped > > > > > > > > him, WE > > > > > > > > are responsible for the end result... Applying that logic to > > > > > > > > WWII, > > > > > > > > we were responsible for 40 years of repression in Eastern > > > > > > > > Europe... > > > > > > > > Now I reject that line of reasoning in the cases of Russia > > > > > > > > during WWI > > > > > > > > and Saddam post 1987... The issue here do you also reject the > > > > > > > > reasoning??? If so the issue of our limited help to Saddam in > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > 80's is a none issue... If you accept that logic, then you > > > > > > > > logically > > > > > > > > must hold we are guilty of repressing Eastern Europe for 40 > > > > > > > > years... > > > > > > > > > On May 20, 10:16 am, Hollywood <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > jgg, > > > > > > > > > > NOW you want to resign the black/white world of "your either > > > > > > > > > for us > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > against us" George Bush? > > > > > > > > > OH, we didn't want Russia it win against Germany, we only > > > > > > > > > wanted to > > > > > > > > > help them avoid defeat? When Russian tanks were rumbling thru > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > street of Berlin, hundreds of miles west of their borders, we > > > > > > > > > were > > > > > > > > > merely helping them avoid defeat and destruction? Read a > > > > > > > > > history > > > > > book, > > > > > > > > > Russia help US to avoid defeat in Europe. > > > > > > > > > > On May 20, 8:55 am, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Yes Hollywood, in the grown-up game of geopolitics that is a > > > > > > > > > > significant difference... In your Ivory Tower of > > > > > > > > > > perfection, > > > > > > > > > > Ideology must remain pure by using only "moral" methods... > > > > > > > > > > In > > > > > WWII, > > > > > > > > > > we allied with a Totalitarian tyrant not quite as dangerous > > > > > > > > > > as > > > > > Hitler, > > > > > > > > > > Stalin, to beat Hitler... We supplied him arms so he would > > > > > > > > > > not > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > defeated... > > > > > > > > > > > And Stalin used them to take over Eastern Europe after the > > > > > > > > > > war... > > > > > By > > > > > > > > > > your standards, we are responsible for Stalin post war, even > > > > > though he > > > > > > > > > > stopped being an ally in 1945... Problem is, that is not > > > > > > > > > > how > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > world works... > > > > > > > > > > > On May 19, 7:31 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > jgg, > > > > > > > > > > > > Ohhh, we were not helping him to WIN, we were merely > > > > > > > > > > > helping > > > > > him to > > > > > > > > > > > avoid DEFEAT. > > > > > > > > > > > Well, that makes all the difference in the world. > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 19, 3:33 pm, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Our support to SH in the 80's was limited to proventing > > > > > > > > > > > > his > > > > > defeat by > > > > > > > > > > > > Iran. 95%+ of SH weapons came from the USSR or its > > > > > satellites... A > > > > > > > > > > > > majority of the rest came from France and Germany... > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 19, 3:35 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a way, it was, for our support of SH during the > > > > > Iraq-Iran war. We > > > > > > > > > > > > > tend to eliminate those who illustrate our political > > > > > conscience. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Panama. Cuba. El Salvador. USSR. etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 19, 1:35 pm, Hollywood > > > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > jgg, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, S.H's Iraq was NOT an immediate and dangerous > > > > > > > > > > > > > > threat > > > > > that needed > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to be removed? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 19, 12:56 pm, jgg1000a <[email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, the Iraqi War was NOT principally about WMD > > > > > (using your non > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > UNSC definition)... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 18, 5:52 am, VT VirtualTruth < > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You really don;t read or pay attention to the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > news do > > > > > you? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You fools said the same things about WMD's > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that mistake only cost 4000 US lives and maimed > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > only 30,000. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When Republicans make mistakes Americans die. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good track record you got going there. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 17, 10:17 am, Keith In Tampa < > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sean, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, this is really what it boils down to, as I > > > > > suspicioned. What you are > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > really saying is, "I Hate Bush, But I Don't > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Know > > > > > Why". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What transpired at Abu Gharib is not at all > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what > > > > > transpired with enhanced > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > interrogation techniques by the CIA. The Army > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > has > > > > > no mechanism other than > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the Army Field Manual to interrogate > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prisoners. > > > > > Those individuals were > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prosecuted because they were outside of Army > > > > > regulations. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 3:26 AM, VT > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VirtualTruth > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we tried the little guys for what > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > happened at > > > > > Abu Gharib > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > then the precedent has already been set for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > ENTIRE > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bush Administration. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe Nixon was also Impeached for his > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > crimes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > during the Vietnam war. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nixon resigned rather than face impeachment > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > his crimes > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > while in office, and Republicans pushed > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
