The global peace index

Originally posted by Soothfast
A large part of Cuba's population is of African origin -- including the region of Africa today known as Angola. The fact is that Angola was being attacked by South Africa both directly and through proxies because the world's most racist government couldn't tolerate having a country in its neighborhood being run by self-proclaimed Marxists. To stave off an and later the Americans knew would be reliable yes-men so long as they were paid well.

So you're saying that the government of South Vietnam invited us? And that it didn't count because they weren't popular enough?

Edit: Great job working Vietnam into a comment about Cuban soldiers in Africa though.

Originally posted by Merk
So you're saying that the government of South Vietnam invited us? And that it didn't count because they weren't popular enough?

You want to be purposefully obtuse, then? The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan on the same pretext that the US used to invade (South) Vietnam: they were "invited" by the government controlling the country. No one disputes that the Soviet "invitation" was really an invasion because it's well known that the government of Afghanistan that did the "inviting" was just a Soviet puppet. To find anyone in the West using the same level-headed logic when examing the US "invitation" to (South) Vietnam you have to go digging into dissident literature authored by people who bothered to study US government and Pentagon documents and the history of the region.

It should all come down to what the people of a country want, not the puppets.

Originally posted by Merk
Edit: Great job working Vietnam into a comment about Cuban soldiers in Africa though.

Whenever someone suggests that some foreign country is "naughty" because it sent troops to some other foreign country, I try to put things in perspective by demonstrating that whatever naughty things "They" might do "We" do as well.

I wonder, if polled, whether a majority of Iraqi people would have been in favor of getting rid of Saddam Hussein via a US military invasion? I don't know the answer, but it's curious that the question is never asked.

Originally posted by Soothfast
Whenever someone suggests that some foreign country is "naughty" because it sent troops to some other foreign country, I try to put things in perspective by demonstrating that whatever naughty things "They" might do "We" do as well.

I wonder, if polled, whether a majority of Iraqi people would have been in favor of getting rid of Saddam Hussein via a ...[text shortened]... ry invasion? I don't know the answer, but it's curious that the question is never asked.

The fact that they could not be polled suggests that Hussein was not a legitimate government of the people.

I know a Kurdish dude from Iraq. He HATED Hussein with a passion and was soooo happy about the invasion.

Originally posted by Soothfast
Whenever someone suggests that some foreign country is "naughty" because it sent troops to some other foreign country, I try to put things in perspective by demonstrating that whatever naughty things "They" might do "We" do as well.

I wonder, if polled, whether a majority of Iraqi people would have been in favor of getting rid of Saddam Hussein via a ...[text shortened]... ry invasion? I don't know the answer, but it's curious that the question is never asked.

Its a little late to ask it now. Well, at least to get a accurate pre-invasion number. And it would have been impossible to get a number pre-invasion.

But I do agree, it would be interesting.

Originally posted by Soothfast
You want to be purposefully obtuse, then? The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan on the same pretext that the US used to invade (South) Vietnam: they were "invited" by the government controlling the country. No one disputes that the Soviet "invitation" was really an invasion because it's well known that the government of Afghanistan that did the "inviting" w ...[text shortened]...
It should all come down to what the people of a country want, not the puppets.

I was giving you crap for your transition form Cuba to Vietnam.

Seemed a lot like a lefty screaming Vietnam! whenever they get a chance, even when Vietnam has nothing to do with the matter at hand.

Originally posted by Soothfast
A large part of Cuba's population is of African origin -- including the region of Africa today known as Angola. The fact is that Angola was being attacked by South Africa both directly and through proxies because the world's most racist government couldn't tolerate having a country in its neighborhood being run by self-proclaimed Marxists. To stave off an ...[text shortened]... and later the Americans knew would be reliable yes-men so long as they were paid well.

I never said Cuba "invaded" Angola. I said they sent troops there. Please learn how to read.

Whether they were invited or not (and I'm not disputing they were), it's still a military action. A truly peaceful nation would have refrained from even that.

Originally posted by Soothfast
You want to be purposefully obtuse, then? The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan on the same pretext that the US used to invade (South) Vietnam: they were "invited" by the government controlling the country. No one disputes that the Soviet "invitation" was really an invasion because it's well known that the government of Afghanistan that did the "inviting" w ...[text shortened]...
It should all come down to what the people of a country want, not the puppets.

52K headed north, 450K headed south. apparently most of them didn't want the Viet Cong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_war#Rule

"During this period refugees moved across the demarcation line in both directions. Around 52,000 Vietnamese civilians moved from south to north. 450,000 people, primarily Catholics, traveled from the north to south, in aircraft and ships provided by France and the U.S.[34] "

Originally posted by shavixmir
The UK comes in at a grand 49th position, but according to most other resources this is no thanks to Scotland, which presumably is the most violent Western country to live in...

I think they proberly included Northern Ireland

Originally posted by zeeblebot
52K headed north, 450K headed south. apparently most of them didn't want the Viet Cong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_war#Rule

"During this period refugees moved across the demarcation line in both directions. Around 52,000 Vietnamese civilians moved from south to north. 450,000 people, primarily Catholics, traveled from the north to south, in aircraft and ships provided by France and the U.S.[34] "

Well yeah, that's because of the massive carpet bombing the US was carrying out in the North. The bombing and napalming of the North was part of a strategy (spelled out in declassified Pentagon documents) to flush Vietnamese out of the countryside and into urban areas, because the "strength" of the Viet Cong lay in the jungles and villages where it was difficult to pin down.

Notice also that France and the US were providing means of transport for those who wanted to head south, whereas I very much doubt any such means were being made available to anyone who wanted to go the opposite direction.

Originally posted by rwingett
I never said Cuba "invaded" Angola. I said they sent troops there. Please learn how to read.

Whether they were invited or not (and I'm not disputing they were), it's still a military action. A truly peaceful nation would have refrained from even that.

The clear implication in your post was that Cuba had sent troops to Angola in such a fashion that would merit a lowered peace index. I know how to read, and I also know how to read "between the lines". Now you present a retroactive qualification that's shoddy at best: "A truly peaceful nation would have refrained from even that." Nonsense. It can be fairly argued that to dispatch troops for the purpose of preventing a slaughter abroad is an action that enhances the "peace index" of the world. You can't claim otherwise with certain authority.

Originally posted by Soothfast
The clear implication in your post was that Cuba had sent troops to Angola in such a fashion that would merit a lowered peace index. I know how to read, and I also know how to read "between the lines". Now you present a retroactive qualification that's shoddy at best: "A truly peaceful nation would have refrained from even that." Nonsense. It can be fairly ...[text shortened]... hances the "peace index" of the world. You can't claim otherwise with certain authority.

What a load of BS. The Cuban excursion into Angola was no humanitarian mission. It was cold-war militarism, pure and simple. Your attempt to "read between the lines" is misguided at best. I'm generally one to back Cuba, but I won't whitewash all of Castro's actions. And his most egregious error was trading masters by selling out to the Soviet Union. They funded Castro's military so they could capitalize on his revolutionary image and use him as their tool in their global cold-war chess game with the US. The Soviet Union cracked the whip and Castro jumped to obey. That's why Cuban troops ended up in Angola, and not because of Castro's alleged concern over any impending slaughter.

I further dispute that militarism can ever enhance the "peace index". As Einstein said, you cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war. Peaceful solutions come about through diplomacy, not war.

Originally posted by Soothfast
A large part of Cuba's population is of African origin -- including the region of Africa today known as Angola. The fact is that Angola was being attacked by South Africa both directly and through proxies because the world's most racist government couldn't tolerate having a country in its neighborhood being run by self-proclaimed Marxists. To stave off an ...[text shortened]... and later the Americans knew would be reliable yes-men so long as they were paid well.

Cuba could have given a rats ass about Angola. They were ordered by Russia to go into Angole and do the Russians dirtywork. Where do you think Dumb ass Cuba got the funds to enter that war? You better start reading those Dutch newspapers if you want the real truth!