Iraq to vote on bill banning US military presence

Because it's true. The US has no respect for national sovereignty. The US has been frequently and aggressively violating the sovereignty of other countries for over a century.

That is not a fact, it's just your opinion.

And the US is happy to ignore and even support the grossest violations of human rights committed by its authoritarian allies. Saudi Arabia, for example.

Those who believe US foreign policy is motivated by a desire to promote democracy and human rights are supremely naive.

 

What? How in the hell do you come to that conclusion?

Pol Pot (Saloth Sar) was originally a hard core dedicated Marxist-Lenninist. In 1965 he walked the Ho Chi Minh Trail to arrive in Hanoi and talk to the leaders of North Vietnam. He was coldly received, and while reading through their official archives he discovered that their ultimate goal was to become the center of a "Marxist-Lenninist" nation, comprising most of former Indochina and bordering nations with themselves as the "Senior Leader". Not unlike the Soviet Union actually being led by Russia, often to the detriment of the other nations that made up the Union.

But when he then traveled to China, he was warmly welcomed by Chairman Mao. He was very much made welcome, and came to believe much more in the more decentralized concept of Maoism than in the more authoritarian idea of Marxist-Lenninism. He left those meetings in 1966 very changed. Still a hard core Communist, but no longer a Marxist-Lenninist. And also a hard liner against the North Vietnamese government.

None of that had a damned thing to do with the US. And it is also why Vietnam had no problems with invading Kampuchea, and kicking out their "Communist" government. They were basically 2 incompatible forms of Communism. One Maoist, the other Marxist-Lenninist. And also why Vietnam was brutally invaded and punished by China shortly after they invaded Kampuchea and returned to Cambodia.

No, there is no connection between what happened in Cambodia and the US, because Pol Pot hated the North Vietnamese more than he did the Americans. He felt a deep and personal hatred for them, because of their snubbing of him, ignoring his offer to help, and believing that as Vietnamese they were superior to Cambodians (not unlike how many Russians believe they are superior to Georgians, Ukrainians, and others who once made up the USSR).

One of the ways he rose to power was in exploiting these feelings, and staging attacks on the embassies of both North and South Vietnam. Once he became leader of the Cambodian Central Committee, he had passed the "Principal of Independence-Mastery". In short, that Cambodia (later to become Kampuchea) would never submit to dominance of any other country or entity, especially by those who had once been brothers in what had been known as "French Indochina".

How in the hell you get to it is the fault of the US from all of that, I have no idea. Of course, I grew up with a lot of people who fled there as the Khmer Rouge came into power, so this was a big deal to them. And because much of the "Vietnam Elites" (including Uncle Ho) were intellectuals, this is often believed to be one of the reasons that class was especially persecuted during his reign.

 

It has now been a day and a half, and nobody has taken up your challenge yet.

And I do not expect anybody to do so. They are all better at avoiding answering hard questions than in proving anything.

Especially since the US got almost no "oil concessions" out of Iraq, even after the war was over. Or in the over 15 years since.

 

No it isn’t. Lol

 

Tell that to the people who encountered the Khmer rouge.. oh wait you can't they were slaughtered and left in open graves.
Not the result of accidental fire or even wreckless bombing. Actual straight up murder. So common among communists regimes as to be nearly universal.
Yeah. Communism is evil flat out evil. Far worse than America has ever done.

 

No, it is not worse than American atrocities across the world.

 

Wow, simply wow.

So the purposeful execution of intellectuals and others in Cambodia is not worse than things the US has done?

Tell you what bubba. You find me an example of where the US purposefully executed around 2.5 million individuals, and placed them in over 20,000 mass graves scattered across an entire country. Even the most conservative estimated have that government executing one quarter of the population of that nation.

You have just lost all credibility, or even any moral right to even comment, because you have shown that your personal bias is more important than facts. You really should let yourself out of the gene pool.

 

Are the hundreds of thousands of civilians we have killed less dead than those in Cambodia?

 

Uhhh, we did not kill them. They were killed by ISIS.

Yes, the death toll is according to most experts around 200,000. And less than half of that was before 2009. The vast majority of deaths happened after the US left and ISIS took over. The actual death count by US forces from after combat ended in 2003 and 2009 was only around 4,000. The vast majority were jihadists who were going after schools, markets, and any other soft target they could find.

Your claim is pretty much like trying to blame a cop of using excessive force when your neighbor walks up and shoots you. You were not shot by a cop, you were shot by somebody else.

 

We killed tens of thousands of civilians. Our destabilization of iraq directly led to ISIS.

 

By the same token then, our removing a brutal dictator in Germany led to the enslavement of most of Eastern Europe under a brutal totalitarian regime.

If you can not address simple facts and instead want to blame every evil on the US, I can not help you. Our sending medical supplies to vaccinate children in poor third world countries decades later led to mass starvations due to overpopulation. I guess that is our fault also. Some people in the US so love their illegal drugs that for decades they have been funding the most brutal criminal organizations in the world and destroyed 2 countries. That is our fault also.

Goodbye.

 

Besides the ones the US kills are "worth it" anyway. Madeline Albright said so, right?

 

Lol, no

 

Yes it is.

 

nope

 

Well then you had better be invading the USA to stop us. As you are morally obligated to do to keep us from murdering more people.

Yes there are moral obligations to stop murderous regimes.

 

The Russians took Berlin with Hitler in it. They caused the end of WWII. Let's not kid ourselves that the US only stumbled in when the war was already raging for years.

The US oil for "food" program led to mass starvation under the Iraqi people and massive of children died there. The US got a similar policy for the people of Yemen. There are pictures around of dying babies with bones sticking out of their skin for the hunger the US is causing. I doubt I can show this on this site due to the graphic nature of the US policies.

 

The US and Israel call those people "terrorists".

 

I reside in the US. I have no moral obligation to stop anyone.

no there isn't, but if you believe this then you are advocating for the invasion and replacement of the US government.

 

Uhhh, that was not the US. That was the UN. The US did not even participate in that program, and if you remember many high ranking members got in big trouble over that. Even the Secretary General, as well as many high ranking people from France and Russia (which did administer the program).

The majority of the oil went to Russia (30%), then France (20%). China got 10%, then lower percentages went down to where you get to Jordan and Egypt at 4%. The US only received oil because of it's characteristic of being a fungible commodity.

Most of the food was indeed unfit for human consumption. And that food was supplied under the program primarily by France and Russia.

So how that failure of a UN program administered by 2 other nations somehow transforms into a US one, I have no idea. But maybe next time you will at least try to do some research first, eh?

 

How does a nation becoming a threat to its own people negate sovereignty rights ?

This is a bizarre standard that no nation in the world follows - except when it is in their interest for propaganda purposes.

In many cases the US has sided with murderous dictators and terrorists - which makes nonsense of the above inference that the US normally acts against national forces that are threatening "the people" as a general rule.

How many examples would you like ?

 

I'd say that supporting brutal dictators is wrong. Even for America. Whether we do it or not should depend on the alternative.
In some cases it may be the best of a bunch of terrible alternatives.

The world sucks. America at least tries to do some good along the way for the whole world.

Communism and Islamic extremists like the Iranian government can make no such claim.

 

If you are trying to claim that Communism - and Islamist theocracy - is bad - you are preaching to the choir.

The claim "America is trying to do some good along the way" is both a platitude and a "necessary illusion". The international financiers and national oligarchs that control the Establishment in this nation act on the basis of good for them - not for the "good in the world" - not for the "good" of the American people.

For example - how was arming and supporting a terrorist army (primarily Al Qaeda and other groups of the same ilk) in Syria - acting for "Good" ?

This action led to the death of 500,000 people so far, destroyed the nation of Syria, killing and horrible atrocities against Christians and other marginalized religious groups, the refugee crisis, and the rise of the modern incarnation of ISIS.

This action was a crime against humanity and it was the most terrible of alternatives .. Full Stop.

 

It was the US who introduced the plan. So I don't know how you can say it wasn't part of it.