Text 29712, 61 rader
Skriven 2012-06-16 04:56:56 av Lee Lofaso (2:203/2)
  Kommentar till text 29648 av Ward Dossche (2:292/854)
Ärende: Napalm & Agent Orange
=============================
Hello Ward,

WD>I do not really know you, so please excuse me if I sound offensive
WD>perhaps, I don't mean to.

WD>It seems you must be living under a media black-out or something,
WD>because ...

 ak>> Yes, we probably is not better, but the bulk of corpses after WW2 ak>were
 WD> on the count of the US/NATO.

The bulk of the fighting in the European theatre was over Eastern
Europe, between the forces of Germany and the Soviet Union.

WD>The US and NATO are not the same. The US is less and less inclined
WD>to conduct military operations on its own, if they do they also need
WD>to pay for it. The world monetary crisis also is felt there.

The primary purpose of NATO (when it was created) was to contain
Germany.  Ditto with the creation of the Warsaw Pact.  The fact of
the matter is that neither the USA nor the Soviet Union wanted a
repeat of German aggression.  Europe (and the world) had suffered
enough.

After Iraq invaded Kuwait, the US led a true coalition of forces
to repel Iraqi aggression, returning freedom to Kuwait and putting
a leash on Saddam Hussein.  This US-led coalition included Arab
countries.  This brief partial invasion of Iraq was known as the
Persian Gulf War, instigated by US President George H.W. Bush.

The second invasion of Iraq was led by the US.  And the US was
prepared to act alone, and pre-emptively.  Although US President
George W. Bush claimed there was a coalition of forces, the reality
is that it was a coalition of one (the USA).

But alas.  Iraq is outside of NATO's jurisdiction.  Even though
Afghanistan is not.  Strange bedfellows do politics make.

WD>NATO also cannot be accused of occupying like a dozen countries
WD>or so for around 50 years and virtually impose a continuous martial
WD>law. The football riots in Poland the day before yesterday were
WD>greatly due to Russia's occupation of Poland. It'll take some
WD>generations to get over it.

Occupation.  Such a strong word.  But how many people does an
occupation own or control?  No matter how long an occupation force
remains in a particular country, the people of that country will
still be there doing things in their own way - even after that
occupation force has left.  Such is the nature of things.
At least in the real world.

Did Afghans change their ways after the British left?  Did Afghans
change their ways after the Russians left?  What makes you think
Afghans will be any different once the Americans leave?  We should
have learned our lesson in Vietnam.  But apparently we still have
some growing up to do.

--Lee

--- MesNews/1.06.00.00-gb
 * Origin: news://felten.yi.org (2:203/2)