[Rictor]

Military bases and an oil pipeline. Just watch.

[Nuclear1]

Excuse me?

Care to go ahead with that comment, comrade?

[vyper]

He's right. Accept it.

[Nuclear1]

Would you care to elaborate on how he's 'right'? Are you truly believing that the US is suddenly going to slip into Ukraine simply because there's oil?

No, no, no. There's something that I don't think a lot of people get anymore: reality. Reality is that most of the world just can't seem to solve its own bloody problems without rioting or killing thousands of innocent people (mostly each other) in the process.

Because the majority of the world's answer to problems is dictatorship/imperialism/genocide, someone has to stand up. The United Nations? Three-quarters dictators. Nothing's going to get through there to advance human rights or freedom.

The Security Council? Not a chance. France, Russia, and China were all willing to accept bribes from Hussein when he was in power. Basically, the half of the countries chiefly responsible for ensuring peace were willing to to turn a deaf ear to the murder of thousands of innocent people at the hands of a terrorist, so long as they were able to make a profit through it all.

Which leaves... what? Which countries are still truly willing to stand up for freedom and the rights of people in the world today? I'm pretty sure that Russia isn't. China is nowhere near such a goal. France doesn't seem willing to cooperate with anything the US does to free the oppressed, neither do several other major European nations. The United States has to stand alone (or nearly alone, if you take away the 12+ countries currently standing behind us).

The United States does not "invade" countries for their oil, or their strategic value. The Soviet Union did that. The US does not sell weapons to terrorists simply for a profit (quote Afghanistan or Iran-Iraq: lesser of two evils).

So who's going to have to step into Ukraine if protests grow violent, or a coup d'etat ensues? Hopefully, there will be no such incident, but if it should come, it's going to have to be the US. Why? Russia plays dirty. Eastern Europe in still in the midst of their own political and economic aftershock of the USSR collapsing. Western Europe (exception being possibly Italy and Great Britain) doesn't seem to be the least interested in promoting and ensuring democracy and freedom.

So, now tell me how he is "right".

[pyro-manic]

No, I believe that through careful manipulation, Yuschenko's government will bend to Bush's every whim, and generally brown-nose his way to a tidy bit of cash. This will result in military bases, and an oil pipeline from the Caucasus fields, meaning that Iran and Iraq can be abandoned or sidelined as a means of getting at the sticky black stuff. Whether or not there's a civil war makes no difference to these people - they'll do it anyway.

America has done this all over the world for decades. Why on Earth would it stop now, especially as the potential rivals are either fading fast (Russia), or don't care about Europe at the moment (China)?

[Nuclear1]

Would you care to illustrate how the United States has done this in the past? I can't think of anything like so. Iraq is about liberation and the establishment of democracy, not oil, despite what leftists tend to think.

And Iraq will never be "abandoned". That is such a European outlook on the world. Not American.

[Flipside]

Yup, in America, it's a tactical withdrawal

I'll leave someone else to post a plethora of links where America has done this in the past.

Don't kid yourself Nuclear, before it was a War of Liberation, is was a War because Saddam 'had WMD's', it only became a war for democracy when it was uncovered that, in fact, he didn't.

Take a look at how, before Baghdad had lighting and water, American interests were busily working on getting the oil drills working again...

[Nuclear1]

Eh, whatever you guys want to believe, I guess. I really don't want to get this thread too deep into a political discussion, 'cuz usually that ends with lockage and grudges between people.

I know how it feels to be the only conservative poster on all Hard Light...

[pyro-manic]

Well, you're not the only one, if it helps.

Thing is, I have no problem with conservatism. I don't subscribe to it, but I have no problem with it. My problem is the fact that governments in the West are being increasingly run by rich businessmen behind the scenes. Governments don't act for the good of the country any more, they act for the good of these "special interest groups", whose main aim seems to be hoovering up as much money as possible and depositing it in their own pockets. They will do whatever they can to get more money, even if it means raping everyone else to do it. They dont care about the environment, they don't care about peoples' rights, they don't care aout the law. They just want more money.

Don't get me wrong - I have enormous respect for the ideals that America is supposed to embody - I think they're something that everyone should look up to. It's just that for a long time now, the people in power there have basically pissed all over these ideals to further their own agendas.

Now I know what you're thinking: "Yeah, yeah, yakka yakka - typical leftie conspiracy theory, utter crap, etc. etc." Am I right? The problem is, the American government has a nasty habit of doing things that people perhaps aren't very happy with, but then wrapping it in the flag and calling it "patriotic". Now, patriotism is a fine thing - everyone should be able to feel proud of their country - but when a government does such horrible things, and then screams "traitor!!!11one" when anyone goes against it, it gets kind of difficult to see what's what. The fact is, this stuff is going on. The bastards in power make some rousing speeches, wave the stars 'n' stripes around a bit, and it gets past the public because they don't want to be "unpatriotic". Things like the USA PATRIOT act. A shocking blow to civil rights in America. And America was founded on the basis of civil rights.

If you want to discuss this further, I'd be more than willing to - I need more debates with conservatives (note the lower-case c), as I don't think I fully understand all their viewpoints yet. I'd much rather have a civil debate than be sucked into a flame-fest (which is what these things usually degenerate into here thanks to a bit of trolling from some hard-core idiots), and it'd be interesting.

[Nuclear1]

Sounds good. I'll meet you on ICQ sometime and we debate some of these issues whenever.

And I think I tend to fall under the category of "hard-core idiots".

[Rictor]

you can't be serious. Yes, sure, everyone else is evil and/or complacent, and only the altruistic US is willing to take a stand.

You're supposed to stop beliving that **** right about the same time you're supposed to stop believing in the Easter Bunny. Fact is, the US does not, nor does any country, act out of anything other than self interest. Yes, the official story will ALWAYS be that the coutntry is doing something good and kind, but that means ****. Every act of agression by every nation is always portrayed to their citizens in a positive light.

Anyone with two eyes, two ears and a single brain cell can see it for what it is, propaganda. Look at the facts, then decide for yourself.

Here's a rule of thumb: when you put military troops in a nation who's citizens do not want them there, that is an act of agression. Simple. Do you think the Vietnamese wanted the US there? What about the Iraqis? Do you think that even 5% of Iraqis would prefer that US troops stay?

The War of Terrorism, before that the fight against communism, its all excuses to expand power under the guise of fighting some great evil? But in the process of fighting evil, you commit worse attrocities than the ones you're allegedly trying to stop. Or do you think 3 million dead in South East Asia don't count? What about the 100,000 or so in Nicaragua? On and on it goes.

The US does not sell weapons to terrorists simply for a profit (quote Afghanistan or Iran-Iraq: lesser of two evils).

One word: Suharto.
in addition of course to Afganistan, Iraq, Columbia, Egypt, Nicaragua, Uzbekistan and more that I can't think of.

-------------------------------------------------------------

as for Ukraine:

http://www.templetonthorp.com/en/news504
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040625-043029-7820r.htm

[Nuclear1]

Did I not mention that I was dropping this discussion before it got too heated?

And did I also not mention (in the section that you quoted) that Iran and Iraq fell under the "lesser of two evils" category? We funded Iraq, Afghanistan, (now that you bring them up) Uzbekistan, and Nicaragua to stop an evil force from becoming more rampant (be it Iran or the USSR). Nicaragua, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan and Columbia were funded to stop the imperialism of the Soviet Union into free nations of the world.

Now, can we just drop this? Will request lockage.

[Rictor]

Why do you presume that the US has the right to intervene militarily (or otherwise) in foreign nations, against their will, even if it is to stop so-and-so?

Nevermind, don't anwer that. We both know the answer.

[vyper]

Now why the **** are all the neocons around here acting like they can get threads locked on a whim?