Well, I saw a picture of Chavez signing an agreement with the Pres. of Iran yesterday, and praising suicide bombers, so what does that tell you. He goes out of his way to strike an antagonistic pose as regards the U.S. as do other "Maximum Leaders".

I don't think "engagement" is what he, or the other despots of the world want with the U.S., unless you define engagement as some means of embarrassing the U.S.

I'm not a right winger as some would suggest in this thread, but I would ask those who don't have a good thing to say for the U.S.A. or a bad thing to say for gangster governments to explain why so many of the educated class of people in such countries are in such a hurry to get out. And please don't tell me about U.S. citizens fleeing to Canada, the numbers and urgency don't jibe.

Because they want money..............DUH....did you really need someone to answer that for you?

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
The American outlook is pretty simple here. Why should we compromise at all with Chavez, when we could simply get rid of him?

I'm sad to say that is in fact valid. It might not be "good" but it's how the world works. I think what America needs to remember though is that a lot of the time when you alienate somebody who has things you need, or who has a market for your goods, you eventually have to either make up with them or invade them. We can probably handle Venezuela as long as we don't wait 10-20 years like we did with Saddam- we can use the Colombians as proxies to lighten our share of the load even. In a decade or two though, it's going to be too late for that. This neo-Warsaw pact that Russia and China are building all over the world is almost certainly going to include Venezuela very soon. Once that happens it's not going to be the US attacking Venezuela- it's going to be the US defending Columbia, Vietnam style.
My point here is that if I'm right (and I may be over-estimating BRICS and their agenda) but if I'm right, America is being short-sighted by not building allies instead of assuming it can just push people around.

I'm willing to bet more then half this country really hates Bush, and would have taken Kerry.
From what I understand, Chavez only received something like a third of the votes, anyway. Clearly many did not care for Chavez.

I'm getting more than a little sick of people trying to change the rules of democracy whenever it suits them. Democrats: Kerry got fewer votes- he lost- period. Republicans: Chavez got more votes- he won- period. America's last two presidents won their first term by plurality rather than majority. Clinton only got 43% of the vote in 1992.
Let's also not forget that Chavez was popular enough that the people restored him against a US backed coup.

Now I realized that Americans have been getting only the bad news about Chavez. It's hard to understand what is going on when you're being lied to. I really strongly urge you to investigate the names involved in news stories you read though. For example, a while back there was a Fox News story where they interviewed the mayor of some town who said he had been arrested and illegally held for several days for being a political rival of Chavez. What FNC didn't mention is that he was the mayor of a town which had its police force raid Chavez' house during the coup.

Yes, Chavez is running around being very nice to a lot of unsavory people, and that's getting a lot of news coverage (whereas the reasons behind his visits and the deals he is working out to benefit his people are getting less attention). Venezuela needs those people's help. Chavez did something absolutely brilliant with Cuba. Cuba couldn't afford oil, Venezuela couldn't afford doctors and teachers. Chavez went to Cuba and made nice with Castro, then made a deal to trade oil for the services of Cuban doctors and teachers.
There is a double standard in the coverage of Venezuela and America which I think is very ironic. Venezuela keeps giving lip-service to tin-pot dictators because they need help from those nations. This makes a good sound byte and makes Chavez the devil. America gives material support to tin-pot dictators, but since the news channels can't explain that story in a 15 second video clip, nobody cares. Of course an American would probably say "we didn't mean it.", in essence. Like that picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam; one Bush apologist tells me that Rumsfeld was justing being polite to somebody his government needed to deal with. I say it's the same thing for Chavez then.

All of that aside, whatever hypocrisy America shows really doesn't matter, and the rest of the world needs to realize that. We have a very interesting place in this world, where we allow far weaker nations to pretend they have equal say to us.

We're not pretending. There's more to Geo-politics than who would win a war. China could pull our economy right out from under us. An alliance between either OPEC and the EU or OPEC and Russia could strangle our oil dependent economy to death. Germany is making making the cannons for our tanks and many of our machine guns while Britain is making our armor- so the tale of the tape wont favor us forever if we get out of line. Even Mexico has the potential to be an important voice with America because of their strategic position on our border. We wouldn't want North Korea to be allowed to move mobile strategic missile launchers into Mexico would we?
Sure, America could win 80 or 90% of all conceivable war scenarios, but in the end it wouldn't matter much; the participants in that war would be devastated and the people who didn't fight would be the new first world.

This world isn't ruled by rhetoric no matter how much non-Americans wish it was. As long as we have the force to back us up, we can be as hypocritical as we want.

I agree, the world isn't ruled by rhetoric. One more reason that I'd say Chavez doesn't belong on our list of boogie men. He talks a good fight, but that's just what he has to do to get by. Tell me when he invades a neighbor or helps terrorists sneak into America. Then I'll say its a good idea to attack him. Don't tell Russia though- it's going to piss them off. It's only a matter of time till Russia starts giving people nukes to defend themselves against our belligerence.

Originally posted by Realist05
I don't think "engagement" is what he, or the other despots of the world want with the U.S., unless you define engagement as some means of embarrassing the U.S.

Nobody cuts off their nose to spite their face. If somebody you disagree with is making you rich, you agree to disagree. If America would enter into mutually beneficial dealings with Venezuela, we would see a whole new side of Chavez. If we help him make the market work for Venezuela, he'll preserve the market, even if he does continue with leftist programs. Little guys don't go around picking fights with big guys for no good reason.

Another way of saying this, which I'm sure 00PS will love, is this: It's capitalism 101- everybody's got a price. If their price is lower than the price of a war, you buy them off. (there's nothing wrong with buying a country off as long as its their people's choice for their people's benefit.)

"Just think about what i'm trying to say over here before posting an angry reply"



Real question here is not wheteher U.S. can win so called war on terrorism or not, or if syria, iran and NK can make coalition without permission of china , russia or without sharing physical border or not.

BUT the real question is whether they should attack US or not?
Is US playing good or evil in this war game?

Before reading this article, essay or whatever you may call it, that before reading this essay dont go in defensive mode of complete denial without seeing the facts. But try to see what i think and why i have such beliefs.

First let me give you most important lesson in your life.

HISTORY IS WRITTEN BY THE ONE WHO WINS THE WAR.
TRY TO SEE WHAT"S NOT WRITTEN OR BEING TOLD.

It all started with rise of industries in europe by invention of steam power in early 19th century. The British, French, Spanish and portugese who were established as functioning nation at that time set out their armies to conqueor new markets and sources of raw materials. Their capitalist pursuits ended with whole of world being colonised by one of these powers except europe and north america by the middle of 19th century.

Now the nationalist movements in Germany, Japan and Italy happened during this time. With the coming of 20th century, these countries are also industrialised and need their own economies. And this was the reason behind first world war.

During first world war russia turned to communism and all of the western world feared that their system will be replaced by communism.
So western powers started propoganda against russia and communism.
Now most of you would still believe in these propoganda.

BUT stop and look at my golden rule and think who told you communism was bad? had communists ever ataacked you or your country? Have u ever read
"the capital' by Karl Marx?if no then you dont have any right to frame communists as bad.

Now most of u would be thinking of framing me as a commie in ur reply to this post
But my policy is that no body interfere with the system americans wanted to follow after they got their indpendence? So how does America or any other power has right force their options on other people because they follow the so called system?

Western powers framed communists as bad because it was threat to their system and beliefs. but it gave them no right to go against communism.

Now after world war I sancion were put on germany to control it in future. But the rise of Hitler was never intervened by any western power. Hitler proclaimed that he is gainst Jews and Communists. because these western powers liked neither. Same was the case with japan and westerners thought rising royal army in Japan would go against their old enemy russia to seek more land.

Hitler came to power and conquered chechoslovakia which had extensive weapon factories buit western powers do nothing. Austria nothing. Romania nothing. Poland nothing. Because hitler was moving eastward which was right direction to against russia.

Russia signed a non aggression pact with hitler and is blamed for doing so. Now the question what country won't do so. Britain came into war only after being attacked. Than for reasons unknown hitler attacked russia. And russia came onto war.

America a good freind of britaiin was still out of war. Now americans would say that america came into war because it was attacked or to save jews or to save britain. But as i see it in this world of capitalism only thing that attracted us into war was capitalism. It didnt attacked germany when they annexed france or attacked britain. So it wasnt out of frweindship.
Everybody knew of hitler's hatred for jews even before war. and large scale jewish immigration before war was living example of concentration camps in germany and poland. But america never tried to stop it. So it wasnt definately about Saving the Jews.

Now America began large scale milliar=try draft and training before pearl harbor attack. So, the reason wasnt because they were attacked. B

BUT the reason was because they loaned lot of money to allied nations. And allied nation were their main markets. SO, the cost of war was less than investments. so, they went into war.

NO body give russia the importance for the role they played in defeat of hitler. Rather russia is blamed for being acquiring countries to make them communist.
Before even US set its feet on european soil Russia had started pushing back germans.

After the second world war the same propaganda machine was start again by west.
It is a conspiracy of western nation to show them a phantom enemy to keep them distracted form real issues such as inequality based on race or religion or economic status. The problems in third world countries.

Now comes Korea and vietnam.
before second world war, vietnam was a colony of french. when french were atacked by germany they pulled all their troops out to fight on european front while leaving vietnam as open game for japanese forces to plunder.
Viet formed its own army and somehow contributed in pulling the japanese out of their country.
After the war french came back again and US backed the french decision that vietnam belonged to french and they can occupy it again.

Vietnam almost fought its way out before the UN came in and said that they will disarm the country and conduct election.
Now communist party was sure to win election, so US started offensive against North and declared that south wont merge with north.

I would ask you wasnt it the decision to be made by viet people rather that US that what type of govt. do they want.

Just think about it for few minutes.

Israel Palestine is the same issue.
Western powers didnt wanted all these jews in their country. SO they setnd them to palestine and divide the palestine.
Why should Muslims of Palestine pay the price of Attrocrities of Jews for which I think Western power were responsible?

It is said thar israel was the land of jews. But jews left that land in 7th century. If you wanna make that claim just consiider that palestine is the home of three major religion of world Judaism, Islam And Christians but that doesnt land would be divided into three parts.

Now War on terrorism.
Who made Osama Bin Laden?
Who gave them those AKs?
ONLY US
US made the taliban to defeat rusiia in afganistan fearing spread of communism. Now why cant russia make milliatry base in afganistan when US can in pakistan.
They supplied them with all the money they wnated to purchase those weapons.(see movie RAMBO 4) And i think if you think like a citizen of one of these countries in middle east what osama is doing is in some way right.

STOP and think like a common idlle eatern citizen. ALl the oil wells are owned by american or western companies. royalties go to few peoples who own land. People who work over there are westerners.
While common citizen wander in search of water. The oil money os given as weapon aid to israel who shoot their muslim brother with those arms.
What would you think of america? evil
what would you think of suicide bombers? martyrs
now i dont support violence but what US is doing in midlle east is wrong.
REGARDING democracy in iraq, US never talked of democracy as the reason behind war before they found no weapons of mass destructions.
If they wanted democracy they should have done so in 90 during first iraq war.
Rather during first iraq war the elder bush urged Shiite and turkish people to go against Saddam and than left them to be killed by saddam hussein.
Why would the relatives of those people believe younger Bush when he says he came to spread democracy. And Bush isnt making it easy by having ALLIES LIKE PAKISTAN AND SAUDI ARABIA BOTH OF THEM NON DEMOCRATIC>
WHY DONT US ATTACK SAUDI when 90%of 9/11 attackers wre of saudi citizenship.
Regarding Irtan and NK 's nuclear weapon, If millitiary ruled country like PAkistan can have nuclear weapon with blessing of US. Than any country could have it. First clean up your nuclear weapon arsenal and then tell others to do so.

Just think about what i'm trying to say over here before posting an angry reply

Originally posted by jagdeepbishnoi
Real question here is not wheteher U.S. can win so called war on terrorism or not, or if syria, iran and NK can make coalition without permission of china , russia or without sharing physical border or not.

BUT the real question is whether they should attack US or not?
Is US playing good or evil in this war game?

A wise man (Captain Jack Sparrow) once said "The only rules are what a man can do, and what a man can't do."
Another wise man once said "War is not about who is right, it's about who will be left."
Motive is not enough- without opportunity there is nothing.

I think Disturbed Deliverer might have missed a trick on the point that America might do better to play the "good" role instead of the "evil" one, but beyond that I'm afraid he's absolutely right. All rule is by force- a rule that can not be enforced is only a suggestion, and if we have only suggestions then we really have anarchy. Government=Rule=Force=Perpetual State of War.
Under that equation the question of "should they attack the US" changes quite a bit, because it's not a moral matter. It becomes a question of what they can accomplish. Which means (violence or political/economic force, etc) will get them further in the perpetual war between nations?

BUT stop and look at my golden rule and think who told you communism was bad? had communists ever ataacked you or your country?

This feels like a huge tangent, but since you presume to lecture everyone here, I will presume to counter-lecture.

Actually they have, only at lower points on what some call "the force continuum" than would normally be acknowledged as an attack. They have posed strategic threats to us economically and politically, have aimed nuclear weapons at us, and have equipped themselves for war against us. They have in fact assembled for battle against us at the logistical and grand-strategic levels, and have engaged us in actual combat through proxies.
Of course this doesn't make anybody right or wrong- it's mutual. Economics and war are complimentary subjects- limited resources versus unlimited desires. They were just trying to ensure their future just as we were trying to secure ours.
The struggle between capitalism and communism was never really the central issue, nor is the war on terror. Those are just the most recent excuses in a history that has included Religious, Feudal, and Nationalist conflicts among others. Strangely enough to objectives almost never changed. Just for example, playing tug-of-war over Germany and the rest of central Europe has been a time honored theme of every battle of every type from the religiously motivated wars up through the cold war.

As for the rest of your discussion of communism- I have socialist leanings of a sort myself, but like I've said, that's not really the issue, only the excuse. It only becomes the issue in South America, particularly Venezuela, where America feels that it's economy is directly threatened by a system which Americans believe will collapse the economy of major resource providers. Socialism/Communism can be theoretically sound in part, but in its commonly practiced form it has given plenty of cause for concern.

NO body give russia the importance for the role they played in defeat of hitler. Rather russia is blamed for being acquiring countries to make them communist.

Actually I did acknowledge that. Anyway what is the point of this rather lengthy (and somewhat vulgarly generalized) rehash of history? That Russia is good and America is bad? As I said earlier, "good vs bad" is not the principle upon which geo-strategy and geo-politics function.

STOP and think like a common idlle eatern citizen. ALl the oil wells are owned by american or western companies. royalties go to few peoples who own land. People who work over there are westerners.

Again, I think we can all agree that it's wrong, but right and wrong don't get anything done. I'm not saying that as justification mind you, I'm saying it as an explanation of what needs to be done. The common middle eastern citizen is going to have to put up a fight so that playing fair with them is less expensive than oppressing them. If I could wave a magic wand, cast a magic ballot, whatever, and put a nice fair-minded good man in the white house who would treat everybody in a decent humane way, I would do it. But I can't. So those people who are over there and who can do something about it will have to do it the hard way.

The other option is that if they had a truely great leader rise up from among them, they could change things. Saddam Hussien almost accomplished it. He played both sides against the middle in the cold war very well. If Saddam had won the Iraq-Iran war in the first year or two he never would have invaded Kuwait, he would have built his nukes, peacefully annexed Jordan and Syria, and held held Saudi Arabia by the balls to the point that he could have forced West Bank statehood single-handedly. That wouldn't make him necessarily "good" for everyone, but he could have done that if he'd just won that war and been able to build his nukes.
What the Middle East needs is a master diplomat, far greater than Saddam this time, to put one of their nations beyond the possibility of American attack and to gain the economic and military significance necessary to be a player on the world stage. That's the only way they can win this peacefully. They could actually accomplish it too if one of them can successfully align with BRICS. I think Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey are the best hopes, in that order.

That's what they can do, and that's all that matters.

I'm trying to understand just where your coming from on this post? Can you or any other country really think the United States will bow down and admit a loss?

Seems to me the United States will never be capable of doing such things as giving up freedom -- no matter the cost.

Call this extreme right/wrong really does not matter. United States under the right President will prevail under all circumstances that force action beyond all "reasonable force".

Its just the way it is and the way I presume it will be. I'd rather it be a comic strip - but I think not.

Dallas

The intention of the post was to explore the possibility and get peoples responses to get a picture of their thoughts. As an American in China I often use ATS to communicate about such things as I can't have the normal day to day conversations you have!

A wise man (Captain Jack Sparrow) once said "The only rules are what a man can do, and what a man can't do."
Another wise man once said "War is not about who is right, it's about who will be left."
Motive is not enough- without opportunity there is nothing.

I think Disturbed Deliverer might have missed a trick on the point that America might do better to play the "good" role instead of the "evil" one, but beyond that I'm afraid he's absolutely right. All rule is by force- a rule that can not be enforced is only a suggestion, and if we have only suggestions then we really have anarchy. Government=Rule=Force=Perpetual State of War.
Under that equation the question of "should they attack the US" changes quite a bit, because it's not a moral matter. It becomes a question of what they can accomplish. Which means (violence or political/economic force, etc) will get them further in the perpetual war between nations?



I think here you are just acknowledging that US is more powerful than any other country in world in fact maybe more powerful than world combined. But i would like to say that there has been more powerful forces before in history of mankind and each one of them came down. But what they do while they are in power decide their fate when they come down. So, the theory that "War is not about who is right, it's about who will be left." can also be applied back on US in long term, nothing is p[ermannent and may be you will see it happening in your lifetime.
You are trying to move away from real topic here by philosphy. I didn't wanted to fight philosphy war butmy question was is what america is doing right or wrong?
Its just a simple question. Regarding my genralisation, i think most of US agree with Bush's genralisation when he says "either you are with us or against us"

Actually they have, only at lower points on what some call "the force continuum" than would normally be acknowledged as an attack. They have posed strategic threats to us economically and politically, have aimed nuclear weapons at us, and have equipped themselves for war against us. They have in fact assembled for battle against us at the logistical and grand-strategic levels, and have engaged us in actual combat through proxies.
Of course this doesn't make anybody right or wrong- it's mutual. Economics and war are complimentary subjects- limited resources versus unlimited desires. They were just trying to ensure their future just as we were trying to secure ours.
The struggle between capitalism and communism was never really the central issue, nor is the war on terror. Those are just the most recent excuses in a history that has included Religious, Feudal, and Nationalist conflicts among others. Strangely enough to objectives almost never changed. Just for example, playing tug-of-war over Germany and the rest of central Europe has been a time honored theme of every battle of every type from the religiously motivated wars up through the cold war.

As for the rest of your discussion of communism- I have socialist leanings of a sort myself, but like I've said, that's not really the issue, only the excuse. It only becomes the issue in South America, particularly Venezuela, where America feels that it's economy is directly threatened by a system which Americans believe will collapse the economy of major resource providers. Socialism/Communism can be theoretically sound in part, but in its commonly practiced form it has given plenty of cause for concern.



The point who was the aggressor and commited to destroy other in the battle of communism and capitalism. I think capitalism. Most of the time he was aggressor. If america can have nuclear missiles in south korea, japan, turkey and pakistan. I think russia had rights to install them in cuba. Tell me if you dont agree with that. Russia only supported communists by financial and moral suppport. But who sent armies to germany korea and vietnam to destroy communism. Well regarding arms race i think any country would do that if their enemy stockpile weapons. Who built the nuclear bomb first? US. Who had the b52 flying 24 hrs with nuclear bombs? US
who made intercontinenetal missiles first ? US
Its as simple as this "mind your own buisness". Dont come where you are not wanted. If venezuelan people want a communist government thats what they would have because its their choice. US cannot force its choice on others. And if you have to pay 50 cents more for oil for this than do it. Because its their oil and they would sell it to whoeveer they want to.

NO body give russia the importance for the role they played in defeat of hitler. Rather russia is blamed for being acquiring countries to make them communist.

Actually I did acknowledge that. Anyway what is the point of this rather lengthy (and somewhat vulgarly generalized) rehash of history? That Russia is good and America is bad? As I said earlier, "good vs bad" is not the principle upon which geo-strategy and geo-politics function.


Well thanks for acknowledging that and may be you can tell your fellow citizens more about that. Well i was trying to prove that i think communism is best form of govt. It didnt survive at most of places because US and other western powers were commited on failing it. US is a superpower and we know it can do that. But it is sjowing good results at other places like China.
And yes I was trying to say that most of decision made by US were selfish and bad.""good vs bad" is not the principle upon which geo-strategy and geo-politics function." And you are acknowledging over here that US is not good.

STOP and think like a common idlle eatern citizen. ALl the oil wells are owned by american or western companies. royalties go to few peoples who own land. People who work over there are westerners.

Again, I think we can all agree that it's wrong, but right and wrong don't get anything done. I'm not saying that as justification mind you, I'm saying it as an explanation of what needs to be done. The common middle eastern citizen is going to have to put up a fight so that playing fair with them is less expensive than oppressing them. If I could wave a magic wand, cast a magic ballot, whatever, and put a nice fair-minded good man in the white house who would treat everybody in a decent humane way, I would do it. But I can't. So those people who are over there and who can do something about it will have to do it the hard way.

The other option is that if they had a truely great leader rise up from among them, they could change things. Saddam Hussien almost accomplished it. He played both sides against the middle in the cold war very well. If Saddam had won the Iraq-Iran war in the first year or two he never would have invaded Kuwait, he would have built his nukes, peacefully annexed Jordan and Syria, and held held Saudi Arabia by the balls to the point that he could have forced West Bank statehood single-handedly. That wouldn't make him necessarily "good" for everyone, but he could have done that if he'd just won that war and been able to build his nukes.
What the Middle East needs is a master diplomat, far greater than Saddam this time, to put one of their nations beyond the possibility of American attack and to gain the economic and military significance necessary to be a player on the world stage. That's the only way they can win this peacefully. They could actually accomplish it too if one of them can successfully align with BRICS. I think Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey are the best hopes, in that order.

That's what they can do, and that's all that matters.

No i dont think saddam hussein could have done it. It would have overpowered america in the region but would've replaced one beast by another. I think US domination is better than saddam hussein.
The point is not that saddam was from middle east and americans are white
and christian. But the point is who was good for people. Neither of them. Both were intrested in oil and power. Not in welfare.

Originally posted by jagdeepbishnoi
I think here you are just acknowledging that US is more powerful than any other country in world in fact maybe more powerful than world combined. But i would like to say that there has been more powerful forces before in history of mankind and each one of them came down.

I think you're missing my point. I'm not defending America. I'm just trying to explain why things are so messed up: because right and wrong isn't what matters. I'm NOT saying that America is all powerful and I'm NOT saying that might makes right. I AM saying that the way this world works, the people who feel like they are getting screwed aren't going to get anywhere by crying about it. The world is governed by a great big war, as I mentioned. If you don't want to get punked by America or some other nation then you need leaders can build the economic and political alliances or the military might necessary to either deter the enemy or to directly defeat the enemy.
Why do you think it is that America can invade the Middle East without being afraid of Russia? We weren't born this way. We beat Russia in the economic/political/strategic chess game. Now it's looking like China just may beat us, and then you just might end up being their punk instead (remembering that there has almost never been a truely benevolent superpower.)
The truth is not "pro American" its just the truth.

But what they do while they are in power decide their fate when they come down. So, the theory that "War is not about who is right, it's about who will be left." can also be applied back on US in long term, nothing is p[ermannent and may be you will see it happening in your lifetime.

I am perfectly aware of that my friend. I wouldn't like it, but i wouldn't be on ATS moaning and whimpering about it or shouting about how the new superpower has to watch their back when they eventually fall. I'd be a friggin man and either accept the new way of things or go fight; whichever seemed most appropriate to me.

You are trying to move away from real topic here by philosphy. I didn't wanted to fight philosphy war but my question was is what america is doing right or wrong?

The concepts of right and wrong are very closely tied to philosophy though. In some cultures it's wrong to fight, but in others its wrong to back down from one. Yet another wise man (Indiana Jones) said "...Is the search for FACT, not Truth. If it's truth you're looking for, the philosophy class is right down the hall."

Regarding my genralisation, i think most of US agree with Bush's genralisation when he says "either you are with us or against us"

And you say I'm the one changing the subject? When I referred to "vulgar generalization" I was referring to your less than perfect assessment of history which I joined you in for the sake of countering your little lecture. For the sake of this discussion we have glossed over a great deal of history and treated it as if it were entirely themed on economic war (and perhaps even international "class-struggle" from your explanation.)
If we wanted to get past that generalization we would have to delve into some very peculiar and sometimes personal reasons for major developments in history, for example certain nationalist/ethnic rivalries and conflicts which caused or at least jump-started wars for reasons other than economic.

The point who was the aggressor and commited to destroy other in the battle of communism and capitalism.

That's not the point at all. As I said earlier, the struggle between communism and capitalism isn't even the point. Do you think it's a coincidence that a major fixture of the Cold War was a fight between Western North Atlantic states and Russia/South Eastern Europe over central Europe, especially Germany and Poland? The Cold War was a continuation of conflicts several hundred years older than the first world war, dictated not by the struggle between ideologies but by a combination of economic, strategic, and personal interests of the nations involved, which have changed surprisingly little in all of this time.

You insist on arguing the subjective matter of "right vs wrong" in the flawed context a brief and recent phase manifestation of a much older, more extensive, and more complex struggle. Any answer derived from that would be purely subjective, with little better than propaganda value for a handfull of nations. It can not yield a useful model for suggesting the future actions of the nations involved or give insight to any kind of peace negotiations. My way of seeing things, on the other hand, has correctly forecasted developments in general terms before they have occurred (and I have dated threads on ATS to demonstrate this) because I'm focused on the things that actually matter.

I think russia had rights to install them in cuba. Tell me if you dont agree with that.

Nobody has "rights" to anything. Everybody claims they have a "right" to do something. Whenever you hear the word "right" in that context, replace it with "want". Russia has a WANT to put missiles in Cuba. They can't. If the can then they can, but so far they can't. America might have a WANT to keep missiles out of Cuba, but that wouldn't matter either unless we can enforce it.

Russia only supported communists by financial and moral suppport.

Now you're lying about something that doesn't even matter.
Berlin Blockade, 1948-49; Hungary, 1956; Czechoslovakia, 1968; Afghanistan, 1979.
That doesn't count the actions of puppet governments in other Soviet states, nor all the times they sent advisors (some of whom we're shot down in aerial combat with either the US or Israel.)
Then of course there are the interventions made by proxy through Cuba: Algeria, 1961; Ziare, 1964-65; Guinea-Bissau, 1966-74; Angola, 1975-76. Perhaps you'd like to claim that Cuba had the resources to go around fighting every war that came along without material support from the Soviets?
Of course this is really a tangent since the fact is that "right and wrong" are secondary considerations at best, but I wasn't about to let you get away with that lie.

If venezuelan people want a communist government thats what they would have because its their choice.

You apparently haven't paid full attention to what I've been saying. I was defending Venezuela to Realist earlier. My mention of Venezuela most recently is not in regards to any "right" to invade them. I simply pointed out that Venezuela is in part (not 100%) a rare exception to the rule that battles between communism and capitalism have little to do with the ideology itself.
I want Venezuela to be treated fairly, and on top of that, I think it would be most profitable for America in the long term to deal with them in a mutually beneficial manner to keep them from going over to BRICS entirely. That being said, America can and probably will screw with them. That's life for you.

Well i was trying to prove that i think communism is best form of govt.

Ah, now that's a conversation you and I might get somewhere with my friend. As I said, I have socialist leanings of my own. Communism as practiced has made tremendous mistakes in interacting with the market, but it has its heart in the right place. I'll create a thread for that discussion shortly and link you to it.

And yes I was trying to say that most of decision made by US were selfish and bad.""good vs bad" is not the principle upon which geo-strategy and geo-politics function." And you are acknowledging over here that US is not good.

Bah, you're thinking in over-simplified terms. Things are not inherently good or bad- intentions and outcomes are. Everything has bad intentions or bad outcomes from time to time. For example- I've got a steak knife. That knife helped me eat steak a thousand times- it's good. But what if my little cousin gets her hands on it and kills the dog just messing around? BAM, the knife is bad? Of course not. The knife does good and its good. The knife does bad and its bad. It's not permanent- it's not a matter of the knife itself. It's a matter of what the knife is doing at a given time.
America is just there. We do good things, we do bad things. We aren't good or bad. The same goes for everybody.
Besides, who is it bad for? Which people are more important? One nation invades another to kill and steal. One nation suffers so that another will not. Some people die so that others will not. It happens in nature every day- creatures get eaten so that others may live. My point is NOT that America has a natural right to take from others. My point is that almost nothing is that good/bad is judged by how beneficial or disadvantageous it is to people. In theory it is impossible to have give to anyone without taking from someone else, and therefore in theory nothing can ever be fully good or bad- neutrality from equal exchange would be possible and that would of course be the goal, but it's probably unreachable in many cases.
Or short answer if you prefer: Of course America isn't "good". Nobody is good. The world is a struggle between badguys.

No i dont think saddam hussein could have done it. It would have overpowered america in the region but would've replaced one beast by another. I think US domination is better than saddam hussein.

For who? He could have enforced uniform standards on everyone on terms favorable to the Arab people and brought more of that regions wealth back to the region. Early in Saddam's reign, Baghdad became an intellectual hub of the Arab world- engineers especially were flocking to Saddam's Iraq.
It would have been bad for the certain religious minorities, bad for the west, bad for Israel. That's the nature of the beast. Economics deals with limited resources and unlimited wants- somebody inevitably gets screwed.
Saddam, Bush, Putin, whatever. Whoever is in charge, the burden will not be lifted- only shifted.

But the point is who was good for people. Neither of them. Both were intrested in oil and power. Not in welfare.

Every nation is interested in its own welfare and is prepared to screw others to provide for it. This fact has defeated and will defeat every theoretical utopian system because there are no good people.

To OOPS, please go home and tell your mother you are very sorry that she has ever given birth to such an imbecile who can say one thing and claim to believe in the opposite...And if you ever bring Singapore into this argument, you will have your ass kicked by our very own local Ang Soon Tong.

Originally posted by LazerLordz
To OOPS, please go home and tell your mother you are very sorry that she has ever given birth to such an imbecile who can say one thing and claim to believe in the opposite...And if you ever bring Singapore into this argument, you will have your ass kicked by our very own local Ang Soon Tong.

Nice job Lazer- taking ignorance to a whole new level I see. Not only are we calling childish names, but we're bringing violence into it as well?
I don't know who or what the hell an Ang Soon Tong is, but when people talk about kicking butt, I hear the empty can rattles the most.

I know you were just kidding though. Go after 00PS for real now and show us why he's wrong- maybe he is afterall. I'm sure that since you think he's an imbecile that you should have no problem running circles around him in an intelligent discussion, right?

To American army fans!

You are so convinced in technological superiority of your armed forces. Well let me tell you something. In 90 days bombing campaign on Serbia, Serian antiarcraf defence shot down one of your invisible figter bombers. They had a great joke about this incident. they said to Americans "sorry we didn't know it is invisible" Serbs also shiped F117 reckage to Russia so Russia have also stealth technology. maybe the sold it to Iran with the Serbian knowhow.
But like Rambo said: The best weapon is human mind.

[edit on 21-3-2005 by yanchek]

[edit on 21-3-2005 by yanchek]

America i bet want to take out all the middleast and change the culture.
China also on the hit list and russia. I suspect america will push the taiwainese for inderpendance, so that china attacks and thinks america will not get involved. America counter's and then push's into china and changes the government. Russia will most likely fight with the chinese, america most likely will take them out too.

Somehow i believe europe, israel, australia, britain will take part in this war.
Againist china, russia and north korea and mabe the provinces of islamic empire. I believe this New World Order will arise after china and russia, islamic empire is defeated. Then will come 4th reich, the empire like in starwars.

Most likely use muslim terrorist's to create another sept11 to give america a kick start for this new empire. This will brainwash the people to support the army, many will inlist not knowing that their governments are real people that commited the act. Just like pearl habour, sept11 and burning of germany government building in 1938.

It's going to happen, the world is just too unstable with country's with their own policy's and nuclear weapon's.

Originally posted by yanchek
To American army fans!

You are so convinced in technological superiority of your armed forces. Well let me tell you something. In 90 days bombing campaign on Serbia, Serian antiarcraf defence shot down one of your invisible figter bombers.

Oh my God, our stealth forces took ONE CASUALTY in the course of bombing the holy (fornication) out of somebody for THREE MONTHS. Our forces have grown feeble and impotent and we must quickly begin to grovel for mercy at the feet of Russia and their rusty, aged, poorly organized war machine.

I'm always the first one to shoot down an American troll, but you America bashers need to lighten up (and by lighten I mean shut). America's been at it with Soviet style forces a time or two, as has Israel. The lesson of history is crystal clear- forces equipped, organized, and commanded consistent with Soviet doctrine talk a good fight, but are out manuevered and anhilated with stunning swiftness by western style militaries. Nothing demonstrates this better than the performance of Israeli forces against Soviet-equipped arab forces which outnumbered and outgunned them heavily several times.

The most important lesson of Kosovo was not that American stealth is ineffiective. The most important lesson of Kosovo is that NATO can punk the Russians in their own back yard without fear of retribution, and if this wasn't the case then America would not even be discussing the prospect of war with Iran right now.
But yeah you shot down a bomber- congrats. I hope you sleep real safe knowing that.

(Now look at that, you brought out my pro-American side. We dont see much of that these days)