Where do you stand on "Tookie" Williams ?

[m20gull]

... but that is countering the donations the other side receive from the Arab World (not that any of it is for the greater good).

and the military support from those good-hearted communists

 

[NMH]

and the military support from those good-hearted communists

Well yes, indeed. If there's one criticism that should be levelled against these superpowers, it is that they don't mind fuelling smaller wars in 'micro-cosm' areas. Afghanistan was at war with Russia, using US weapons. The Taliban were once allies, as was Saddam Hussein.

That's worthy of criticism (El Pres), not the way we go about keeping our war effort economical or safe. Railing against the allied war effort against Hitler used to be called 'treason', but nowadays people are so keen to advocate civil rights they prefer to forget that the incarcerated enemy would simply go straight back to killing ours, IF we gave them half a chance!

 

[Beach Hut]

It seems Arnold marked his paper, and his report read "must try harder"

Shouldn't laugh but just spat my beer out - classic

 

[m20gull]

The Taliban were once allies, as was Saddam Hussein.

Of course. Times change. Germans were once our ally against France. Italy was once our ally against Germany. Taliban was a worthy ally in the Cold War, but not afterwards. Saddam was fine as a bulwark against Iran but not as a neighbour-bullying power when Iran was no longer a threat.

 

[NMH]

Of course. Times change. Germans were once our ally against France. Italy was once our ally against Germany. Taliban was a worthy ally in the Cold War, but not afterwards. Saddam was fine as a bulwark against Iran but not as a neighbour-bullying power when Iran was no longer a threat.

So, it's ok to have an ally while it suits your needs, but then as soon as that's done, it's okay to turn against them.
Yes, I see.

I have no problem with chasing Saddam out of Kuwait except the US had first told him it was okay, and that they wouldn't stop him.
It obviously suited US needs to turn-coat on Saddam, he was out of money for weapons (which is basically why he went for Kuwait) - and he could have been super-powerful had he succeeded in enveloping Kuwait. The Saudis didn't want that happening either.

The more-recent revival of conflict was to do with Saddam readying to base his currency/economy on the Euro, which could have been disaster for the US, especially if other MidEast concerns followed. Notice the lack of support for the war from France and Germany?
Very little to do with human rights, that the US claim as one of their banners now that it suits them - as Saddam was an affront to human rights long-a-while he was an ally!

Political manouevering to suit your own needs is the way of the modern Romans. The chess-board is there to be played.

Now Iran is still a threat - well dodgy - and WE are the buffer to keep them at bay. Their leader despises Israel and blithers anti-Jewish rhetoric loudly and frequently. He's asking for a nice and tidy assassination if you ask me, and anyway he has few allies to rally around his causes.

Personally, I'm liking all this, the CIA, and US/Britain as allies. Heaven knows what would happen if things were not going our way!

Currently on the political map, China is fast coming to the table wanting fuel nowadays. Unless the US find an untapped source of local oil, the stakes are going to be raised eventually imho.

 

[HampshireSeagulls]

So, it's ok to have an ally while it suits your needs, but then as soon as that's done, it's okay to turn against them.
Yes, I see.

I have no problem with chasing Saddam out of Kuwait except the US had first told him it was okay, and that they wouldn't stop him.
It obviously suited US needs to turn-coat on Saddam, he was out of money for weapons (which is basically why he went for Kuwait) - and he could have been super-powerful had he succeeded in enveloping Kuwait. The Saudis didn't want that happening either.

The more-recent revival of conflict was to do with Saddam readying to base his currency/economy on the Euro, which could have been disaster for the US, especially if other MidEast concerns followed. Notice the lack of support for the war from France and Germany?
Very little to do with human rights, that the US claim as one of their banners now that it suits them - as Saddam was an affront to human rights long-a-while he was an ally!

Political manouevering to suit your own needs is the way of the modern Romans. The chess-board is there to be played.

Now Iran is still a threat - well dodgy - and WE are the buffer to keep them at bay. Their leader despises Israel and blithers anti-Jewish rhetoric loudly and frequently. He's asking for a nice and tidy assassination if you ask me, and anyway he has few allies to rally around his causes.

Personally, I'm liking all this, the CIA, and US/Britain as allies. Heaven knows what would happen if things were not going our way!

Currently on the political map, China is fast coming to the table wanting fuel nowadays. Unless the US find an untapped source of local oil, the stakes are going to be raised eventually imho.

Of course it's fine to change alliances, countries do it all the time. What may suit them one day may not suit them the next. It depends on foreign policy, and the perceived threat or benefit of being friendly or not-so-friendly towards a country.

The only reason the French and Germans stayed out of the conflict was due to the amount of oil industry and military hardware that they had sold Iraq "on credit". Basically, it was in their interest to have no conflict because they had not yet been paid for the stuff, and the conflict would have destroyed both their hardware and the income. Notice that as soon as it was over, they came rushing forward volunteering to help control the country so that they could chase down their assets.

 

[London Irish]

No. Here's anoher unfounded allegation peddled by the BBC as news.

If you listen to rightwing talk TV and radio in the States, and I often do, the BBC only just comes behind Al-Jazeera as a favoured bombing target

I think that sums up their attitude towards independent news media.

 

[perseus]

The current American Empire is a bit like the Roman Empire. Will it implode?

 

[HampshireSeagulls]

The BBC are surprisingly unpopular here as well. Least popular TV company during Gulf War '03 for the active participants, switched off by choice, switched back on by order.....sent a Children's BBC reporter to cover a major conflict, he spent a few months having real foot-stamping tantrums! Borne for morale purposes, if nothing else.

Real, live, right-wing broadcasting is incredible to listen to, you simply cannot believe these people can say what they are saying and getting away with it!

 

[HampshireSeagulls]

The current American Empire is a bit like the Roman Empire. Will it implode?

Keep an eye open for Bush marrying his horse then. If it implodes, it will take most of us with it.

 

[m20gull]

The current American Empire is a bit like the Roman Empire. Will it implode?

Better start learning Mandarin. Soon.