Go Israel

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

First of all I don’t believe for a minute this statement. Yes we’ve supported and propped up and used despots, but what was the choice? There’s not a lot to choose from in some cases. Should we have postponed any and all strategic relations until democracy was in full bloom? Even without our involvement I don’t believe that you can say for sure that the same regimes wouldn’t have thrived anyway, or that even more tyrannical ones would have existed in their place.

Jim ... here's how to answer that ridiculous statement.

"You're confusing objectives and strategies. Our objective in places like Taiwan, South Korea, The Phillipines, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Chile was to help establish freedom and democracy.

But there were times when our strategy was to support authoritarian dictators in order to thwart the greater evil of communism. And that strategy worked perfectly.

Communism was defeated ... and Taiwan, South Korea, The Phillipines, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Chile all became free democracies.

We employed different strategies in Eastern Europe, South Africa, and many other places ... and those strategies achieved our objectives as well ... all those countries became free democracies.

So you see ... don't be confused by strategies ... keep your eye on the objective ... the way savvy Americans always have ... and you'll have a much clearer understanding of why we did what we did ... and how successful we've been."

That's how you handle chumps like that, Jim. Good night !!

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Jim ... here's how to answer that ridiculous statement.

"You're confusing objectives and strategies. Our objective in places like Taiwan, South Korea, The Phillipines, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Chile was to help establish freedom and democracy.

But there were times when our strategy was to support authoritarian dictators in order to thwart the greater evil of communism. And that strategy worked perfectly.

Communism was defeated ... and Taiwan, South Korea, The Phillipines, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Chile all became free democracies.

We employed different strategies in Eastern Europe, South Africa, and many other places ... and those strategies achieved our objectives as well ... all those countries became free democracies.

So you see ... don't be confused by strategies ... keep your eye on the objective ... the way savvy Americans always have ... and you'll have a much clearer understanding of why we did what we did ... and how successful we've been."

That's how you handle chumps like that, Jim. Good night !!

Yes you said it, that's what I meant to say! I won't argue with your ability to say it better than I can.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

Yes you said it, that's what I meant to say! I won't argue with your ability to say it better than I can.

Okay, so what country has put up more tyrannical despot rulers than the US over the last 200 years? Shall i go over the names?

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Okay, so what country has put up more tyrannical despot rulers than the US over the last 200 years? Shall i go over the names?

You can go ahead and put up the names, but at the same time I want to know from you what should the strategy have been at the time? Who should we have supported, anyone? No one? I know that you can come up with a list of despised dictators but that's not the hard part.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

You can go ahead and put up the names, but at the same time I want to know from you what should the strategy have been at the time? Who should we have supported, anyone? No one? I know that you can come up with a list of despised dictators but that's not the hard part.

Okay Jim...I'll bite.

Just for starters:

How about the somozas in Nicaragua? We put this family in in the 1920's. That fool brooklynite keeps speaking of "objectives" but why did we keep a family of successive despots in until 1979? There was no threat of communism for much of that tenure. So why? Because it was easy to control with money. We didnt give a damn about democracy or "the american way". it was about sheer control and about serious violations of human rights and misuse of US aid. What could we have done differently? Perhaps we could have not fed them the money for so many years. When the money stopped, so did their reign.

How about Mobutu in the congo? Didnt he make off with like 5 billion dollars in money bilked by US taxpayers all because he agreed to close the Soviet embassy. Surely we could have backed a different man...a man that would share some of the 5 billion dollars to his starving people.

How about Idi Amin? Us aid in dollars and military equipment all while he killed THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND OF HIS OWN PEOPLE. Yep, the American way right there. We really liberated those poor people and showed them a NEW way of life.

How about Pol Pot? I love when idiots like this brooklynite fool talk completely out of their ass and have not a clue about what they are farting out. Pol Pot came to power as a result of the frenzy from illegal US bombing during the Viet Nam war. I said ILLEGAL US bombing. Then, because Pol Pot hated the soviets and they were natural enemies to Viet Nam, the US decided to support the government and did so for five years while he killed over a MILLION of his own people. What could they have done differently? HMMMMM....maybe tried to fight this guy who was committing genocide? This brooklynite fool actually tries to claim that the US helped rid the country of tyranny. What a moron! The US SUPPORTED IT! The Vietnamese liberated Cambodia from Pol Pot.

Thats just starters...you want more?

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Okay Jim...I'll bite.

Just for starters:

How about the somozas in Nicaragua?

How about Mobutu in the congo?

How about Idi Amin?

How about Pol Pot?

Thats just starters...you want more?

I notice you conveniently left out every country I mentioned ... where we backed a dictator against communist aggression ... then after we defeated communism ... we helped Taiwan, South Korea, The Phillipines, Chile, Nicaragua, and El Salvador become free democracies.

You did mention Nicaragua ... but to what end? We helped defeat the communists and it's now a free democracy ... did you prefer a different outcome ... and what would that outcome have been?

Congo? Are you serious? That was a Belgian colony which never even made it on our radar. We never had ... and never wanted ... any influence there.

Idi Amin? We always worked against him ... and now Uganda is an emerging democracy. Another successful strategy and outcome. What would you have preferred?

Pol Pot? He was a murderous communist whom we worked against ... but unfortunately we couldn't prevent from coming to power after the communists swept into South Vietnam ... after our Democrat Congress shamelessly abandoned our allies by completely cutting off our aid.

How about Iran? That was a case where numbskull Jimmuh abandoned a pro-western dictator ... the shah ... and handed the country over to the fanatical mullahs ... and the entire world has been paying a horrible price ever since. Doncha think that staying with the shah would have been better than the idiotic strategy of Jimmuh ... the worst president we've ever had?

And Vietnam? Another horrible mistake of not backing a pro-western Christian dictator ... Diem. Did I say not backing him? Hey .. the idiot Kennedy had him murdered! Again ... was not backing a pro-western dictator in South Vietnam a good idea?

Yes, my friend ... there are times when choosing the lesser of two evils yields beneficial results ... South Korea, Taiwan, The Phillipines, Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador ... and other times when NOT backing a dictator leads to even worse results ... Vietnam, Iran.

You do see that now ... don't you?

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

I notice you conveniently left out every country I mentioned ... where we backed a dictator against communist aggression ... then after we defeated communism ... we helped Taiwan, South Korea, The Phillipines, Chile, Nicaragua, and El Salvador become free democracies.

You did mention Nicaragua ... but to what end? We helped defeat the communists and it's now a free democracy ... did you prefer a different outcome ... and what would that outcome have been?

Congo? Are you serious? That was a Belgian colony which never even made it on our radar. We never had ... and never wanted ... any influence there.

Idi Amin? We always worked against him ... and now Uganda is an emerging democracy. Another successful strategy and outcome. What would you have preferred?

Pol Pot? He was a murderous communist whom we worked against ... but unfortunately we couldn't prevent from coming to power after the communists swept into South Vietnam ... after our Democrat Congress shamelessly abandoned our allies by completely cutting off our aid.

How about Iran? That was a case where numbskull Jimmuh abandoned a pro-western dictator ... the shah ... and handed the country over to the fanatical mullahs ... and the entire world has been paying a horrible price ever since. Doncha think that staying with the shah would have been better than the idiotic strategy of Jimmuh ... the worst president we've ever had?

And Vietnam? Another horrible mistake of not backing a pro-western Christian dictator ... Diem. Did I say not backing him? Hey .. the idiot Kennedy had him murdered! Again ... was not backing a pro-western dictator in South Vietnam a good idea?

Yes, my friend ... there are times when choosing the lesser of two evils yields beneficial results ... South Korea, Taiwan, The Phillipines, Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador ... and other times when NOT backing a dictator leads to even worse results ... Vietnam, Iran.

You do see that now ... don't you?

You are either horribly uninformed or just a complete liar...make your pick. Liar or idiot. Our president obviously chose "idiot" and i bet you will do the same.

Before i dissect all of this other garbage, i will suggest you read a number of articles but most importantly the recently released Nixon dialogues where it is in bold letters how the US did indeed deal with Mobutu and did have interest in congo/zaire.

Now, everyone, It is proven. Brooklynite is either a liar or an uninformed idiot!



And if anyone doubts me, here is the link!

Enjoy.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/nixon/e6/67173.htm

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

I notice you conveniently left out every country I mentioned ... where we backed a dictator against communist aggression ... then after we defeated communism ... we helped Taiwan, South Korea, The Phillipines, Chile, Nicaragua, and El Salvador become free democracies.

You did mention Nicaragua ... but to what end? We helped defeat the communists and it's now a free democracy ... did you prefer a different outcome ... and what would that outcome have been?

Congo? Are you serious? That was a Belgian colony which never even made it on our radar. We never had ... and never wanted ... any influence there.

Idi Amin? We always worked against him ... and now Uganda is an emerging democracy. Another successful strategy and outcome. What would you have preferred?

Pol Pot? He was a murderous communist whom we worked against ... but unfortunately we couldn't prevent from coming to power after the communists swept into South Vietnam ... after our Democrat Congress shamelessly abandoned our allies by completely cutting off our aid.

How about Iran? That was a case where numbskull Jimmuh abandoned a pro-western dictator ... the shah ... and handed the country over to the fanatical mullahs ... and the entire world has been paying a horrible price ever since. Doncha think that staying with the shah would have been better than the idiotic strategy of Jimmuh ... the worst president we've ever had?

And Vietnam? Another horrible mistake of not backing a pro-western Christian dictator ... Diem. Did I say not backing him? Hey .. the idiot Kennedy had him murdered! Again ... was not backing a pro-western dictator in South Vietnam a good idea?

Yes, my friend ... there are times when choosing the lesser of two evils yields beneficial results ... South Korea, Taiwan, The Phillipines, Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador ... and other times when NOT backing a dictator leads to even worse results ... Vietnam, Iran.

You do see that now ... don't you?

now which is brooklynite? Liar or uninformed?

Just answer the question...no spin.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

I notice you conveniently left out every country I mentioned ... where we backed a dictator against communist aggression ... then after we defeated communism ... we helped Taiwan, South Korea, The Phillipines, Chile, Nicaragua, and El Salvador become free democracies.

You did mention Nicaragua ... but to what end? We helped defeat the communists and it's now a free democracy ... did you prefer a different outcome ... and what would that outcome have been?

Congo? Are you serious? That was a Belgian colony which never even made it on our radar. We never had ... and never wanted ... any influence there.

Idi Amin? We always worked against him ... and now Uganda is an emerging democracy. Another successful strategy and outcome. What would you have preferred?

Pol Pot? He was a murderous communist whom we worked against ... but unfortunately we couldn't prevent from coming to power after the communists swept into South Vietnam ... after our Democrat Congress shamelessly abandoned our allies by completely cutting off our aid.

How about Iran? That was a case where numbskull Jimmuh abandoned a pro-western dictator ... the shah ... and handed the country over to the fanatical mullahs ... and the entire world has been paying a horrible price ever since. Doncha think that staying with the shah would have been better than the idiotic strategy of Jimmuh ... the worst president we've ever had?

And Vietnam? Another horrible mistake of not backing a pro-western Christian dictator ... Diem. Did I say not backing him? Hey .. the idiot Kennedy had him murdered! Again ... was not backing a pro-western dictator in South Vietnam a good idea?

Yes, my friend ... there are times when choosing the lesser of two evils yields beneficial results ... South Korea, Taiwan, The Phillipines, Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador ... and other times when NOT backing a dictator leads to even worse results ... Vietnam, Iran.

You do see that now ... don't you?

Liar or uninformed? Come on...Just answer the question.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

I notice you conveniently left out every country I mentioned ... where we backed a dictator against communist aggression ... then after we defeated communism ... we helped Taiwan, South Korea, The Phillipines, Chile, Nicaragua, and El Salvador become free democracies.

You did mention Nicaragua ... but to what end? We helped defeat the communists and it's now a free democracy ... did you prefer a different outcome ... and what would that outcome have been?

Congo? Are you serious? That was a Belgian colony which never even made it on our radar. We never had ... and never wanted ... any influence there.
Idi Amin? We always worked against him ... and now Uganda is an emerging democracy. Another successful strategy and outcome. What would you have preferred?

Pol Pot? He was a murderous communist whom we worked against ... but unfortunately we couldn't prevent from coming to power after the communists swept into South Vietnam ... after our Democrat Congress shamelessly abandoned our allies by completely cutting off our aid.

How about Iran? That was a case where numbskull Jimmuh abandoned a pro-western dictator ... the shah ... and handed the country over to the fanatical mullahs ... and the entire world has been paying a horrible price ever since. Doncha think that staying with the shah would have been better than the idiotic strategy of Jimmuh ... the worst president we've ever had?

And Vietnam? Another horrible mistake of not backing a pro-western Christian dictator ... Diem. Did I say not backing him? Hey .. the idiot Kennedy had him murdered! Again ... was not backing a pro-western dictator in South Vietnam a good idea?

Yes, my friend ... there are times when choosing the lesser of two evils yields beneficial results ... South Korea, Taiwan, The Phillipines, Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador ... and other times when NOT backing a dictator leads to even worse results ... Vietnam, Iran.

You do see that now ... don't you?

Liar or uninformed? How about UNINFORMED LIAR????????

Just in case anyone forgot, read the bold and then check out the link.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/nixon/e6/67173.htm

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

I notice you conveniently left out every country I mentioned ... where we backed a dictator against communist aggression ... then after we defeated communism ... we helped Taiwan, South Korea, The Phillipines, Chile, Nicaragua, and El Salvador become free democracies.

You did mention Nicaragua ... but to what end? We helped defeat the communists and it's now a free democracy ... did you prefer a different outcome ... and what would that outcome have been?

Congo? Are you serious? That was a Belgian colony which never even made it on our radar. We never had ... and never wanted ... any influence there.
Idi Amin? We always worked against him ... and now Uganda is an emerging democracy. Another successful strategy and outcome. What would you have preferred?

Pol Pot? He was a murderous communist whom we worked against ... but unfortunately we couldn't prevent from coming to power after the communists swept into South Vietnam ... after our Democrat Congress shamelessly abandoned our allies by completely cutting off our aid.

How about Iran? That was a case where numbskull Jimmuh abandoned a pro-western dictator ... the shah ... and handed the country over to the fanatical mullahs ... and the entire world has been paying a horrible price ever since. Doncha think that staying with the shah would have been better than the idiotic strategy of Jimmuh ... the worst president we've ever had?

And Vietnam? Another horrible mistake of not backing a pro-western Christian dictator ... Diem. Did I say not backing him? Hey .. the idiot Kennedy had him murdered! Again ... was not backing a pro-western dictator in South Vietnam a good idea?

Yes, my friend ... there are times when choosing the lesser of two evils yields beneficial results ... South Korea, Taiwan, The Phillipines, Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador ... and other times when NOT backing a dictator leads to even worse results ... Vietnam, Iran.

You do see that now ... don't you?

So the coward's way out once again. Liar or uninformed?

The link one more time


http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/nixon/e6/67173.htm

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

I notice you conveniently left out every country I mentioned ... where we backed a dictator against communist aggression ... then after we defeated communism ... we helped Taiwan, South Korea, The Phillipines, Chile, Nicaragua, and El Salvador become free democracies.

You did mention Nicaragua ... but to what end? We helped defeat the communists and it's now a free democracy ... did you prefer a different outcome ... and what would that outcome have been?

Congo? Are you serious? That was a Belgian colony which never even made it on our radar. We never had ... and never wanted ... any influence there.
Idi Amin? We always worked against him ... and now Uganda is an emerging democracy. Another successful strategy and outcome. What would you have preferred?

Pol Pot? He was a murderous communist whom we worked against ... but unfortunately we couldn't prevent from coming to power after the communists swept into South Vietnam ... after our Democrat Congress shamelessly abandoned our allies by completely cutting off our aid.

How about Iran? That was a case where numbskull Jimmuh abandoned a pro-western dictator ... the shah ... and handed the country over to the fanatical mullahs ... and the entire world has been paying a horrible price ever since. Doncha think that staying with the shah would have been better than the idiotic strategy of Jimmuh ... the worst president we've ever had?

And Vietnam? Another horrible mistake of not backing a pro-western Christian dictator ... Diem. Did I say not backing him? Hey .. the idiot Kennedy had him murdered! Again ... was not backing a pro-western dictator in South Vietnam a good idea?

Yes, my friend ... there are times when choosing the lesser of two evils yields beneficial results ... South Korea, Taiwan, The Phillipines, Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador ... and other times when NOT backing a dictator leads to even worse results ... Vietnam, Iran.

You do see that now ... don't you?

Liar or uninformed? Come on- its getting fun watching you squirm as everyone on this site has now seen you for the FRAUD that you are.

Now, if you answer me, i can get to chopping up the rest of this sad piece.

In case you forgot, here is the link

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/nixon/e6/67173.htm

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

I notice you conveniently left out every country I mentioned ... where we backed a dictator against communist aggression ... then after we defeated communism ... we helped Taiwan, South Korea, The Phillipines, Chile, Nicaragua, and El Salvador become free democracies.

You did mention Nicaragua ... but to what end? We helped defeat the communists and it's now a free democracy ... did you prefer a different outcome ... and what would that outcome have been?

Congo? Are you serious? That was a Belgian colony which never even made it on our radar. We never had ... and never wanted ... any influence there.
Idi Amin? We always worked against him ... and now Uganda is an emerging democracy. Another successful strategy and outcome. What would you have preferred?

Pol Pot? He was a murderous communist whom we worked against ... but unfortunately we couldn't prevent from coming to power after the communists swept into South Vietnam ... after our Democrat Congress shamelessly abandoned our allies by completely cutting off our aid.

How about Iran? That was a case where numbskull Jimmuh abandoned a pro-western dictator ... the shah ... and handed the country over to the fanatical mullahs ... and the entire world has been paying a horrible price ever since. Doncha think that staying with the shah would have been better than the idiotic strategy of Jimmuh ... the worst president we've ever had?

And Vietnam? Another horrible mistake of not backing a pro-western Christian dictator ... Diem. Did I say not backing him? Hey .. the idiot Kennedy had him murdered! Again ... was not backing a pro-western dictator in South Vietnam a good idea?

Yes, my friend ... there are times when choosing the lesser of two evils yields beneficial results ... South Korea, Taiwan, The Phillipines, Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador ... and other times when NOT backing a dictator leads to even worse results ... Vietnam, Iran.

You do see that now ... don't you?

Who ever said anything about whether or not Nixon knew anything? YOU made the claim that "we never wanted or had any influence in the Congo" which is WRONG. Quit spinning and just admit that you are an ignorant uninformed fool.

Shall i get to the idi amin part?

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/nixon/e6/67267.htm

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

I notice you conveniently left out every country I mentioned ... where we backed a dictator against communist aggression ... then after we defeated communism ... we helped Taiwan, South Korea, The Phillipines, Chile, Nicaragua, and El Salvador become free democracies.

You did mention Nicaragua ... but to what end? We helped defeat the communists and it's now a free democracy ... did you prefer a different outcome ... and what would that outcome have been?

Congo? Are you serious? That was a Belgian colony which never even made it on our radar. We never had ... and never wanted ... any influence there.

BAAAA HAAAA HHAAAAA HHAAAAA Liar or uninformed?

Idi Amin? We always worked against him ... and now Uganda is an emerging democracy. Another successful strategy and outcome. What would you have preferred?

Shall i go here next?Pol Pot? He was a murderous communist whom we worked against ... but unfortunately we couldn't prevent from coming to power after the communists swept into South Vietnam ... after our Democrat Congress shamelessly abandoned our allies by completely cutting off our aid.

How about here?
How about Iran? That was a case where numbskull Jimmuh abandoned a pro-western dictator ... the shah ... and handed the country over to the fanatical mullahs ... and the entire world has been paying a horrible price ever since. Doncha think that staying with the shah would have been better than the idiotic strategy of Jimmuh ... the worst president we've ever had?

And Vietnam? Another horrible mistake of not backing a pro-western Christian dictator ... Diem. Did I say not backing him? Hey .. the idiot Kennedy had him murdered! Again ... was not backing a pro-western dictator in South Vietnam a good idea?

Yes, my friend ... there are times when choosing the lesser of two evils yields beneficial results ... South Korea, Taiwan, The Phillipines, Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador ... and other times when NOT backing a dictator leads to even worse results ... Vietnam, Iran.

You do see that now ... don't you?

Liar or uninformed? and please, stop doing immitations of your wife the first time you whipped it out.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

I notice you conveniently left out every country I mentioned ... where we backed a dictator against communist aggression ... then after we defeated communism ... we helped Taiwan, South Korea, The Phillipines, Chile, Nicaragua, and El Salvador become free democracies.

You did mention Nicaragua ... but to what end? We helped defeat the communists and it's now a free democracy ... did you prefer a different outcome ... and what would that outcome have been?

Congo? Are you serious? That was a Belgian colony which never even made it on our radar. We never had ... and never wanted ... any influence there.
Idi Amin? We always worked against him ... and now Uganda is an emerging democracy. Another successful strategy and outcome. What would you have preferred?

Pol Pot? He was a murderous communist whom we worked against ... but unfortunately we couldn't prevent from coming to power after the communists swept into South Vietnam ... after our Democrat Congress shamelessly abandoned our allies by completely cutting off our aid.

How about Iran? That was a case where numbskull Jimmuh abandoned a pro-western dictator ... the shah ... and handed the country over to the fanatical mullahs ... and the entire world has been paying a horrible price ever since. Doncha think that staying with the shah would have been better than the idiotic strategy of Jimmuh ... the worst president we've ever had?

And Vietnam? Another horrible mistake of not backing a pro-western Christian dictator ... Diem. Did I say not backing him? Hey .. the idiot Kennedy had him murdered! Again ... was not backing a pro-western dictator in South Vietnam a good idea?

Yes, my friend ... there are times when choosing the lesser of two evils yields beneficial results ... South Korea, Taiwan, The Phillipines, Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador ... and other times when NOT backing a dictator leads to even worse results ... Vietnam, Iran.

You do see that now ... don't you?

Still unwilling to admit that you are either a liar or uninformed? Sorry pal, im not going away.

"hi, im bold brooklynite, i like talking about history and politics but i dont have a clue about anything unless i cut and paste it from another site"

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

I notice you conveniently left out every country I mentioned ... where we backed a dictator against communist aggression ... then after we defeated communism ... we helped Taiwan, South Korea, The Phillipines, Chile, Nicaragua, and El Salvador become free democracies.

You did mention Nicaragua ... but to what end? We helped defeat the communists and it's now a free democracy ... did you prefer a different outcome ... and what would that outcome have been?

Congo? Are you serious? That was a Belgian colony which never even made it on our radar. We never had ... and never wanted ... any influence there.

Idi Amin? We always worked against him ... and now Uganda is an emerging democracy. Another successful strategy and outcome. What would you have preferred?

Pol Pot? He was a murderous communist whom we worked against ... but unfortunately we couldn't prevent from coming to power after the communists swept into South Vietnam ... after our Democrat Congress shamelessly abandoned our allies by completely cutting off our aid.

How about Iran? That was a case where numbskull Jimmuh abandoned a pro-western dictator ... the shah ... and handed the country over to the fanatical mullahs ... and the entire world has been paying a horrible price ever since. Doncha think that staying with the shah would have been better than the idiotic strategy of Jimmuh ... the worst president we've ever had?

And Vietnam? Another horrible mistake of not backing a pro-western Christian dictator ... Diem. Did I say not backing him? Hey .. the idiot Kennedy had him murdered! Again ... was not backing a pro-western dictator in South Vietnam a good idea?

Yes, my friend ... there are times when choosing the lesser of two evils yields beneficial results ... South Korea, Taiwan, The Phillipines, Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador ... and other times when NOT backing a dictator leads to even worse results ... Vietnam, Iran.

You do see that now ... don't you?

perhaps we can get some more stirring commentary from "the grand master" on whether he is a LIAR or simply an UNINFORMED IDIOT.

Brooklynite fool seems to have made a FALSE claim and doesnt want to own up.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

You can go ahead and put up the names, but at the same time I want to know from you what should the strategy have been at the time? Who should we have supported, anyone? No one? I know that you can come up with a list of despised dictators but that's not the hard part.

We have all of these Monday morning quarterbacks here that criticize every move tha the US has made over the years. I agree that the US has made some mistakes over the years. That's not the point. When you are the richest country in the world and you have a stake in the outcome of many global conflicts, sometimes you are forced to take sides in these conflicts. The US has to ask itself what the better outcome would be in each of these conflicts. The Iran/Iraq war back in the 1980s is a perfect example. People on this board like Dalakhani say that we shouldn't have supported Saddam back in the 1980s, but what was the alternative? Iraq was at war with Iran at the time. Our leaders thought about the situation carefully and decided that it was important to make sure that Iran did not prevail in that war, so we supported Iraq. The fact that Saddam became an enemy years later does not mean that it was a mistake to support Iraq back in the 1980s. Saddam was the lesser of two evils at the time. The radical regime that was in power in Iran in the 1980s appeared to be a dangerous threat. The smart thing for us to do at the time was to support Saddam.
I don't know why people like to bring up the fact that we supported Saddam back in the 1980s. How is that relevant to today? It made sense to support Saddam in the 1980s.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

We have all of these Monday morning quarterbacks here that criticize every move tha the US has made over the years. I agree that the US has made some mistakes over the years. That's not the point. When you are the richest country in the world and you have a stake in the outcome of many global conflicts, sometimes you are forced to take sides in these conflicts. The US has to ask itself what the better outcome would be in each of these conflicts. The Iran/Iraq war back in the 1980s is a perfect example. People on this board like Dalakhani say that we shouldn't have supported Saddam back in the 1980s, but what was the alternative? Iraq was at war with Iran at the time. Our leaders thought about the situation carefully and decided that it was important to make sure that Iran did not prevail in that war, so we supported Iraq. The fact that Saddam became an enemy years later does not mean that it was a mistake to support Iraq back in the 1980s. Saddam was the lesser of two evils at the time. The radical regime that was in power in Iran in the 1980s appeared to be a dangerous threat. The smart thing for us to do at the time was to support Saddam.
I don't know why people like to bring up the fact that we supported Saddam back in the 1980s. How is that relevant to today? It made sense to support Saddam in the 1980s.

Rupert-

Do me a favor and PLEASE keep posting on this topic. Your replies make for rather easy fodder. Thank you!

First of all, the US supplied BOTH sides of that little war. Surely youve heard of the whole Iran- Contra deal which nearly got a president impeached and caused one Oliver North to gain a sudden case of amnesia. The US supplied both sides so that they could kill each other off. Yes- The altruistic motives of the US government at its very best.

Basically you are saying that the US empowered and supplied a genocidal, tyrannical despot as the "lesser of two evils" so that we could maintain political control? What about the "freedom" of the Iraqi people that our troops are dying for every day? Was that "freedom" not important then?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Rupert-

Do me a favor and PLEASE keep posting on this topic. Your replies make for rather easy fodder. Thank you!

First of all, the US supplied BOTH sides of that little war. Surely youve heard of the whole Iran- Contra deal which nearly got a president impeached and caused one Oliver North to gain a sudden case of amnesia. The US supplied both sides so that they could kill each other off. Yes- The altruistic motives of the US government at its very best.

Basically you are saying that the US empowered and supplied a genocidal, tyrannical despot as the "lesser of two evils" so that we could maintain political control? What about the "freedom" of the Iraqi people that our troops are dying for every day? Was that "freedom" not important then?

As Arl Jim said, "It's not possible for the US to be a one stop solution for every despotic regime. Foreign policy has to be pragmatic using policies crafted specifically for each individual situation."
I agree with Arl Jim 100% on this. I think this ansewrs your question as to why the US supports dictators when it suits them. We play the cards that are dealt us. I think it's that simple.
You made a sarcastic comment about the US government being altruistic. We may not always be altruistic but we are a helluva lot more altruistic than any other country in the world. We provide more aid all around the world than any other country.
You seem to have a lot of questions and criticisms about US foreign policy, but you don't seem to have any answers.
Anyway, US foreign policy with regard to Israel is not going to change. Israel has great bi-partisan support in Congress as it should. I know you'd like to see us support terrorists or "freedom fighters" as you would call them, but that won't be happening any time soon.

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

You can go ahead and put up the names, but at the same time I want to know from you what should the strategy have been at the time? Who should we have supported, anyone? No one? I know that you can come up with a list of despised dictators but that's not the hard part.

Now that's a great answer !!!

You're learning fast, Jimbo ... these guys are fast with the criticisms ... but they never offer an alternative.

The other guy said I was "insane" because of the tax distribution numbers I posted ... but ... did you notice that he never came up with figures of his own to refute mine?

Yup ... that's the technique to use with them ... "Hey, you don't like the strategy that was used ... then what would you have done ... hmmmm?"

Shuts 'em down every time.