History tuition in the USA

[Gob]

But enough about your sex life.....

[Econoline]

“We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.”

--Vladimir Putin, 11 September 2013




Oh, this is "Laffs!"? Okay then...

[Guinevere]

So still no source/link to that very amusing list? Or any of the other random quotes posted.

Putting Iraq to the side for a moment, may only countries with spotless records (whatever that may be) have the right to complaint about the aggressive use of force by one nation to another? And if that's the case, is there any country left in the world who could then complain, or act against Russia here?

And even considering Iraq, do you think these situations are equivalent?

[Gob]

Putting Iraq to the side for a moment, may only countries with spotless records (whatever that may be) have the right to complaint about the aggressive use of force by one nation to another? And if that's the case, is there any country left in the world who could then complain, or act against Russia here?

I very much doubt it. Even Aus was stupid enough to follow the US into Vietnam.

And even considering Iraq, do you think these situations are equivalent?

Not yet, let's see how it develops.

[TPFKA@W]

Not yet, let's see how it develops.

But it's just so much more fun to bash the USA right out of the gate and then fail to back up what you say.

You suck.

[Gob]

Why, thank you...

But what did I "fail to back up"?

And are you saying that there is no hypocrisy in Kerry's statement?

[Guinevere]

Or, a difficult choice in a world where none of the choices are easy, and where it is always simpler to stand back and toss zingers, than it is to take action.

I don't agree with everything in the article linked below, and it came from a die-hard conservative friend, but it makes a decent point or two:

http://m.nationalreview.com/article/372 ... m-geraghty

[Gob]

Option A .A world where the United States government and its military, supplied by corporations you find distasteful, responds to aggression and provocations through shows of force and military interventions. These interventions — sometimes on a large scale and sometimes on a small scale — inflict regrettable but inevitable collateral damage on civilians

Option B. A world where the United States government and its military do not respond this way, and disputes about territory, ideology, and power beyond our borders are hashed out by the Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians, the Pakistanis, the Saudis, various jihadist factions

Pick one. There is no “Option C” where the United Nations suddenly becomes an effective, respected peacekeeping force. There is no “Option D” where the world’s strong men and brutes are talked into taking up yoga and become calm, mellow guys, eager to hug it out.

My LOL of the day. Thanks.

[Lord Jim]

Option A .A world where the United States government and its military, supplied by corporations you find distasteful, responds to aggression and provocations through shows of force and military interventions. These interventions — sometimes on a large scale and sometimes on a small scale — inflict regrettable but inevitable collateral damage on civilians

Option B. A world where the United States government and its military do not respond this way, and disputes about territory, ideology, and power beyond our borders are hashed out by the Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians, the Pakistanis, the Saudis, various jihadist factions

Pick one. There is no “Option C” where the United Nations suddenly becomes an effective, respected peacekeeping force. There is no “Option D” where the world’s strong men and brutes are talked into taking up yoga and become calm, mellow guys, eager to hug it out.

[dgs49]

Invariably, the motivation of U.S. military action is forgotten - intentionally, I would say - and forevermore it is viewed as agression against everyone who happened to be injured.

Unlike the Russian "invasion" of Crimea, the U.S. never had any intention or desire to conquer or subjugate either Iraq or Afghanistan. In Iraq, we went in with the vain hope that Saddam could be quickly deposed, and we could help the Iraqi people to establish some sort of "democratic" regime, according to their own culture and preferences. We were prepared to spend billions to repair and rebuild the damage caused by our invasion, and to invest billions more, helping them to reconstruct the infrastructure (including hospitals and schools) that Saddam had allowed to erode. And in fact we spent those billions and got approximately nothing in return. The U.S. had NOTHING TO GAIN by deposing Saddam, and the only "selfish" motive that is even conceivable was that MAYBE, once their oil infrastructure was rebuilt, we might be able to recover some of the funds we advanced to rebuild the country through Iraq's enhanced oil revenues. Last time I checked, this hasn't worked out as planned.

Afghanistan is a similar story. We never intended to rule or subjugate Afghanistan, but only to depose a regime that had become an international menace, and allow the people of that god-forsaken country to rebuild, both politically and physically. Again, we were prepared to spend - and actually did spend - hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars in the attempt.

But yeah, I guess it's pretty comparable to what Russia is doing in Crimea.

At least in Gob's mind.