How Does A Recurring Billing System...
Business & Finance0 min ago
Are we the good guys?
17 Answers
I mean the west, so well, are we?
Answers
1 to 17 of 17
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by 123everton. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
On balance yes, we ain't whiter than white but we at least don't do this sort of thing:
http://news.bbc.co.uk...outh_asia/8519507.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk...outh_asia/8519507.stm
-- answer removed --
Israel does that, the Germans did in WW2 too.
What got me thinking is this, on B.B.C 4 the other night there was a programme about the Vietnam war and the Gulf Of Tonkin incident was a fabrication, given that most of our imperial wars were prosecuted with a very dubious casus belli (second Anglo Sudanese war, the Red River expedition and the Ashanti war excepted), we are pally with countries like Georgia, we were pally with dictatorships in Chile, Columbia, Argentina, Panama etc, we fought (with the Soviets) proxy wars and now in the absence of an identifiable enemy we are now seeing the emergence of a new kind of warfare.
America has now (I feel) corporatised war, Blackwater is a mercenary army with a governmental mandate but no political impact as it does not involve a government army, it's almost like a updated version of the RAND corporation.
The stories we are told are often untrue, misrepresented or with glaring emitions, should we even believe the story in the link?
I don't know anymore.
What got me thinking is this, on B.B.C 4 the other night there was a programme about the Vietnam war and the Gulf Of Tonkin incident was a fabrication, given that most of our imperial wars were prosecuted with a very dubious casus belli (second Anglo Sudanese war, the Red River expedition and the Ashanti war excepted), we are pally with countries like Georgia, we were pally with dictatorships in Chile, Columbia, Argentina, Panama etc, we fought (with the Soviets) proxy wars and now in the absence of an identifiable enemy we are now seeing the emergence of a new kind of warfare.
America has now (I feel) corporatised war, Blackwater is a mercenary army with a governmental mandate but no political impact as it does not involve a government army, it's almost like a updated version of the RAND corporation.
The stories we are told are often untrue, misrepresented or with glaring emitions, should we even believe the story in the link?
I don't know anymore.
Jake does have a point, we destroyed a restaurant in Baghdad believing Saddam to be there, never mind the other tables, never mind the staff, never mind the neighbours, in the first Gulf war the enemy occupied Kuwait, so we bombed Baghdad, Iraq bombed Israel and that was viewed as odd.
The NWFP of Pakistan is bombed reguarly by us, Pakistan is a neutral sovreign country, yet we bomb it without (as far as I'm aware) presidential or parliamentary mandate (Pakistani), at least Laos had peace campaigners demonstrating against the bombing of the Ho Chi Minh trail.
In the recent Russo Georgian war, where in the western media was it mentioned about the Georgian incursions into the demilitarised zones of South Ossetia?
Even when one views that war on the ground, the area wasn't annihilated, there was no shock and awe in Georgia, and yet Russia were the bad guys we were informed.
The NWFP of Pakistan is bombed reguarly by us, Pakistan is a neutral sovreign country, yet we bomb it without (as far as I'm aware) presidential or parliamentary mandate (Pakistani), at least Laos had peace campaigners demonstrating against the bombing of the Ho Chi Minh trail.
In the recent Russo Georgian war, where in the western media was it mentioned about the Georgian incursions into the demilitarised zones of South Ossetia?
Even when one views that war on the ground, the area wasn't annihilated, there was no shock and awe in Georgia, and yet Russia were the bad guys we were informed.
There is a point, also, in what Sal is saying, Israel is a strategic partner of the west, they developed nuclear weapons in secret, imprisoned Mordechai Vanunu and blew up The Star Of David hotel, their assassins have roamed the world reguarly excelling in ex judicial killings (the first Iraq war was preceded with one), yet, Iran and North Korea are bad for developing nuclear technology.
Whilst we reside in blissful ignorance of the S.A.L.T 1 treaty (signed by the U.S) that makes this issue so complicated.
Whilst we reside in blissful ignorance of the S.A.L.T 1 treaty (signed by the U.S) that makes this issue so complicated.
I'm not being specific SQAD, I'm not concentrating solely on Iraq or Afghanistan I'm talking about foreign policy in general, "are we right" is a subjective question, right for whom? Do we in the west have the right to decide for others their leaders?
What would Iran be like now if we'd left Mossadeq in power?
How about the Sandanistas?
Legally elected as the government in Nicaragua, an election viewed as free an fair by the U.N no less, and yet the day after the election we were spoon fed a lie.
"Migs To Nicaragua" remember that?
What would Iran be like now if we'd left Mossadeq in power?
How about the Sandanistas?
Legally elected as the government in Nicaragua, an election viewed as free an fair by the U.N no less, and yet the day after the election we were spoon fed a lie.
"Migs To Nicaragua" remember that?
everton, I am not being specific either.
Each conflict and each theatre if war tend to have different criteria to consider.
Who assesses the situations? the Government of the time and the Heads and Chief of General Staff.
You must know that the decision that you collectively have made, is the correct one.........even if it turns out to be .......the wrong one.
Each conflict and each theatre if war tend to have different criteria to consider.
Who assesses the situations? the Government of the time and the Heads and Chief of General Staff.
You must know that the decision that you collectively have made, is the correct one.........even if it turns out to be .......the wrong one.
I'm sorry Sqad, you've completely lost me, I understand circumstances and political expediency, on that basis Germany was right to retake the Sudatenland, right to take the remainder of Czechoslavakia and had a rightful claim to the Polish corridor, the last one being the pretext for the whole Second World War.
Similarly Iraq could have claimed sovreign legitimatacy over Kuwait (a British invention), we stayed silent ove East Timor and Indonesia's take over of that country (from Portugal) and Western Sahara (Morrocco) relinquished by Portuigal.
Similarly Iraq could have claimed sovreign legitimatacy over Kuwait (a British invention), we stayed silent ove East Timor and Indonesia's take over of that country (from Portugal) and Western Sahara (Morrocco) relinquished by Portuigal.
LOL.....to say silent or to take action, based on evidence and facts make us "right" and any other countries actions right.
//Germany was right to retake the Sudatenland, right to take the remainder of Czechoslavakia and had a rightful claim to the Polish corridor, the last one being the pretext for the whole Second World War. //
Quite...Hitler and his staff evaluated the situation and made the decision...he was right.
/////Similarly Iraq could have claimed sovreign legitimatacy over Kuwait (a British invention), we stayed silent ove East Timor and Indonesia's take over of that country (from Portugal) and Western Sahara (Morrocco) relinquished by Portuigal.///
For reasons best known to the Governments of Kuwait and the UK, after decisions based on my above reasoning, took no action.
When a decision is made, by whoever. one has to believe that it is the "right" decision.
//Germany was right to retake the Sudatenland, right to take the remainder of Czechoslavakia and had a rightful claim to the Polish corridor, the last one being the pretext for the whole Second World War. //
Quite...Hitler and his staff evaluated the situation and made the decision...he was right.
/////Similarly Iraq could have claimed sovreign legitimatacy over Kuwait (a British invention), we stayed silent ove East Timor and Indonesia's take over of that country (from Portugal) and Western Sahara (Morrocco) relinquished by Portuigal.///
For reasons best known to the Governments of Kuwait and the UK, after decisions based on my above reasoning, took no action.
When a decision is made, by whoever. one has to believe that it is the "right" decision.
Tambo, you're missing the point, did the civil rights marchers hate America?
Of course not, yet Martin Luther King said in a speech that "America is the greatest exporter of death throughout the world."
I study history intently, I study the other side's view and base my opinions on what (I feel) is an even handed basis.
I understand why the fighters resist us, I feel I understand the solution to these problems, I predicted the problems in post Saddam Iraq, but, I don't think our leaders (or some commentators) do.
I tend to feel we are being led into the wrong wars for the wrong reasons and are trying to establish the wrong solutions, which will result in our leaving hastily and for more bloodshed to follow resulting in the return of the "bad" guys to power.
Throughout South America, Africa and some parts of Asia our country and the west in general has been complicit in some of the most appaling and inhumane governments in the 20th century, we're now involved in torture and disappearances, we're (the west) are still involved in militarily supporting dictatorial regimes through qusi state sponsored organisations like Blackwater.
it's wrong.
Of course not, yet Martin Luther King said in a speech that "America is the greatest exporter of death throughout the world."
I study history intently, I study the other side's view and base my opinions on what (I feel) is an even handed basis.
I understand why the fighters resist us, I feel I understand the solution to these problems, I predicted the problems in post Saddam Iraq, but, I don't think our leaders (or some commentators) do.
I tend to feel we are being led into the wrong wars for the wrong reasons and are trying to establish the wrong solutions, which will result in our leaving hastily and for more bloodshed to follow resulting in the return of the "bad" guys to power.
Throughout South America, Africa and some parts of Asia our country and the west in general has been complicit in some of the most appaling and inhumane governments in the 20th century, we're now involved in torture and disappearances, we're (the west) are still involved in militarily supporting dictatorial regimes through qusi state sponsored organisations like Blackwater.
it's wrong.
I doubt there was ever a country, culture, tribe or other grouping that was ever whiter than white. Every country can be criticised for "wrong-doing". What is right is often a question of viewpoint in many wars both sides believe they are in the right.
One view of some of the incidents above would be "the ends justifying the means". I'm not saying in every case this is the case but war is a dirty business and innocent people will get hurt but sometimes what is the alternative.
My personal view on many of the conflicts we are involved in is not so much we are wrong to engage but that we engage for the wrong reasons. Iraq is a prime example, I believe Sadam Hussein should have been removed when he commited genocide against the Kurds. I feel the invasion was a lesser evil than allowing him to remain in power. Catch is the real reason for invading was something very different.
One view of some of the incidents above would be "the ends justifying the means". I'm not saying in every case this is the case but war is a dirty business and innocent people will get hurt but sometimes what is the alternative.
My personal view on many of the conflicts we are involved in is not so much we are wrong to engage but that we engage for the wrong reasons. Iraq is a prime example, I believe Sadam Hussein should have been removed when he commited genocide against the Kurds. I feel the invasion was a lesser evil than allowing him to remain in power. Catch is the real reason for invading was something very different.
I tend to agree with you Rev, but, during the cold war we (principally America) fought the Soviets with foreign armies and vice versa (to be fair) without a real rival ideology we in the west are now prosecuting foreign wars with private corporate armies that our own parliaments won't get to vote on.
At least if you send a national army in, the electorate get a say.
Ilook at some of the regimes we've supported or installed and I dispair, the Shah for one.
At least if you send a national army in, the electorate get a say.
Ilook at some of the regimes we've supported or installed and I dispair, the Shah for one.
-- answer removed --
1 to 17 of 17
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
ChatterBank4 mins ago
News13 mins ago
News15 mins ago
Uk Diplomats Meet Rebel Leader In...
News20 mins ago
