After reading Mr Person's response on Rwanda, the first thing I must say - the gentleman has some rather interesting concepts that did require some thought. Yet to certain points I find the line of thinking contains a paradox. Or, to define paradox, it is a statement that is true in concept but it is not really true, it cancels itself out.
The tone is - Oh, well, Africans are dying off from AIDS, so the
genocide of a few people here and there doesn't really matter. Even when President Clintin commented that Rwanda had nothing to offer to the United States.
Another paradox I found is the fact that in light of the 9-11 attacks were blamed on Osama bin Laden. I question, why did we end up in Iraq over lies of terrorism in Iraq. Yes if justice needs to be met for Saddam, then let the laws of ISLAM meet that justice. Not President Bush and his merry band of stealing henchmen whose real concerns are about possessing the oil in Iraq.
As to Iraqi citizens or any other Arab peoples that are embraced by ISLAM who are clearly involved in attacks against allied forces in which our government calls coalition forces. Whom are concidered terrorists called "cockroaches" by Mr.
Person in bias nature. In fact may I state if the role were reversed, and the United States were invaded by a military force, we the citizens that would take up the fight, WOULD CALL OURSELVES INSURGENTS.
One matter I can agree with with Mr. Person is - we cannot weep for all the dead in a cemetery. May I also state to Mr. Person, if he had been reading all of the viewpoints and opinions that have been published in the English version of the Pravda.ru, he would have noticed to tone they have set. Are of the United States and the elected servants using half truths or even lies. To impose the white American ways onto other cultures. As Mr. Person's biased wishes are to push White technology onto the American Indians.
Yet the opening sentence of Mr Persons second paragraph, yes it is the truth, America could not win in Rwanda. But yet the US knew it could walk into Iraq on a slam dunk as the former CIA DIRECTOR Wanker told Bush before the US invasion. Why?
Again I repeat the idea in my article - Iraq was involved in a 7-year war with Iran. Its little invasion into Kiwait trying to re-annex that territory taken from it in 1990. Plus the the years of sanctions that were placed against Iraq from 1990 to the present invasion. All of these factors really weakened Iraq's finances, and this reduced the threat of Iraq having a healthy army in place to repell any military invasion.
In my opinion the information in the last paragraph is fact and true. In my opinion again, the CIA knew all of this information along with the rest of the free thinking world. Thus the former CIA director telling Bush it was a slam dunk to invade. Knowing the list of events profusly weakened that countries defenses. THERE WAS NO TERRORISTS THREAT IN IRAQ.
In my opinion, the current situations on Iraq and Rwanda along with the ideals the US government had on both countries. Along with the policies of the over zealious elected servants, IS A PARADOX. To include we as white Americans will never instill our way of life on the rest of the world.
After WWII, the Soviet army left Austria, and the latter had always remained a neutral state and never joined NATO
Russia experienced default on August 17, 1998. Today, 20 years after those events, the economic situation in Russia does not seem stable to many