Anti-War protestors are hipocrites

rafter109

Durring Vietnam, protestors knew that what the vietnamese people wanted most is to reunite their country because of their great pride in it. This ideology is called nationalism. It seems kind of ironic that the same ideology that protestors praised in the '70s is being frowned upon in the begining of the 21st century. We went to war in Iraq for many reasons and yes I will agree that not all of them are right or justified, but the main reason was for the protection of the American people from future terrorist attacks by taking out a dictatorship that has been hostile in the past, has weapons of mass destruction, and is known to have links to al-Qaida You can argue all you want about the al-Qaida but theres no way you can convince me otherwise. Yes UBL did say that Hussein was a retard but if you were in Husseins place and in his mentality, you would do everything in your power to do harm to America. Well, back to the main point, why is it that when we want to protect our country and civilians we get grilled but whenever someone else does it, they're hailed as heros?

bluelight

During the seventies......antiwar protesters manifested above all agaisnsts the terrorist campaign usa were conducting against vietnam.

The main reason you attacked Iraq.(at last what you presented to the UN )is WMD´s which you dsaid you had proof of.

WE are waiting for the WMD´s now.

The links to Al Quaida...can you p+lease show me any verified material ..and im talking verified nut just general assumptions.....that Iraq and Al Quaida were linked to each other?


Attacking Iraq is not about defending Usa technicallky because Iraq have never been able to threaten Usa.

It is about controlling the mideastr.

Nothing else.


There isd a major upcoming conflict in Kongo....it seems like a lot of peole will be killed and ...there is no democracy......

Right now ....im waiting..for American republican politicians to start asking for accion in Kongo...


But....i will wait in vain......youi have no strategic interests in Kongo.




Bluelight

digerati

The protestors in the vietnam war era were morons even though they were in college. Even the hippies had "yippies" hippies who used violence to spread their "peace and love for all"

JavaFox

No strategic interests in the Congo? Africa has an abundance of resources. Remeber, Nigeria is an OPEC nation.

The US's refusal to help out in the Congo is indeed regrettable, but I ask you, is the rest of the world doing anything? The Congo has been a monumental failure for the UN and the international community. Shame lies on the shoulders of many nations, not just the US.

Falstaff

that a repolarization was allowed to occur to define a ruling political power...

bluelight

Yeah France has made a proposal to the UN to send troops to the Ivory coast.

It was blocked by Usa.



Bluelight

The_Neon_Cowboy

PEOPLE RETURNING FOR VIETNAM WAS ISSUED CAUTIONS NOT TO WEAR THIER INFORMS OFF BASE FOR FEAR OF ATTACKS BY ANTI WAR PROTESTERS. APARENTLY SEVERL SOLDIER IN UNFORM RETURING SURVIVEING YEARS OF HELL, THAT THEY HAD NO CHOIVE THEY GO WRER ANND DO WHAT THIER ORDED TO DO, COME BACK TO BE JUST TO BE KILLED BY ANTI WAR PROTESTERS .....

one gentalman i know rembers heraing that from thier C.O. and took a taxi ride home soon as he got in the taxi driver warns .. if i were you i'd get out of that uniform before the protesters see you...

this is a fact.....

this is from several people i know that served in vietnam.

The_Neon_Cowboy

YOUR PROBUBLY THINK WW2 AND WW1 AND DESRT STORM AND IRAQY FREEDOM TO QUOTE YOU "American terrorist campaigns" Too

bluelight

No...WW 1...was the old world falling apart WW 2 was the consequense of WW 1 not being finished as it should have.

Desert storm ...(ridiculous these military names....) was the consequense of a decision in the UN.


Iraq ì freedom ? ...I dont undersatnd what you mean.


Bluelight

digerati

My history books recall the US trying to end it the way it should have. But France and Russia and if I'm recalling correct Britian didn't wanna.

Falstaff

After Somalia, where we underestimated the power of local militia's or thugs, our noses were bloodied, unless American interests were effected, we avoided any direct military action there. The Congo is an area rampant with criminals, thugs, tribal rivalrys and disease, difficult to support and problematic at best to achieve a victory from a military perspective, very unpopular for american presidents to risk american lives there! And by the way, the French have been there in limited numbers, they were kicked out by the local populace more than once. The French have a reputation for being heavy handed, shoot first and ask questions later, etc...I would hesitate to send troops into the Congo, but we have advisers there providing assistance to Food and Medical relief programs, but remember this, there are lots of mercenaries working for individual interests there...Because of mineral and oil resources, and perhaps even more compelling, the trade in illegal drugs and animal flesh, powerful warlords exercise autonomy.
The names for various campaigns and wars is a useless argument, we could have called Desert Storm, "OPERATION MASH POTATO", and it wouldn't have made a difference to me. But isn't it ironic that the word JIHAD, evokes such a reaction, when it really has nothing to do with war in the truest sense of the term.

JavaFox

Cote d'Ivoire (Ivory Coast) and the Congo are seperate countries... and are seperated by well over one thousand miles.

I think you must be confusing the Ivory Coast for a region. The Ivory Coast is a country. It is experiencing unrest right now; it has close ties to France, and the French therefore feel compelled to do something. That's great. But if you believe that the French wanted to send troops to Cote d'Ivoire to help out in the Congo, you must also believe that the French are crazy

Falstaff

a shadow land, of shadow people, with lives vieled in the obscurity of violence and survival, nameless yet they suffer more than anyone, and their stories are not told, they lie muted in piles of bones, flesh hacked off, and burned to blackened heaps in the ruts of jungle roads and mass graves, witnessed by the starving millions, that cannot enjoy the benefits of relief, because warlord men throttle all aid, and control the jungles around them. This is not a crime, nor an atrocity, this is economic genocide..

bluelight

No im giving an example on where the French has proposed to the UN to send troops to Africa.

The proposal toi the UN was blocked by Usa.

So no troops.

That is a good illustration to how "little " power you have in this.....to you disgusting organisation.

It also illustarates that you are just as guilty as anyone else in making UN...a disgusting powerless organisation of bla bla bla er`s that you claim it is.

Bluelight

JavaFox

Well, let's try to analyze this with some perspective. I have carefully considered your words, and I hope that you will afford me the same favor. Let's look at what the UN has done recently in Africa.

In 1994, the UN had troops in Rwanda. They apparently didn't notice when 800,000 Rwandans were slaughtered. Either that, or they did nothing to stop it.

The United Nations was powerless to bring humanitarian aid to Somalia. The US had to send 19,000 men to sort out the mess.

UN peacekeepers were sent to the Congo. They actually engaged in combat, lost over 200 men, and squandered millions of dollars. People still die in the Congo at an alarming rate today.

No objective person can say that the UN has been sucessful in Africa. Can they? And, as the United States is expected to for 25% of the UN bill, is it wrong of us to be a bit skeptical of the UN?

bluelight

The UN had troops in Rwanda.

Yeah ...how many?

How many resolutions about sending more troops to Rwanda was written by your government at the time?

You sent 19 000 men....and what was the result?

HOw many were sent to Congo?

With how many men and with how much money did YOU contribute in Congo??

How many did you send to each and every one of these conflicts??

Im not sayting that the UN has been successful in Africa.

Unlike you i dont believe that UN is an independent organisatrion similar to a independent nation.'

It is an organisation that is dependant on its members will to work.

YOU have througn the years maifested clearly that you are npt interested.

Especially not in Africa.

WHY should Usa NOT pay 25 percent of thje bill when you hold at least that party of the worlds economy??

Bluelight








Bluelight

Falstaff

Many post colonial nations in Africa are still corrupt, ruled by self serving dictators. Diamonds, Oil, Animal Flesh and drugs make exploiting illegal trade very profitable for them. Tribal warfare make unification of some regions problematic at best. Disease, lack of resources ensure that some countries will never rise above third world status.
Our interests in Africa vary from supporting humanitarian missions with limited support, i.e. flood victems, refugees from war and disease research. We may not have a significant military prescence there, but we are not the only ones. The United nations has some success stories there, and have assisted some countries raise their standard of living, but smaller nations remain subject to potentiol wars and border conflicts that make them unstable. There are american interests there in Africa, we are helping many nations we deem worthy of interest. But we are not going to have another Somalia...
Muslims and Christians struggle for control of many regions. There are killing fields in Africa that are greater in scope than any in Cambodia, India, Pakistan, Iraq.
The task of freeing Africans from tyranny is a formidibal task, and cannot be rectified in a single event, nor in this century in my opinion, but that is not to say that all of Africa is this way.
The Congo is mentioned often, there are success there too, but the fighting goes on. Tribal cold wars kill people daily, and will continue to do so until someone wins this conflict, and it won't be us.

bluelight

I fully agree with you that Africa."Will not happen"now...the mideast is what is happening now.

The reason is that the mideast is currently much much more strategically interesting to us in the rich world.

With oil reserves that now are at 50 percent og their original potential and a consumtion that continues to mount the oil will not last forever.

Africa does not have this....importance to us...so if they have democracies (which is why we say we are im Iraq...Afghnaistan..etc etc ias irrelevant to us...meaning ...we are notbready to pay for democracy in Africa...becauser we arent getting immidiete profit from it.


That is capitalism.The UN is nedded to smoothen out the most sharp edges of that .

However...with righwing politics for which unlimited unregulated capitalism is GOD we dont risk to see to many efforts in that direction.

The only thing oner can hope for is tnat the current right wing trendtrend is chanded for a more moderate one...hopefully before China ...has fully discovered the potential in letting all bounds loose.

Cause when they do.....they will be "The empire".



Bluelight