Again a Western country bends over

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Just one more example of the current administration's intent to not offend anybody, unless it be somoene like the UK (over the Falklands) or Israel (over the 1800 homes in East Jeruselem)..... Staunch friends its ok to offend - but people who have called for and been party to attacks on innocents people, ours or others, we must do all we can to keep them from being offended....

It's not really Obama's fault that the Brits and Israelis are so touchy over a stance of neutrality. It's not our problem. The issue of the Falkland Islands has always been between Argentina and Britain since the 1800s; they just want us to voice our support for them so they can take the islands, or at least gain support from other nations because the United States' opinion is still valued for something since it's a superpower. We are obliged to do nothing; they are obliged to do nothing. The Israelis are no different; our situation with them is no different. And that's how simple it is.

And as far as "people who have called for and been party to attacks on innocents people, ours or others, we must do all we can to keep them from being offended" goes... evidently you must view the Brits and Israelis as perfect little angels who have never violated an international law before by killing civilians/innocents intentionally...

Though there was that time back during the 1920s when the British and Churchill (when he was still a war minister) were in favor of using newly developed weapons "against recalcitrant Arabs as an experiment". Delayed action bombs, particularly efficient against children, were used as part of this experimenting, but Churchill preferred using the shock and awe tactic and use of chemical weapons, enthusiastically arguing for use of poison gases on "uncivilised tribes". He stated and I quote:

"I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas.
I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected."

And yes, the gas was tested: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/apr/19/iraq.arts

This is of course neglecting to mention what the Indians under Gandhi (and indeed Gandhi himself) had done to them when they nonviolently protested British colonial rule of a province that was rightfully theirs and was unfairly taken nearly a century and a half before.

Israel gets away with crap with the Palestinians all the time. This article sums them up the best, as far as recent times are concerned: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...rimes-guardian

Not to say we're innocent little angels either, because we've committed our fair share of crimes and injustices against innocents (especially the Native Americans and African-Americans).

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Cohaagen - its because of Reagan that the spot you were describing isn't still a target - know why - because the cold war is over - thanks to that anecdote quoting, jelly bean eating president. So your welcome - even though your likely not couth enough to say thank you....

Reagan ending the cold war. As laughable as the claim that he was the reason the Berlin Wall fell. The Soviet Union collapsed over a few decades (similar to the death of the Roman Empire; it took time), since the 1960s really. For one, the military was not what it once was; the war in Afghanistan had taken a hefty toll on them back in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Poor economic management was also to blame. Elaborating, the mills and industrial plants that churned out millions of weapons, tools, equipment, etc., from the 1940s to the 1960s were gradually breaking down in quality. With time, they became old and problematic. The government's central planning could no longer properly provide for everyone and shortages were common for most households. The standard of living was incredibly low compared to other surrounding countries, and this only made the people even more rebellious towards their overlords (though the amount of corruption in the bureaucracy certainly didn't help).

Their military still had some power, skill, and control, but everything else was just useless. And as a result, the people grew fed up with it. It was inevitable that any small push in any direction would make the whole thing collapse onto itself. A country as large and complex as the Soviet Union does not fall simply because of the actions of one man in one short time. It takes many combined problems over the course of ages to truly produce anything bad for a government that great. Much like our economy now: it was so large and complex that it took the combined efforts of numerous things to reduce it to what it is now.

He gave a speech about the Wall and Soviet Union, he put on his tough-guy acting skills (he did get something useful out of Hollywood after all), and people bought it without bothering to investigate any further the reasons for the fall of Communism in Europe- let alone the death of the Soviets. Reagan was an actor. A good, convincing actor. But an actor nevertheless, not a president. He could convince people that he was a president, but his flattering words and moving speeches did not solve anything. They never do. All they do is waste time, no matter who the person is that's doing the talking. They can inspire and provoke emotion, but they do not get anything done. The taking of action gets sh** done, precisely what Reagan lacked and precisely what the people of Germany and Russia had.

And indeed what Mikhail Gorbachev had. Perestroika intentionally brought down the Soviet Union from what it had been. As far as his actions at the Wall are concerned, he could have had all those people shot if he wanted. It was well within his abilities. Yet, he didn't.