What a president we have!

[uneverno]

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
From the British point of view, we didn't have the decency to fight by the "rules of war" - i.e. line up in an open field and wear uniforms. We were cowards who hid in the trees, camouflaged ourselves and ambushed the enemy.
'Course, that's gonna be misconstrued as an anti-American statement, but what can I do about that? It's not my opinion, but it is a historically accurate statement.
Now, in the case of Pinochet and Chile, there was no war. There was no overwhelming flood. There was simply a nation trying to excercise its rights because they percieved us to be exploiting them (i.e. paying less than fair market value for their minerals and labor.) There was no issue whatsoever until we interfered.
The CIA (Under the direction of Henry Kissinger) funded a coup because Allende was considering nationalizing Chilean minerals. How DARE he. We had contracts. That copper and tin belonged to us, not the country from which it originated. So, being the substantial financial risk to US business interests that it was, he was branded a communist. Our solution the the "problem" was to install a military dictator (read fascist.)
This is the same dictator that has been convicted of crimes against humanity by the World Court.
So - before you brand me a communist - Slobidan Milosevic was convicted of the same charges, for the exact same reasons.
Can you seriously defend one over the other? If so, please point out to me what the difference between Milosevic and Pinochet is and, as a follow up, justify why we supported Pinochet, but not Milosevic.

 

[mantisman51]

Yes, there was a communist insurgency in Chile and yes there is a huge difference from Pinochet trying to find enemies of freedom (communists) and the way that communists from China to Vietnam to El Salvador to Nicaragua (you get the picture) have intentionally killed all those who they considered "anti-revolutionary". Let's get some perspective: Chairman Mao-up to 100 million people killed. Stalin-up tp 60 million, mostly Ukranians, killed. I am clear as a bell on this. If someone is an admitted communist, they should be killed. Communism is the worst form of slavery-the body, the mind and the spirit. No political group has killed more people and want total world domination more than communists. Communism and it's fellow-travellers, socialists are a disease that, if unchecked will devour everything we hold dear. #1-The right to think what you want and live what you want. You want to live communist? Go to China, Cuba or North Korea. Oh geez, these Diet Pesi and bourbons are starting to kick in. What was I saying?

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by mantisman51
http:///forum/post/3021995
Oh geez, these Diet Pesi and bourbons are starting to kick in. What was I saying?

I am seriously enjoying the discussion. There is nothing to be learned from agreement.
Let's carry on another time, shall we?

 

[mantisman51]

Indeed. By the numbness of my nose, I ascertain that my BAC is .20 or higher. I shall return, with vigor and stamina to spare, in a few hours.

 

[oscardeuce]

Obama Theme Song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiGPQVUJqq0

 

[oscardeuce]

Looking at history, we've allied ourselves with evil to defeat evil. We were Allies of Stalin. It can be argued Stalin killed more innocents than AH. He was a necessary evil who was then defeated. Well, at least until Communism was changed into Obamaism. We did the same with Hussein, not the POTUS Hussien, but the petty dictator. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a famous quote, and we've been down that road.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3021962
That's funny!

I was responding to the question above my post, which was: "Where does everyone get the idea the U.S. supported Hussein for 30 years before we took him out?"
The question I posed in return was rhetorical as a part of my answer.
Is historical fact dependent on political viewpoint? Or was my answer incorrect?
Where did you supply anything that demonstrates we supported Iraq for 30 years? I certainly doubt we were supporting them at the same time we were supporting Iran before the fundamentalists took control. It was in out best interest not to allow Iran expand their control in the region so we gave Iraq support during their war with Iran. We also supported Bin Laden while the USSR was trying to take over Afghanistan. Politics can make strange bedfellows.
In the case of CHavez there is no reason to grant him any credibility. If we did indeed support groups trying to oust him it appears we were on the right track, he is trying to create Marxist revolutions in other countries. No good can come from that.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3022146
Where did you supply anything that demonstrates we supported Iraq for 30 years?
Post 12
I certainly doubt we were supporting them at the same time we were supporting Iran before the fundamentalists took control. It was in out best interest not to allow Iran expand their control in the region so we gave Iraq support during their war with Iran. We also supported Bin Laden while the USSR was trying to take over Afghanistan. Politics can make strange bedfellows.
http://www.juancole.com/2006/12/for-...n-ways-us.html
Well, you'd be wrong on the supporting both Hussein and the Shah at the same time count. It may or may not have been in our best interests at the time to do both in light of the cold war.
I am attempting to recount history accurately, rather than as the typical liberal revisionist. (Not that conservatives aren't guilty of the same.) As Napoleon said: "The greatest spoil of war is the writing of its history."
In the case of CHavez there is no reason to grant him any credibility. If we did indeed support groups trying to oust him it appears we were on the right track, he is trying to create Marxist revolutions in other countries. No good can come from that.
How does it fall under US purview or right to grant him credibility? We're screwing with the democratically elected president of a sovereign nation.
What if someone else did that to us. What would your opinion of them be?
I don't disagree that it's not good. I just don't think it's any of our business. If it is our business, well heck, let's make them State 51.

 

[reefraff]

Wrong? I don't think so. We severed ties with Iraq in the 60's and didn't start arming them until the 1980's and even then we were also sneaking stuff into the Iranians, we didn;'t want either side to win. Ask yourself this, If the United states had been supporting Iraq why was Iraq's Jets and Tanks all Russian models? There are several time lines available stating the US started arming Iraq around 82.
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.html
http://www.lcsc.edu/elmartin/history...SEl/Tline3.htm
http://www.csun.edu/~vcmth00m/iraqkuwait.html
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/a...rming_iraq.php

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3022184
Post 12
How does it fall under US purview or right to grant him credibility? We're screwing with the democratically elected president of a sovereign nation.
What if someone else did that to us. What would your opinion of them be?
I don't disagree that it's not good. I just don't think it's any of our business. If it is our business, well heck, let's make them State 51.
Nothing wrong with our country supporting those who oppose crack pots like CHavez through the political process. And foreign governments do attempt to interfere with the political process in this country.
If a leader is meddling in another countries affairs like Chavez does how far do we let them go? Chavez has sent troops into Columbia. If we have a agreement with the Columbia government for aid it is perfectly reasonable to expect us to take some kind of action against them. At this point Chavez has pretty much eliminated the democracy so he is just another dictator anyway. Before the "election" he shut down the opposition media.

 

[uneverno]

I stand corrected on Iraq.
Ironically, in their war, our allies were using Russian equipment, while our enemies had a whole lot of ours left over from the Shah... Musta been a great coup for the CIA to get an up close look at the stuff.
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3022377
If a leader is meddling in another countries affairs like Chavez does how far do we let them go?
Perhaps that's a question for Saddam Hussein.
Or maybe we could rattle our sabers at President Assad for his meddlings in Lebanon. Or maybe at Prime Minister Medvedev for his meddlings in Georgia.
Point is, we do what we deem best for our own National Interests, and then turn around and point fingers at others for doing the same in theirs. Pragmatically, I don't have a particular problem with that. Politics is nothing if it's not hypocritical.

 

[mantisman51]

uneverno, I could agree with what you said, except one glaring problem. We are supporting democracy and the will of the people to govern themselves. The folks you mentioned are dictators and/or communist/socialists trying to use their leverage to enslave the people. That is a world of difference and what makes what we do right and what they do wrong. Our self-interest is generally the well-being of others.

 

[uneverno]

Wwwweeeelllll,
I've lived in countries where it hasn't been, and we're not always about supporting democracy.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3022531
I stand corrected on Iraq.
Ironically, in their war, our allies were using Russian equipment, while our enemies had a whole lot of ours left over from the Shah... Musta been a great coup for the CIA to get an up close look at the stuff.
Perhaps that's a question for Saddam Hussein.
Or maybe we could rattle our sabers at President Assad for his meddlings in Lebanon. Or maybe at Prime Minister Medvedev for his meddlings in Georgia.
Point is, we do what we deem best for our own National Interests, and then turn around and point fingers at others for doing the same in theirs. Pragmatically, I don't have a particular problem with that. Politics is nothing if it's not hypocritical.
Thing is it is in nobody's interest except for a few in charge to have Marxism spread. If CHavez wants to donate to political campaigns in other countries there isn't a lot we can or should do about that. But when he meddles in that countries affairs that is a different story. We shouldn't do that either.