[Rictor]

Right, so you claim that overthrowing elected officials in a military coup and installing an unelected tyrant is not wrong? Marvelous.

As for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there is validity in your statements Liberator. However, the fact remains that an invasion of Japan would have resulted in mainly military deaths, on both sides. Civilians must be protected before soldiers, since they are innocents. It not a black and white issue though, I'll give you that.

[ionia23]

Originally posted by Rictor
Right, so you claim that overthrowing elected officials in a military coup and installing an unelected tyrant is not wrong? Marvelous.
 

Case by case, and they weren't "tyrants" at the time, and it depends on your definition of "elected".  It's possible to be duped (Saddam Hussein, for example).

[karajorma]

Originally posted by ionia23
Case by case, and they weren't "tyrants" at the time, and it depends on your definition of "elected".  It's possible to be duped (Saddam Hussein, for example).

Of course they weren't tyrants at the time. They weren't in power yet!

YOu can dance around the fact all you like ionia. Kicking out a democratically elected government to put in a dictator is contrary to the principles of democracy American politicians like to go on about.

Sure it's possible to rig an election but unless you can prove that all the elctions in Chile, Iran etc that others on these threads have mentioned were all rigged then you've got to face the fact that America has toppled democracies to put in their own puppets.

[Liberator]

Perhaps

But can you prove that the President at the time had anything to do with it?  As I understand it, such "puppets", as you call them, are usually aided by the CIA or NSA which operates almost completely outside the relevant chain of command.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Liberator
Acer, you argue like a child.

The reasoning behind the use of atomic weapons(they were atomic not nuclear there is a difference that I'll explain in a minute)
{Snip - Incorrect bit about bombs}

The lessons are concluded for the day.  Did you enjoy your History and Basic Physics classes?

Maybe you should save the lessons until you actually understand the basic principles involved.  

Wikipedia as always has the correct version down.

Originally posted by Liberator
But can you prove that the President at the time had anything to do with it?  As I understand it, such "puppets", as you call them, are usually aided by the CIA or NSA which operates almost completely outside the relevant chain of command.

1) IIRC Henry Kissinger was involved in what went on in Chile so we aren't just talking about CIA activity. I'm sure someone who remembers their history better than me will be able to provide better proof. However....

2) Who cares anyway? The CIA are still part of America. If they are acting as a rogue agency in your country it's the job of the American president to slap them down after the first time they did it. Not continue to allow them to do it again and again.

[Rictor]

You're going to sit there and tell me that the President at the time, whoever it happened to be, was unaware that a US agency was planning to stage a coup? Get real.

[ionia23]

Originally posted by karajorma

Sure it's possible to rig an election but unless you can prove that all the elctions in Chile, Iran etc that others on these threads have mentioned were all rigged then you've got to face the fact that America has toppled democracies to put in their own puppets.

Sounds to me like you want to hold the US accountable for Pinochet, Hussein, Amin, Milosevic, and Omar to name a few.  I'm assuming there are some shreds of facts to back these up?

I would hardly call toppling Hussein to be for the purpose of placing our own "puppet" government instead.  Either you're blind to his actions.....or approve of them.

[Acer]

"The word you're looking for is Hiroshima"
you say im settling for petty details.. what you call this?

But really lets forget bout that and focus on the main topic.

Alright Liberator thx for the physics lesson, I did get the two mixed up, but still you should have been able to infer what I meant. But on the history one.... the fact that nukes are used to make possible agressors think twice before they attack you is well know, what you dont realize is that the reason the USA doesnt want anymore countries to aquire nuclear weapons is that by doing so these countries are automatically protected against any possible attackers, also contries with Nuclear weaponry have more bargain power in any international discussion and the US doesnt want to share a bit of its power with anyone else does it? 3 Nuclear superpowers got te be enouth to keep the balance right?

And back to the japan bombing subject, well how would you fill if the city you live in, which is full of peacefull people gets bombed to serve as an example and make a  country withdraw from a war? There are rules of conduct in war wich should be followed and one of the rules is the safekeeping of civilians, not their annihilation by atomic weapons. Inocent children were sloughtered for what? Japan was beaten and the US new it.

Also someone said japan wanted to conquer the world... Thats false japan simply decided that  instead of subjugating itself to the the powers of the time like many asian countries did it was going to become of the expansionists powers as well, japanese and american interests obviously colided as both wanted control over the pacific islands and so the war begun. Stop trying to show that the US wanted to ''protect the freeworld'' it was by far trying to defend its own personal expansionist agenda.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by ionia23


Sounds to me like you want to hold the US accountable for Pinochet, Hussein, Amin, Milosevic, and Omar to name a few.  I'm assuming there are some shreds of facts to back these up?

I would hardly call toppling Hussein to be for the purpose of placing our own "puppet" government instead.  Either you're blind to his actions.....or approve of them.

Yes, the US is responsible. They installed them, and supported them. Hence, their actions are America's responsibility. Except Milosevic, don't know what he's doing on that list. He was a bastard and a tyrant, sure, but the US had nothing to do with him.

And what else could you call the current Iraqi government. Hand-picked by the US, and made to answer to them instead of the Iraqi people. After the "handover", the US retains control of the military and other key areas. Also, unchangeable laws have been issued by Paul Bremer, which the new government will be powerless to overturn.

[vyper]

[q]Such as the current monarchy of England??? They didn't vote for them. So they're tyrants. Um, yeah.[/q]

Son, it's called UNITED KINGDOM/BRITAIN/THAT ISLAND THAT RULED THE WORLD and if you ever make that mistake again I'll tax your tea so much you'll never drink another drop.

The Queen exists really in a symbolical role - there is no real power behind her in everyday politics but there are _very_ strong feelings of loyalty to the monarchy in the general populous, especially in England.

[ionia23]

*sigh*, okay here we go..

Originally posted by Acer
"The word you're looking for is Hiroshima"
you say im settling for petty details.. what you call this?

I call it "tit for tat".  It's me being immature.

Originally posted by Acer
3 Nuclear superpowers got te be enouth to keep the balance right?

Well, yes.  If you think for two seconds North Korea would'nt use it's paltry nuclear arsenal to defend itself if it felt threatened...

And back to the japan bombing subject, well how would you fill if the city you live in, which is full of peacefull people gets bombed to serve as an example and make a country withdraw from a war?

If it were my city that got hit, of course I'd be pissed.  But I'd alraedy be pissed at whomever bombed my city because they are the enemy.  We didn't drop them to make friends, you know.

While we're at it, nobody told them to attack us in the first place.  We had a nice, locked up, non-agression treaty signed up with Japan.  America did everything it could to placate people (such as yourself and the other leftists around here) and stay out of it, but nooooo.  Just couldn't leave us be.  I have no sympathy.  You might consider retaliating with "what about the innocents?  what about the innocents?". Well, what about a government that puts it's own people in that position?  Pfft.

There are rules of conduct in war wich should be followed and one of the rules is the safekeeping of civilians, not their annihilation by atomic weapons. Inocent children were sloughtered for what? Japan was beaten and the US new it.

That's a strong assumption there, pal, about knowing Japan was "beaten".  Not by a long shot.  They made it clear they would never surrender.  They did, just took a bigger hammer to drive the point home.

Also someone said japan wanted to conquer the world... Thats false japan simply decided that  instead of subjugating itself to the the powers of the time like many asian countries did it was going to become of the expansionists powers as well, japanese and american interests obviously colided as both wanted control over the pacific islands and so the war begun.

Excrement.  I don't even need to address this.

Stop trying to show that the US wanted to ''protect the freeworld'' it was by far trying to defend its own personal expansionist agenda.

Look, if you don't want a war with the United States, don't start one.  "expansionist agenda", pfft.

[ionia23]

Originally posted by Rictor


Yes, the US is responsible. They installed them, and supported them. Hence, their actions are America's responsibility. Except Milosevic, don't know what he's doing on that list. He was a bastard and a tyrant, sure, but the US had nothing to do with him.

And what else could you call the current Iraqi government. Hand-picked by the US, and made to answer to them instead of the Iraqi people. After the "handover", the US retains control of the military and other key areas. Also, unchangeable laws have been issued by Paul Bremer, which the new government will be powerless to overturn.

No, we didn't and no, we aren't.  But at least we're trying to do something, which is more than I can say for certain other unnamed countries around here.  Maybe Iraq will end up a place where you can protest without incarceration.  Where disagreeing with the government won't be a crime.  (maybe we could learn some of that over here too)

I've read the same facts and conspiracy-theory-cereal-box b.s. stories you have.  At least I know which one is which.  We didn't create that situation in Chile.  However, we didn't do squat to stop it either.

No laws are "unchangeable".  That's what "by the people" means.

Spain fell right into the terrorist's hands.  "oh, someone blew up our train station.  We're so sorry, we'll pull out of Iraq right now."  All they've done is open up the gates to more attacks.  You watch.

France is next.  Such a peaceful, open-minded nation.  "The war against Hussein is wrong.  Damn those Imperialist Americans!  Oh, by the way, wearing Muslim headdresses is now illegal."

[karajorma]

Originally posted by ionia23
Sounds to me like you want to hold the US accountable for Pinochet, Hussein, Amin, Milosevic, and Omar to name a few.  I'm assuming there are some shreds of facts to back these up?

Suppose I was to sell a nuclear weapon to Saddam Hussein. By your logic I wouldn't have a shred of responsibility for what he did with it.

If you're asking for proof that the Americans toppled goverments then you really need to study your history better. It's common knowledge that the Americans armed Hussein and toppled those governements. You only need to read up a little to find that out for yourself.

[ionia23]

Originally posted by karajorma


Suppose I was to sell a nuclear weapon to Saddam Hussein. By your logic I wouldn't have a shred of responsibility for what he did with it.

If you're asking for proof that the Americans toppled goverments then you really need to study your history better. It's common knowledge that the Americans armed Hussein and toppled those governements. You only need to read up a little to find that out for yourself.

crikey, it's like arguing with shredded wheat...

How about any 3 examples of the US "toppling a government for our own benefit" that served absolutely no other purpose than making money?  Right.

Okay.  "Armed" does not mean "put in power".  And we had a common enemy at the time.  Obviously we underestimated a few things.  We did likewise with Afghanistan.  Given, our motives weren't exactly "honorable", those ungrateful sons-of-*****es should have been our allies.  but nooooo....too many of us are white and christian.  Cleanse the world.  Adolf, anyone?

and to address point #1:  So I should be able to sue gun makers if someone kills a member of my family with that gun?  Hell yes, I can go get paid now.  One small point.  Firearms have many peacetime applications.  Nuclear weapons do not (yet).  There's a huge difference between selling someone a gun and selling someone a nuke.

It's about what you know that determines accountability.

[vyper]

edit: n.m too late

[Rictor]

Originally posted by ionia23

I've read the same facts and conspiracy-theory-cereal-box b.s. stories you have.  At least I know which one is which.  We didn't create that situation in Chile.  However, we didn't do squat to stop it either.

Credibility going, going, GONE.

So typical of Liberals to make up **** just to make America look bad. I mean, look at Vietnam. Like I'm gonna belive that actually happened.

[ionia23]

Originally posted by Rictor


Credibility going, going, GONE.

So typical of Liberals to make up **** just to make America look bad. I mean, look at Vietnam. Like I'm gonna belive that actually happened.

Actually, it is.  Speaking of gone credibility.  Have you got anything to fall back on besides Vietnam and Somalia that wasn't read about on salon.com?

Didn't think so.

[vyper]

Well I've read John Pilger, Noam Chomsky, and extrapolated a _few_ _little_ details from Will Hutton's economics books. I can say all the above point to US led intervention where true democracy was rising, and supporting by the US of violent dictatorial or disgustingly exploitative leaders. Ironic that comes from "the land of the free".

[vyper]

"How about any 3 examples of the US "toppling a government for our own benefit" that served absolutely no other purpose than making money? Right."

I'll start, anyone else come up with others! (just to be fair)

Indonesia

[Rictor]

Originally posted by ionia23


Actually, it is.  Speaking of gone credibility.  Have you got anything to fall back on besides Vietnam and Somalia that wasn't read about on salon.com?

Didn't think so.

So this is what you do when you run out of arguements, is it? Deny that the US had anything to do with said event, and challenge me to come up with a source that you could regard as credible, which by definition would agree with you to some extent. I can't believe that I'm even ackowledging this line of thought. The atrocities commited in Vietnam are, what? I figment of my imagintion? Liberal lies? A conspiracy? No one is denying it but you, not even the people who commited them.

Originally posted by vyper
"How about any 3 examples of the US "toppling a government for our own benefit" that served absolutely no other purpose than making money? Right."

I'll start, anyone else come up with others! (just to be fair)

Indonesia

Guatemala.