Why Is It Always the U.S. that is supposed to "deescalate"?

there is no proof of your views or my views as I've been trying to get through to you. Ronald Reagan was a covert Mastermind idiot.

 

I've made only negative claims. Traditional rules of debate is that one does not have to prove a negative. You on the other hand have made positive claims. Claims you are obligated to prove.

You have no proof from an unbiased source like The Economist for example that the Iraqis ever actually developed or deployed biological weapons.

 

Good intentions do not forgive criminal actions.

 

When you insist on deceiving yourself, no one can help- and your being there by choice is a choice to be mislead and have confidence in it as well.

That kid did nothing but smile at the old guy that got in his face. "Nasty"? I was amazed at his cool, given the intrusive behavior of the indian, but also the aggressive behavior of some of the people there- none of which were in his group. Numerous videos proved that, but the MSM jumped on the first thing they thought could be used as a political weapon or divisive wedge. That's not kosher.

I don't think that an entity the size of CNN would fork over a $Mill plus to settle a lawsuit that didn't have substance.
When we look at all the crap that has been going on since the election- every issue has been created by the dems; every one focused on trying to unseat the president; none of them hold water. There are no legitimate scandals coming from the right of any substance. The left is responsible for the crap claims being generated in the hate war, and every one of them has been proven to be just that- crap.
Each time one falls flat, they brew up another one. That's the emotional hate driving their thinking, they can't get around it. It's like a bucket of ping-pong balls in a paint shaker. Noise, hollow claims, no substance or direction- and no results. Meantime, the nation is harmed by it, and the democratic party is harmed by it. It's childish behavior that would get the average spoiled brat a trip to the woodshed.

It's unfortunate that you aren't able to calmly watch a FOX news report and compare it to the report CNN and the left media would make on the same subject. If you could do that objectively, alarm bells would be going off when you realize the disparity and distortion you would see on all of them- MSNBC and CNN being the worst.

 

That would be true. However, when a government asks us for our assistance, that is not a criminal act. Nations in crisis will have numerous factions in play- and some will be righteous, some not. Criminality and righteousness are rarely clear issues in politics; we are often faced with the decision of which side to support and how without a hard and fast set of rules to go by.

IF the French had not come to the aid of the American revolutionary effort, this nation might not exist today. So who was the criminal then? Us for asking, or the French for helping?
Most of the time, it's not a black and white issue. We have to make choices- and either way, it usually means people will die. If we intervene to prevent ongoing extermination of some part of a nations population, the idea is not that we can do so without loss of life- but to alter the course and bring it to a point where the loss of life ends. Sadly, it doesn't always work, and sometimes we have made bad choices. Sometimes- there is no good choice.

 

Are you suggesting good intentions do not matter? Legally "intent" is a significant factor in determining whether a crime is committed in the first place.

 

I understand that war is part of the human condition, as is murder, rape and other wicked things.

And I see WWII as being legitimate in that at least the constitutional requirements were met.

But post WWII, of all the countries we have invaded and destroyed, which has asked for our assistance?

 

Why not start with Vietnam, that was a very expensive mis-adventure. Note this article, from History.com:

"Eisenhower wrote to South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem and promised direct assistance to his government. Eisenhower made it clear to Diem that U.S. aid to his government during Vietnam’s “hour of trial” was contingent upon his assurances of the “standards of performance [he] would be able to maintain in the event such aid were supplied.” Eisenhower called for land reform and a reduction of government corruption. Diem agreed to the “needed reforms” stipulated as a precondition for receiving aid, but he never actually followed through on his promises. Ultimately his refusal to make any substantial changes to meet the needs of the people led to extreme civil unrest and eventually a coup by dissident South Vietnamese generals in which Diem and his brother were murdered."

We responded and got involved based on a deal which was also designed to improve the conditions in the country. It wasn't a malicious act. It was a bad decision, because the government of South Vietnam, probably lacked the ability it represented itself as having at the time it agreed. It was handled poorly by Nixon, followed by more poor handling by Johnson. Had we been wise, we would have turned down the request. Bad choice- but this was not an invasion without invitation. America has not conducted invasions for possession. It has moved to fight terrorism (Afghanistan, Al Queda) and preserve governments under attack. I certainly don't say we have made great decisions, and I agree most were not productive- but the question here is motive, and the kind of motive you imply America had wasn't present in any of them.
We had become sort of the world's policeman after WWII. Other nations were willing to help, but we always had to be the front man. The question is- when is it proper to interfere, and what are the consequences if we don't. Generally, people die either way, but if the end result does not bring substantial benefits to the nation involved, we have made a mistake. Perfect choices don't exist in these situations.

 

What point do you think ---you--- make by posting numbers that ---you--- know aren't credible?

 

Translation: You cannot support your statement.
This is not new.

 

when do you realize you have no clue what you're talking about and neither does your media? The economist of course agrees totally with me. How many times do I have to tell you you have the misinformation of the GOP propaganda machine flowing through you.
The Economist › 2018/07/05
Web results
Whack-a-nuke - How Iraq was deprived of its weapons of mass ... - The Economist
Jul 5, 2018 · He was the leading figure in a programme to enforce peace terms on Saddam Hussein, Iraq's dictator, in 1991, forcing him to renounce nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and long-range rockets.



The Economist
Saddam Hussein's weapons mirage - Iraq's elusive weapons of mass destruction
Jan 29, 2004 · BEFORE going to war against Saddam Hussein last March, George Bush and Tony Blair told the world they were certain that the Iraqi dictator possessed chemical and biological weapons, and long-range missiles, and was actively seeking an atomic bomb.

 

They are just as credible as yours are, before even taking into account you are listening to a pure propaganda program LOL

 

You think Nixon was before Johnson? we should have let the Vietnamese have their election in 1956 like we promised.Ho chi Minh would have won in a landslide and Vietnam would not have been upon of Russia or China at least not without one hell of a fight and when I say fight I mean a la Vietnamese...

 

I've wasted enough time on your nonsense.
Thanks.

 

Once again, I don't get my information from any "GOP propaganda machine" that you enjoy prattling about yet never define or explain.

Next, you miss a bigger point:

1) So what if the U.S. helped Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War? Iran was a well established enemy of the United States that had recently committed acts of war against the United States. Further

2) Back in the early to mid 1980s, Iraq had NOT committed acts of war against the United States. And Saddam Hussein was not (apparently) the fascist loon he later turned out to be.

3) Iran was (and is) three times the size of Iraq with comparably larger military. Wouldn't it be reasonable to assist the Iraqis in countering the Iranian numerical superiority? And yes, including primitive chemical weapons?

4) Most international politics are about "real politik". National interests are the most important thing no matter how gruesome protecting those interests turn out to be or how alliances change and shift.

5) A weak Iran or at least an Iran unable to have any influence outside its national borders is in the national interests of the United States. Thus anything the U.S. does to hurt or restrain Iran is good and reasonable.

 

we all have.

 

Nixon followed Johnson, who took office when JFK was assassinated. Neither of the two were honest with the country about the situation in Vietnam.I had that shown in reverse order, Johnson picked up from JFK.
I had friends serving there, I got a pretty good idea of how the troops looked at it.

Hindsight is of little value here. Point was- we were there by agreement, not invading in the way people wanting to call us evil like to portray.

 

Reading stuff here often makes us aware of how deviant some perceptions can get. It's scary to think about....

 

95% of the world and all the respected media and law enforcement by the way agrees with me. Think about that for a change. You basically have Rupert Murdoch. Could you try talking about particulars instead of the ethereal. We're trying to talk about politics, not GOP psychobabble. LOL

 

Not evil, stupid. Alright evil oh, we should have allowed democracy in 1956 as we promised, but evil stupid covert Mastermind idiot GOP liars. Then Johnson thought he could win. A colonial Outlook. Then Nixon was evil again, the secret plan to end the war my butt. I was there 2. My college caught the only FBI agent provocateur who got two freshman to firebomb the ROTC office. He was also at Kent State messing around supposedly. He was the head of the SDS in upstate New York and working for the FBI. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. He got away with it but we had a riot and we caught him LOL. Very non-violent riot but the police cars came out badly....

 

So after all the documents I've shown you you believe Reagan had nothing to do with all the chemical weapons Saddam used against Iran and the Kurds. That there is a good chance there was something to do with anthrax LOL? Pretty amazing LOL

 

You are exaggerating. The chemical weapons usage by Iraq was actually pretty limited and probably did not kill more than conventional attacks would have.

And "a good chance" is no kind of evidence or proof.

 

It's a classified covert Mastermind idiot GOP operation. An incredible GOP disaster and catastrophe called Iraq. And Iran. Continuing probably. Your lack of curiosity is very anti Economist to say the least... Reagan was a very swampy corporate character and has given us the worst inequality and upward mobility in our history. Only his garbage propaganda machine makes this mess possible.

 

The chemical weapons Reagan allowed them to have Killed at least a hundred and fifty thousand Iranians and continues to kill them to this day. Chemical and biological weapons are horrible affront to humanity. Great job!!

 

I think you are picking what you want to believe and telling yourself it's 95%. That's pure hogwash.
Perhaps the people that don't agree with you don't exist in your opinion?

How about- 95% of the people like me like me??