Hi Patrick,

I certainly appreciate and respect that you hate it when people attack the U.S., but I hate it when the U.S. attacks other countries for no good reason. And yes, I have visited countries where the U.S. has bases, and also have friends who were stationed overseas who did not always feel welcome in those countries.

If anyone else is confused about this post...you can get "unconfused" by seeing the beginning of this thread in Local Items/ Venezuela Threat...

Alex, I spend to many years on or around the borders of Germany in the 80's to know that we where wanted right there.

I might not alway agree with what the power of the higher be do, but i will never ever speak ill about this great country that we live in. Go to some of these other country and try to say some of the stuff that get said here and you would be history. Gone and never ever heard from again. Some people just don't know the real truth about what goes on in some of these 3rd world country's nor do they care. You have that freedom to speak and say what you what because somebody died to give you that right, and you did not earn it, it was given to you freely by being born in this great country. I have a bad temper when people attack or say some of the thing they do with out first thinking about who died to give you that right. Go serve in the military and take the oath to defense the constitution, to me that was one of the greatest things that i ever did for my country to defend it and protect it, so you can see why i'm very touchy about people taking pot shot at this great country. SORRY IF I HAVE OFFEND ANYONE WITH MY RANT!!!!!

edited...double post



(Message edited by dean on March 30, 2006)

Yes the freedom to say what we wish. Then if someone exercises that right and disagrees with your views and what you see as the truth, then that person is attacking the United States?

Is the right to disagree only honored when it is not used?

Alex,

Will you please clarify for me your statement
********
but I hate it when the U.S. attacks other countries for no good reason.
********
What particular instances are you speaking of?

Since I have always been connected to the US Military, I am afraid my line of sight is a little different than yours.

I am thankful that you lived in the US long enough to be able to have the choice of staying or leaving and you were able to act upon your feelings to change the quality of your life. I wish all the people in the world could have your choices.

Dean have you followed this from the beginning if not please take a look.

Dean have you taken the oath. If not find it and read it.

Patrick, discourse is better served by debateing the message and not the messenger.

What in particular have I said that you disagree with?

Ok folks, was going to stay out of this...but have to put in my two cents...actually it's the two cents I've paraphrased from author Louis de Bernieres from one of his novels set in a fictitious South American country...but it applies to every country...There are two types of patriotism. The first one often called nationalism: nationalists believe that all other countries are inferior in every respect and that one would do them a favor by dominating them. Believing that all other countries are in the wrong, less free, less civilized, prone to falling for alien ideologies which no reasonable person could believe, are irreligious and abnormal. Such patriots are the most common variety and their patriotism is the most xenophobic, and accordingly one of the worst things on earth. The second type of patriot does not believe "my country, right or wrong" but on the contrary loves his land despite its faults that he so clearly sees and labors to correct. This second type is of the opinion that anyone who supports his country when it is obviously in the wrong or who fails to see its faults is the worst kind of traitor. Whereas the first kind of patriot really glories in his own irrationality and not in his country, the second kind loves his country as a son loves his mother, or a mother/father loves their children...sometimes "tough love" is called for.
That's my two cents...the alignments in this thread are clearly obvious.

Jim which one am I. Would like your opinion. thanks

Greetings to all,

What a can of worms I have opened! To respond so far:

Jane and Dean, well said! Thank you.


Patrick and Yana girl,

I sincerely thank you for your service,Patrick. I am well aware that I was fortunate to have been born in the U.S. and that many have fought to protect my right to free speech and dissent (although I can name several nations who managed to secure this right in a much less bloody fashion--Canada, Switzerland,Sweden,Belgium to name a few--and sadly the right of Americans to speak out is now in some jeopardy, but that’s another debate...). But I am more grateful than you know to those who have served and do serve in the U.S. military. I always will be. And I will continue to be outraged when those people are put in harm’s way when there is in fact no direct threat to the U.S.

It will come as no great shock that I am speaking largely (although not entirely) about Iraq. Let’s face it, if it were truly the ‘threat of weapons of mass destruction’ posed by Iraq to the U.S. that precipitated our invasion of that country, then why not North Korea or Iran? And if it was to ‘bring democracy to a nation ruled by a dictator’ then why not Cuba? Or ‘people being slaughtered’, why not Darfur? Let’s be honest, Iraq has a whole lot of oil, and Saddam embarrassed George H.W.. And, back to the initial topic, the same reasons for invading Iraq, would be valid for invading Venezuela, or any number of other sovereign nations. Where does it stop? When we run out of brave young men & women?

But Iraq is just the latest in a long line. See the list of U.S. wars at:
http://www.historyguy.com/War_list.html#warlist12


In particular I think one could argue that the following should not be regarded as defensive, serving a high moral purpose or coming to the aid of allies important to the national interest: Mexican War, Spanish American War, Philippine American
War, the Banana Wars, intervention in the Russian Civil War, Vietnam, Cambodian and Laotian Wars, Dominican Intervention, aiding Saddam Hussein in the First Gulf War, the Grenada Invasion, the Panama Invasion, and of course the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq.

As Jane so rightly pointed out, no one is likely to change anyone’s mind here, but the process of debate is always healthy.

“Dissent is the highest form of Patriotism”.
Thomas Jefferson

“We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America will die with it.”
Edward R. Murrow

Peace,
Alex

It's Jane that wrote the message, Patrick (but at the rare moment when Jim actually agreed with my opinion). We do feel that classifying people by their beliefs, opinions, race, religion or any other category is not a way we choose to live, and is one of the reasons we now live on Bonaire. You can always learn something from someone. Labeling people or ideas results in living your life with blinders on and failing to make life the wondrous and informative journey that this world offers us to take. That being said, you can be whichever one you choose, we don't choose for you and it doesn't really matter to us which one you choose, your are entitled to be who you are and there's room for all of us in this world.

Darn...I feel like going for a dive

Xenophobia - fear or hatred of strangers or foreigners.

I hate it when she thinks syllogistically and uses words like that but at least she does not advocate eschatological positions!!

Wally,
Me Too,

Alex,
Big can? Nah. The men I work with are having a "ball" with these postings.......I'm known as the "token" bleeding heart at work, when it comes to where and why are our US troops are deployed. It breaks my heart every time I hear of another US life being lost to "help" another country. I work in the flight training field and it gives me chills whenever a helicopter goes down because, more than likely I have spent hours with the aircrew and know them personally.

What I thought I was posting on the other thread was just part of an answer for you, that maybe "we" (US troops) are posted where "we" are because maybe the local government did not want us to leave. I then gave an example to back up my answer. I thought I was agreeing with you....that we do overstay. I did not want to make a general statement that I could not point to and back up. I was not implying there is only one answer. I think maybe now, I am being labeled as a war monger? Not sure? I am really not taking any offense.

In this thread, the statement
********
but I hate it when the U.S. attacks other countries for no good reason.
********
is too broad of a statement for me. I just wanted a non generalized statement with an example to back it up. In my opinion, there can be no generalized statements when it comes to foreign policies. Thank you for your clarification.

Jim and Jane,
I have read and love the books by Louis De Bernieres and really loved his South American trilogy series. I find it interesting that he spent 4 months in the British Army and writes clearly (imo) about aspects of military life. Maybe this came from his experience of living in Colombia? Just plain speculation on my part.

Thank you for your summary.

I was not aware there were any “alignments” taking place on the postings. Just opinions.

Hi Yana Girl,

I apologize if you feel I was labeling you a war monger--it was not and is not my intention to label you or anyone else (except perhaps myself!). I was simply trying to clarify my own position. And regardless of opinions or alignments, I think we are all in unanimous agreement that we would like soldiers to stop dying. Take care, Alex

It has to be said that the US are a law unto themselves when it comes to deciding on who to invade and who not to. Sadly, the decision is rarely made on the basis of who needs the most "help".
There are many countries who's people are in dire need who will never be helped by the US or indeed any other nation that is able to. It is fair to say that many people should be grateful to the USA for the help that they have received over the years but equally, there are many who don't hold them in such high esteem.
The people of Cuba for example would have been well served if the USA had stopped its "illegal" embargo against them years ago. Whether you like the policies of Fidel Castro or not, it is his country and he has never been an unprovoked threat to anyone, yet, America has driven his people into abject poverty. I am sure that their humilliating defeat at the hands of a bunch of farmers at the Bay Of Pigs had nothing to do with it.
You don't need to be a political analyst to see what the future holds. Iraq will or has already become another Vietnam, Iran will get theirs next and Chavez is lined up for it in the near future.

Antony,

Sad but true. Well said.

Alex

Anthony, I have to disagree with you and toss this out for you to consider.

You said the US is a law unto itself when deciding who to invade and who not to. Can't that be said for every country? As example it was Iraq that decided to invade Kuwait and it was Argentinas decision to invade the Fauklands. And at one time in history it was Spain and England that basically invaded everybody else. What about Russia during the days of the Soviet Union? They were in a lot of places that they weren't exactly invited.

Yes there are many people that are in dire need and the decision to invade is rarely based on them. It usually has more to do with national strategic interests than anything else. But that's the case with every invasion by any country.

You're correct when you said that there are going to be people that are unhappy with us. But that's going to be the case no matter what we do. We can't please everybody, nor do I think that we should we try. It usually works out that when you try to please everybody you end up pleasing nobody, least of all, yourself. One thing that should be clear though, governments act to benefit their own people (or themselves) first and other countries or/and their people second. That may seem harsh but it's true in every country. Actually that's the way it should be. When people elect government officials they elect them to look out for their interests first, not those of people in another country.

Now I'm curious when you say the US embargo of Cuba is illegal. Why do you think it's illegal? Yes it's Fidel's country and he can do with it as he pleases. But it's equally fair that if we don't like what he's doing that we should be able to deny him access to our markets if we choose. If the Cuban people wish for us to end the embargo then they need to figure out hoe to get rid of Fidel. Then we can talk about ending the embargo.

I think when you said that Fidel has never been a threat to the US you overlooked when he allowed Soviet nuclear missiles to be stationed in his country in 1963.

As for Iran, it may eventually come to a military confrontation, but I don't think it will be us leading off on this one. In fact it may be Iran that starts it if their nut job president decides to follow through on his openly stated belief that Isreal should be wiped off the face of the map. When you listen to the rhetoric coming from him you have to wonder if that might be what he really wants. He sounds like one of these nuts that would rather go down in a blaze of glory, taking everyone else with him, than try and get along with the rest of the world. We'll just have to wait and see on that one.

As for Chavez, nobody is really interested Chavez. He's really just shooting his mouth off to give his people something to worry about other than him. Right now he can blame everything on us and keep his people distracted and not questioning what's happening to all that oil money that's been pouring into the country.

I think you're right about Iraq though. We, I mean the American public, don't have the will power to go in there with all of the force required to get things under control. Saddam kept all of the warring factions in line because he had a monopoly on the use of force in the country. If anyone got out of line he would either have them imprison or killed. We won't use that kind of force so we've painted ourselves into a corn. I think it'll just linger on until we finally get tired and political pressure at home forces us to pull out. Of course right after that (maybe even before that) the Sunni's and the Shites will decide to go at it in all out open civil warfare and then it will only be a matter of time before there aren't any Sunnis left and the insurgency is quelled.

There are no easy answers in this but one thing is for sure, no matter what we do somebody isn't going to like it.

Hi Jim.
Some sensible comments there. I would just like to add to the equation that I am British and as such welcome the fact that Britain and the USA have enjoyed a long and fruitful alliance.

On saying that, the present Governments on both sides of the pond have led us all down the wrong path. Both Blair and Bush have knowingly lied to us concerning Saddam and his non exsistant WOMD.

As far as Cuba is concerned you will notice that I put the word illegal in inverted commas. Few other embargoes in recent history - including those targeting Iran, Libya, South Africa, Southern Rhodesia, Chile or Iraq - have included an outright ban on the sale of food. Few other embargoes have so restricted medical commerce as to deny the availability of life-saving medicines to ordinary citizens. Such an embargo appears to violate the most basic international charters and conventions governing human rights, including the United Nations charter, the charter of the Organization of American States, and the articles of the Geneva Convention governing the treatment of civilians during wartime.

Sanctions, irrespective of their purpose, have to comply with the customary international law principle of non-intervention and proportionality. Despite years of pleas from the UN, the USA are still persuing this petty stance against Fidel. If the embargo is not illegal in the true sense of the word, it is at least immoral and unjust. Every country in the world voted with the UN to lift the embargo, every country except for the USA and Israel.
As Chez Guevera once said "A Better World Is Possible"

Hi Anthony,

I disagree with your conclusion about Iraq, (Im sure you must be surprised by that. ) but that’s for another discussion.

With Cuba I don’t see how it can be said that the US is mistreating the Cuban people when it’s really Fidel that’s mistreating them. Therefore if the Cuban people want things to change then it is really up to them to effect it. If they don’t, then that is their choice too and they have every right to make it. But with choice comes consequence and they must live with the consequences of their decision to leave Fidel in power.

Hi Jim.
Despite propaganda to the contrary, not everyone in Cuba hates Fidel Castro,in fact, not anywhere near the majority. That being the case, why should he be overthrown to please the USA. Surely this is (or should be) a case of live and let live.

Denying basic needs to Cuba is one thing but some of the things that the USA government has done is shameful. For example, Cuban scientists developed a vaccine for meningitis, this could possibly save the lives of many children worldwide. When the big pharmecutical companies started to stock the vaccine, the USA gave an ultimatum, "deal with Cuba or deal with us". Thankfully, they were forced to back down by world pressure for the greater cause.

Having visited Cuba on a number of occasions it is easy to see that things could be a lot better. But, does that have to be the American way? How many millions of people are in poverty, addicted to drugs etc in the west? Just imagine Jim, no globalisation, no McDonalds, Burger King, Coca Cola etc. It is nice to visit a place where modern excesses do not exist. Of course, when Fidel dies America will have their way. OK, many people will have the freedom and choice that they crave, but at what cost. Crime, greed, violence etc.

The main point is Jim. The west (and I include the UK in this) are under the impression that the way we choose to live and run our societys is the only way to live, everyone else is wrong and should be brought into line. This makes us no better than the very people we condemn. OK, we may not be slaying our people or imprisoning them for their beliefs, instead, we send our people into needless wars and put the rest of our societies at daily risk (9/11, London Bombings, Madrid etc) through our policies.

As Fidel said to George Bush in one of his monumental speeches: "There are no children begging in our country and there will be no one living on the streets tonight" "How many states of America can say that"?

Hasta la victoria siempè! Jim........

Hi Anthony,

As I said earlier, no matter what we do we'll never make everybody happy.

"Despite propaganda to the contrary, not everyone in Cuba hates Fidel Castro,in fact, not anywhere near the majority. That being the case, why should he be overthrown to please the USA. Surely this is (or should be) a case of live and let live."

I agree completely, Fidel and the people of Cuba are free to do as they choose. But as I said earlier, with that comes the fact that they have to live with those decisions and the associated consequences. That's the way life is, you make your choices and then you have to live with them.

That's a great quote from Fidel, Anthony. However my response to it would be; You don't see boat loads of destitute Americans risking life and limb on an open ocean crossing in rickety little boats trying to sneak into Cuba. Cuba cannot say the opposite.