Nie Trink Wasser
9th April 2003, 11:53 AM
please feel free to contribute to this debate :
I am quite certain that there are very good arguments for and against actions in panama. What would help would be to thoroughly examine BOTH of these perspectives.
- I have examined more than one side to each of the scenarios I've mentioned, and several others. Yes, there are argument for and against the actions taken (eg. in Panama), however those arguments are all fundamentally self-serving, or at least blind to the needs and desires of the rest of the world.
since when has America's policy been "'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'" ........ I would love for some evidence of this besides pure rhetoric.
-evidence: American support of Taliban in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union, througout the 80's, the arming of Nicaraguan terrorists (see Oliver North), sponsorship of secret poli in Pakistan also against the Soviet Union, concurrently fueling money to the world's largest opium source, American support of a corrupt and repressive Saudi Arabian government (ongoing), CIA-staged overthrow of Mossadegh's Iranian governent and installation of the Shah in 1953, support for Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war in order to weaken Iranian air power, destroy eastern oil reserves, etc.
Do you want more examples? Am I clear enough?
we cannot control the morals of militant groups that we hope can support a cause that we believe will benefit the areas in question. If they turn and make bad decisions, why is it all of a sudden our fault ?
-It isn't necessarily, but when the nature of a group is clear (and declassified White Houte and CIA documents have revealed that at least in some of the above cases it was clear to American government) and support is tendered anyway, that's inexcusable. Most modern and neutral political analysts will tell you that much this type of 'support' has little or nothing to do with 'benefitting the areas in question'. It's more often a question of political interest.
"forgetting about them afterwards" ?
example ? - example: Saddam Hussein (until the Gulf War, when inexplicably, America let him stay in government) and the Taliban are probably the two most obvious examples. Would you like more?
I am quite certain that there are very good arguments for and against actions in panama. What would help would be to thoroughly examine BOTH of these perspectives.
- I have examined more than one side to each of the scenarios I've mentioned, and several others. Yes, there are argument for and against the actions taken (eg. in Panama), however those arguments are all fundamentally self-serving, or at least blind to the needs and desires of the rest of the world.
since when has America's policy been "'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'" ........ I would love for some evidence of this besides pure rhetoric.
-evidence: American support of Taliban in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union, througout the 80's, the arming of Nicaraguan terrorists (see Oliver North), sponsorship of secret poli in Pakistan also against the Soviet Union, concurrently fueling money to the world's largest opium source, American support of a corrupt and repressive Saudi Arabian government (ongoing), CIA-staged overthrow of Mossadegh's Iranian governent and installation of the Shah in 1953, support for Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war in order to weaken Iranian air power, destroy eastern oil reserves, etc.
Do you want more examples? Am I clear enough?
we cannot control the morals of militant groups that we hope can support a cause that we believe will benefit the areas in question. If they turn and make bad decisions, why is it all of a sudden our fault ?
-It isn't necessarily, but when the nature of a group is clear (and declassified White Houte and CIA documents have revealed that at least in some of the above cases it was clear to American government) and support is tendered anyway, that's inexcusable. Most modern and neutral political analysts will tell you that much this type of 'support' has little or nothing to do with 'benefitting the areas in question'. It's more often a question of political interest.
"forgetting about them afterwards" ?
example ? - example: Saddam Hussein (until the Gulf War, when inexplicably, America let him stay in government) and the Taliban are probably the two most obvious examples. Would you like more?