Because it was getting late (look at the time stamp) and also because it
wouldn't make a difference or change anyone's mind. It boggles me to see
what people will believe, without question. The idea here is to bash the US.
It's done with lies, exaggerations and innuendo. In many of the items you
could substitute, for example, France for US. It never says UN, just US.
It's all in the way you say things. My wife's father hasn't worked for
years. He hangs around the house most of the time, but he doesn't mind
having fun fishing or hunting when they're in season. Every month he
collects his check from the government. Money, by the way, that you and I
are paying for. What do you think about a guy like this?
Oh, did I mention that he's 80 and retired? Does it make a difference in
what you think about him? Everything I said was true, I just left out one
little thing.
OK, I'm an old guy so I remember a lot of this stuff, and some of it I
participated in. Here goes:
It was a UN venture and we backed the Shah, we didn't install him.
Civilians were killed, but it was at the hand of Arbenz. Although elections
were held, he was not democratically elected. If you didn't vote for him,
you were killed or tortured. I was young then but remember it because my
father was sent there (on business, he was a knitting machine mechanic)
while it was going on.
Sorry, never heard of this one, but I won't call it a lie. I can't imagine
why we'd want to get rid of him and help him at the same time. Does anyone
know the reason for this if it's true?
Actual estimates are about 10,000. It was not just US military, but a UN
venture. To say otherwise doesn't do justice to the Australian, British,
French, Korean and other country's young men who died there.
I don't know the number of lives lost from the 1850s to 1954 when Viet Nam
was a colony of France. They had several generations of resistance. The
first was in the 1800s but it quickly failed. The Japanese victory over the
Russian empire in 1904 proved that an Asian country could defeat a western
power, and stimulated the second generation of Vietnamese resistance. Most
of the fighting was guerrilla type warfare in each case, which consisted of
each village fighting for freedom against French tyranny. In this type of
situation, it's hard to say which Vietnamese were soldiers or civilians, so
I suppose it's possible that you could make the case that millions of
civilians died. If a civilian fights soldiers, is he still a civilian? The
3rd generation was in the 1920s and in 1954 the Vietnamese finally defeated
the French and the Geneva Peace Accords were signed.
They weren't terrorists then. We trained them as we train our own military
and they were effective in stopping the spread of communism.
Had we done something sooner, some of those lives might have been saved, but
I'm sure that's not what you're trying to say.
He was fighting the Shah of Iran who was openly hostile and threatening the
US, so why not give him a little aid. We sold him weapons and loaned him
money (as did other countries). All were supposed to be paid for and it was
about one billion dollars. Unlike the French and Russians, who have sold
Hussein weapons for the past 12 years, it was not against international law
back in the 80s.
Noriega was a CIA informant, not an agent. He didn't take orders from
Washington, but we did ask him, in his capacity as President of Panama, to
cease his involvement with pushing *** into the US. We went after him like
we'd go after any other drug lord, but obviously we didn't have his consent.
As I recall, most Panamanians didn't cry when he was gone.
By the way, according to the Australian Peace Committee, it was 1400
civilians, not 3000.
This is a prime example of "stretched".
With weapons supplied from the US in the 80s, but also with weapons from
Russia, France, China & several other countries. What's the point you're
trying to make? Iraq invades Kuwait and it's somehow our fault, and solely
our fault? Are you saying we forced Iraq to invade Kuwait?
It was the UN troops who entered Iraq. The President of Kuwait (you don't
call Saddam the dictator of Iraq, do you?), I suppose you can say he was
reinstated, but in effect he just resumed his office. In 4 or 5 cases above,
you complain because we supposedly took someone out of office, and now you
complain because we leave someone in. I guess we're damned if we do and
damned if we don't.
Wow, those UN inspectors must have been jumping for cover. We flew spy
planes over Iraq every week, not bombers, and it was part of Saddam's
surrender terms. Anyone watching the news must know that we certainly didn't
bomb them every week for the past 12 years. Come on, that's just plain
stupid. I don't know how many children died, but bombs or sanctions didn't
kill them. Billions of dollars were sent for humanitarian aid. Saddam spent
it on 50 new palaces. He doesn't care about the children. We (and other
countries) also tried sending medical supplies and food, but what Saddam
couldn't use for himself or his inner circle was destroyed. He wanted his
people to suffer so he could get sympathy from the world community.
My eyes are open. Lies, innuendo and exaggerations like this are selling us
down the river.
--
Slot
Tweaks & Reviews
www.slottweak.com
