Re: [Epic] Rant was: Epic shock troops

From: Jason Stephensen <J.Stephensen_at_...>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 13:44:06 +1000 (EST)

><RANT MODE ON>
>Ok, this concept of America having to defend the rightfully elected government
>of [insert country here] is a load of shit. If it were true, they wouldn't
>be so selective of the countries that they help out. For example, they haven't
>done shit about the sympathetic government in El Salvador other than sell them
>more weapons and given them more training to enslave their own people. Yet they
>have very deliberately attacked the rightfully elected government of Nicaragua.

Hey, cool, a chance to be political. I've always found it fasinating the way
that governments and the media react to these slight invasions. If it is the
said governemnets interest they are in the right and when someone else does
exactly the same thing, they are terrible people. The Russians invading
Checznia (sp?) was condemned by all (including me) but some of the same
governments treat other territories trying for sovereignty with very similar
hard handedness. The USA being the defenders of democracy is merely a mask
the US govt uses to allow themselves to act in defence of their own
interests where it's outside their borders.

>How about the defenders of democracy? Well, they seem to have no problems with
>the governments of China and Indonesia, who have taken away the rights of the
>peoples of Tibet and East Timor, respectively. Nor did they complain about
>Noriega (sp?) or Marcos, that is until these people were no longer firmly in
>their pockets. Back to Nicaragua, they staunchly supported the repressive
>regime of the Contras, while oppressing the _elected_ socialism of the
>Sandinistas. In short, America does not defend democracy any more than the
>Chinese.

I found it amazing that the world was outraged by the invasion of Kuwait by
Iraq, which was in fact part of Iraq before WW2, but taken off them by the
allies at the end of the war due to Iraq's support of the Germans. They give
a different royal line sovereignty and bang, new country. And why? because
Kuwait has heaps and heaps of OIL. The backing to invade Kuwait and take it
back off the Iraqis was a motion passed by the UN, which BTW has been passed
against Indonesia for invading East Timor where nothing at all has been
acted on. As long as you're an arab or a moslem you're a great target for
the right thinking democracies of the world. I'm not defending arabs or
moslems, but they really do get all the bad press, while some democracies
get no bad press for commiting atrocities. Fuel air bombs? Radium coated
shells? Shelling and missiling civilians?

>As for being the defenders of human rights and free speech, tell that to an
>African-American. They will tell you that all that talk about human rights is
>a load of crap. And it doesn't end there. There are numerous cases where
>people have been stripped of all of their personal belongings because they
>are suspected of being in the drug trade. Often these things are done without
>charge and the belongings never returned. The DEA has many aspects in common
>with the Gestapo, the KGB, and other defenders of the police state. The more
>important of these being the ability to arrest, search, detain and confiscate
>without charge.

You should hear of the history of the DEA and how it came about. Now that's
an interesting story. And if anyone who knows much about the drug trade and
the DEA you'll realise that they really have nothing to do with combating
the drug trade.

>So you may ask, why does America feel the need to police the world? As far as
>I can tell, there are two major reasons for this. The major reason is purely
>economic. They simply can't have turmoil where America has vested interests.
>Case in point: the Gulf War. America has huge amounts of money invested in the
>country of Kuwait. If they had allowed Iraq to take control of that oil, then
>their money would have been wasted. The line about defending Kuwait from the
>expansionism of a madman holds no water. If it did, why no intervention on
>behalf of Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Lebanon when attacked by Israel (which
>incidentally has had >40 UN sanctions against it, most opposed by only two
>countries, America, which has security council veto power, and Israel).
>Another case in point: Cuba. What is the purpose of the continued economic
>war against Cuba in the face of almost universal world opposition? How
>about the recent passing of the Helms-Burton law? To answer this question
>you would have to look at the state of Cuba previous to the revolution of
>Castro.
>
>The second reason for American police actions is the "threat of a good
example".
>This is intimately tied to economics, but is sufficiently distinct to form
>two separate discussions. This principle is the one used in cases such as
>Vietnam and Nicaragua, where the people of a third world nation realize that
>they would be better off without the support of a "benevolent" first world
>power. However, the first world nations' fear is that these countries will
>do so well for their people that their success will create a snowball effect
>in neighbouring countries, effectively destroying the American "way of life"
>by removing the cheap labour pool necessary to support their artifically high
>standard of living. An important indicator of this principle in play is a
>former colony economically controlled by foreign interests attempting to
>implement a more equal socialist system of government.
><RANT MODE OFF>
>
>>Actually, I heard it was more like, "If someone fires on you, you are NOT to
>>return fire unless there are casualties involved." Under those situations,
>>I'm surprised there weren't a lot of atrocities commited out of frustration.
>
>My feeling is that there probably were some horrible atrocities commited
>by troops in Somalia. If anyone knows what is currently happening to the
>Canadian military over their actions in Somalia, they will see where I am
>coming from. To start with, the Canadian Airborne Regiment was disbanded.
>While in other armies, the Airborne may not be considered an "elite" force,
>the Canadian version was. The regiment was made up of the best from a number
>of feeder regiments (the PPCLI mentioned by A. Brain was one). Now there are
>numerous high ranking officers being grilled by an inquiry (on TV no less,
>just like OJ). All of this stemmed from the killing of two Somali teens that
>had tried to break into the UN outpost. Apparently they were tortured before
>being shot. Then there were the video tapes. In one a NCO in the Airborne
>was asked how he felt about the Somali mission. His answer? "We ain't killed
>enough niggers yet." No shit, he actually said that.
>
>>Finally, to defend myself from further disparaging remarks, I didn't just
>>make up this designation.
>>
>>Temp
>
>Sorry about the rant folks. Also, I hope I didn't offend too many people.
>I really have nothing against Americans. Almost all that I have met have
>been very nice people. It is the foreign policy that I have a serious
>problem with.

Hey, almost all Americans I have met have been fine, now the real people
running things, now they have something to answer for. Nice to see that
there are others on the group who have knowledge and understanding of world
politics, rather then the dribble that the media gives us.

>Tony Christney
>acc_at_...
>
>
>
============================================================
                 Colonel Abrahms, 22nd NU-Atol Regiment
                 Rekartot Redbacks Senior Coach
                   "No Spanky, No. Bad monkey"
=========================================================
                email J.Stephensen_at_...
Received on Thu Jan 01 1970 - 00:00:00 UTC