The US used to be a true world leader though, its people have many admirable features, but the actions of the government that you seem to be defending have pretty much wiped that image
Reagan's hard-line stance and refusal to withdraw nuclear missiles from West Germany was very unpopular at the time but went a long way towards bringing down the Soviet Union and ending the cold war.
Regan was a very belicose president, yes. The Soviet Union collapsed from within, the system went bankrupt and fell by its own weight. Of course external factors had significance, but it mainly came from within, at least in my opinion.
Our 1986 attack on Libya (and subequent covert campaign against terrorist training camps) was condemned by many, but put a virtual end to what had been rampant unchecked terrorism in Europe in the 1980s.
Terrorism in Europe Did not end. The most recent evidence that it didn't is 3/11, but there are more examples throughout the 90s that it didn't.
In the 1990s, over both domestic and virulent foreign opposition we finally stepped in and ended and ethnic cleansing and genocide campaign in the Balkans.
It hasn't ended. The US came, destroyed everything and left. Nothing improved there. Don't take my word for it if you don't want to, ask pegla whose father is from there and who's been there since the US devastated it. If the US makes 90% destruction, and then 30% reconstruction it doesn't even out. it's like having a leg amputated over an ingrown toenail.
Confronting and going to war with Hussein in 1990 was definitely not popular, but if we hadn't... he would have taken over the Gulf, gained a strangehold over the region's (and thus world's) oil reseves and gone to war with all his WMDs against Israel. Use your imagination as to the kind of bloodbath that would have resulted.
Not everybody is out to get Israel, even if it may seem that way. I imagine Hussein taking over some surrounding countries, yes. Blood being shed, very likely. More or less blood than is being wasted right now? Not necesarily. It most likely wouldn't be American blood, and the point where we both agred there may be a legitimate case to be nosey is to protect the nationals' security.
I really don't think Chavez needs much US help to have riots and rebellions, given the class warfare he's been trying to provoke. He's authoritarian, a marxist and anything but a friend of democracy and human rights.
If he doesn't need the US help for riots and rebelions then why is the US giving that help? Help that even his oppressors have not asked for. They rather have their own authoritarian than a US puppet. Of course they may prefer to kick Chavez out themselves and elect their own next president.
> Granted, the people that say "they should help, but only when it's needed, and stay out otherwise and afterwards" have double standards and are stupid, you can't have your cake and eat it too =P On this we agree. When we do good nobody remembers, but when we do bad nobody forgets...
Yeah, but the good comes with big strings attached. In the 1800s Mexico was at war with France (that is what 5 de Mayo is all about, BTW). The Mexican president before France invaded, Benito Juarez, was offered military help by the US to kick the French out. That's mighty nice of the US, isn't it? Well, kind of. There's a very 'thin' part of Mexico between the two oceans The US wanted unrestricted access to that zone for some number of years, I think 200. Comercial and military traffic, and more than that he wanted Mexicans not to have access to that zone. A Mexican trying to go through that part of Mexican territory would need a passport and permission from the US (a sort of Visa). Granted, this was told in advance and it was up to Juarez to go for it or not (for the record he did, but the US congress took so long to sign the bill or whatever it was that the war was nearly over and so the deal called off by then) Of course there was Panama... It's not always this clear, like when the US, or its "world" bank offers money to a country, but then for years to come orders to stop subsidizing on essentials the people need like milk and food.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2005-09-21 04:09 am (UTC)Reagan's hard-line stance and refusal to withdraw nuclear missiles from West Germany was very unpopular at the time but went a long way towards bringing down the Soviet Union and ending the cold war.
Regan was a very belicose president, yes.
The Soviet Union collapsed from within, the system went bankrupt and fell by its own weight. Of course external factors had significance, but it mainly came from within, at least in my opinion.
Our 1986 attack on Libya (and subequent covert campaign against terrorist training camps) was condemned by many, but put a virtual end to what had been rampant unchecked terrorism in Europe in the 1980s.
Terrorism in Europe Did not end. The most recent evidence that it didn't is 3/11, but there are more examples throughout the 90s that it didn't.
In the 1990s, over both domestic and virulent foreign opposition we finally stepped in and ended and ethnic cleansing and genocide campaign in the Balkans.
It hasn't ended. The US came, destroyed everything and left. Nothing improved there. Don't take my word for it if you don't want to, ask
If the US makes 90% destruction, and then 30% reconstruction it doesn't even out. it's like having a leg amputated over an ingrown toenail.
Confronting and going to war with Hussein in 1990 was definitely not popular, but if we hadn't... he would have taken over the Gulf, gained a strangehold over the region's (and thus world's) oil reseves and gone to war with all his WMDs against Israel. Use your imagination as to the kind of bloodbath that would have resulted.
Not everybody is out to get Israel, even if it may seem that way.
I imagine Hussein taking over some surrounding countries, yes. Blood being shed, very likely.
More or less blood than is being wasted right now? Not necesarily.
It most likely wouldn't be American blood, and the point where we both agred there may be a legitimate case to be nosey is to protect the nationals' security.
I really don't think Chavez needs much US help to have riots and rebellions, given the class warfare he's been trying to provoke. He's authoritarian, a marxist and anything but a friend of democracy and human rights.
If he doesn't need the US help for riots and rebelions then why is the US giving that help?
Help that even his oppressors have not asked for. They rather have their own authoritarian than a US puppet.
Of course they may prefer to kick Chavez out themselves and elect their own next president.
> Granted, the people that say "they should help, but only when it's needed, and stay out otherwise and afterwards" have double standards and are stupid, you can't have your cake and eat it too =P
On this we agree. When we do good nobody remembers, but when we do bad nobody forgets...
Yeah, but the good comes with big strings attached.
In the 1800s Mexico was at war with France (that is what 5 de Mayo is all about, BTW). The Mexican president before France invaded, Benito Juarez, was offered military help by the US to kick the French out.
That's mighty nice of the US, isn't it?
Well, kind of. There's a very 'thin' part of Mexico between the two oceans
The US wanted unrestricted access to that zone for some number of years, I think 200. Comercial and military traffic, and more than that he wanted Mexicans not to have access to that zone. A Mexican trying to go through that part of Mexican territory would need a passport and permission from the US (a sort of Visa).
Granted, this was told in advance and it was up to Juarez to go for it or not (for the record he did, but the US congress took so long to sign the bill or whatever it was that the war was nearly over and so the deal called off by then) Of course there was Panama...
It's not always this clear, like when the US, or its "world" bank offers money to a country, but then for years to come orders to stop subsidizing on essentials the people need like milk and food.