Posted on 08/27/2014 6:58:48 AM PDT by elhombrelibre
Do you mean, like Abraham Lincoln kept the South in check?
The Confederates wanted to join Mexico, and the Mexicans supplied them with arms, training, and equipment? Whoo boy.
Here it is straight up.... you who blame America for everything making us out to be the bad guys and Putin and Russia the good guys are traitors to our nation, the USA. Go! Go to Russia, get the &#@?$ out! When we get to a shooting war with Russia you can pick up a AK-47 and fight along side your hero Putin. Your words betray your allegiance.
“Did we? Saddam was shooting next to hospitals, or on top of them, or next to schools and mosques.”
All is fair in love or war as they say. Or are you going to haul the US in front of the international courts for our bombing of Dresden during WWII killing thousands of civilians (women and children too!). A city that had no strategic or military value but was simply done to “demoralize” the enemy.
but that’s beside the point, we never should have gone in there to begin with. We had our chance during the first gulf war and Bush Sr. blew it. There was no reason to go in there again so all those deaths are on our hands and not Saddam’s. We made this mess and the fall out from it will continue for some time.
“When we get to a shooting war with Russia you can pick up a AK-47 and fight along side your hero Putin. Your words betray your allegiance.”
WHEN?!? You better hope that it’s never! If we ever get in a shooting war with Russia it’ll be lights out for both the US and Russia as however starts to lose will go nuclear.
As far as the US being the bad guy, yes we have. Does it matter who is “right” and who is “wrong”. Not much, the only thing that matters is who benefits. Who benefited from our involvement of Vietnam? Who benefited from our invasion of Kosovo? Who benefited from our invasion of Panama? Who benefited from our invasion of Iraq? Who would have stood to benefit from our attempted invasion of Syria? If it was not the US then they were wrong to do that and it was a waste of US lives.
You just got done condemning the United States for "killing more people than Saddam," and then, in response to Saddam shooting next to hospitals and the like, you reply "All is fair in love or war." You then add "Or are you going to haul the US in front of the international courts for our bombing of dresden". You do understand the contradiction in these reactions, yes? On the one hand, condemning us for mass murder. On the other hand, defending Saddam for using human shields, and then making me the person who wants to "haul the United States to international court." It is like you have switched our roles entirely.
but that’s beside the point, we never should have gone in there to begin with.
This seems like the barely rational things liberaltarians or liberals themselves say. What matter is "why" you believe we should not have gone in there to begin with. Saying "Well, we should have finished the job the first time" isn't a real reason why we can't finish the job later.
Furthermore, there are no moral or legal reasons why we should not have gone in. Saddam Hussain had violated the agreements he himself signed on to, and we had every right to take him out. He was also a monster. The only real objection that can be made for invading Iraq is this one: the strategic, and nothing more than this.
In such a case, you have no reason to justify Russian aggression against Ukraine based on our actions in Iraq, unless you want to say that it is okay for Russia to commit atrocities because we bombed Dresden in WWII. You might as well cite the trail of tears and our treatment of the Indians, while you're at it.
Dresden did have strategic military value...this fella here put together a really good synopsis of it’s value here:
http://www.answers.com/Q/Why_do_you_think_the_bombing_of_dresden_is_controversial
In addition, BushI was only able to generate the much needed and required support of Arab nations in the “coalition” during DS because he made explicit guarantees that unseating Saddam was not the objective.
Getting Iraq out of Kuwait was...thus, if he had pursued Saddam, we may very well found ourselves “surrounded” by hundreds of thousands of pissed off Arabs.
In addition, the airbases we were using may well have found ourselves in dire straights since security was heavily augmented by the locals...
Saddam made his mess, he went to war with Iran, bankrupted his country and tried to “steal” Kuwait in order to use their oil to rebuild...
Thanks for the post!
yqw...
“You just got done condemning the United States for “killing more people than Saddam,” and then, in response to Saddam shooting next to hospitals and the like, you reply “All is fair in love or war.” “
You don’t seem to understand the point I was making and probably won’t even if I explain it again but the first statement was in response to someone’s justification for going into Iraq in the first place which was something along the lines of “He’s evil killing his own people, we have a moral right to stop him from killing his people” to which I responded that we’ve killed more Iraqi’s than he ever did so that kind of invalidates that argument. Get it now? or do you need something even simpler like crayon drawings?
We went in there the first time to kick Saddam out of Kuwait which was in our interests as we did not want any one in total control of all the ME oil. We chose to stop so that’s where it should have ended.
As far as everything else you seem to have a blind spot for US interventions, how about Cambodia? 2 million Cambodians wasn’t enough? Or Rwanda? 1/2 million wasn’t enough? If we have no interests in that country then we should not involve ourselves and even George Washington warned against “foreign entanglements” so I would guess that he too would be considered anti-American by your standards.
Every nation acts in it’s own interests and the strong will always dominate the weak. We’ve been the strong ones but we’ve wasted that strength on useless adventures where we had no interests. The Ukraine is one of those places, we have no interests there so we should just stay out of it.
“Dresden did have strategic military value...this fella here put together a really good synopsis of it’s value here:”
The winners write the history books, my uncle was one of the B-17 pilots that bombed that city and even he said it was wrong and apologized to a couple of German tourists (that survived the bombing there) that were visiting us at the time in the 1960’s.
Yeah, well, the one thing Dresden was to forever quench the Germans’ thirst for war.
never say never. Just look at the Japanese.
Did you read the synopsis?
If you did, you would see that military and civilian records from GERMANY were used to support many of the commenter’s assertions...
The canard that Dresden had no military value is revisionist history...
And btw, the Germans STARTED it by bombing civilian centers of population in England!
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Armchair generals can critique their predecessors and accuse them of war crimes when they weren’t present during the actual war or the discussions leading up to the selection of targets and why.
Was Dresden an unfortunate event causing mass civilian casualties? Sure, but again...there were important reasons for it to be bombed...the German government failed her citizens, I bear no shame nor do I assign any responsibility to any airmen who flew missions over Germany.
http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=55
You were responding to me, though you invented a strange quote to express my position. Which I already responded to, by disputing that we "killed more people than Saddam," since Saddam was using his people as human shields. How can our strikes against Saddam's military, which used human shields, be morally equivalent to Saddam murdering people, or Putin murdering people? Right now, you are only repeating what you said before, making us out to be mass murderers.
If we have no interests in that country
We have plenty of interests in the middle east, but this again only confirms what I said before. There is no moral or legal reason to not kill Saddam, only strategic. What you are trying to claim is that what we did to Saddam was immoral (we killed more people), and, therefore, we should mind our business and let Russia be immoral and illegal. This doesn't work for obvious reasons.
The Ukraine is one of those places, we have no interests there so we should just stay out of it.
You are basically an idiot. How do we have no interests in Ukraine when it is being reabsorbed into a new Soviet Union, a mortal enemy of the United States? To sit by and allow Russia to rape and pillage another Democratic and European country is just to invite him to do it some more.
Russia is already at war with the west. Russians have lost their hold on Ukraine because Ukrainians want no alignment with Russia ... Ukrainians want to align themselves with the west. This is something Putin and Russian/soviet doctrine cannot accept, thus the invasion of Ukraine.
We can and so far are, watch and do nothing but this will escalate to military action between US and Russia. The weaker we act the less advantage we will have when the fight is at hand. Reagan understood this, while Obama and people like you live in some other world where the US must be hamstrung as Russia, China and radical Islam replace us as the world power.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.