Come on Rev. I think you're fairly rigid in your beliefs, but I also believe you can acknowledge (reluctantly at times) certain issues. Canada participated in Serbia without UN approval, hence it was illegal, as illegal as the US war on Iraq was. Tacit nod or not.
Which is why I said
"It did have a tacit nod from the UN...kind of a "Well, we won't oppose you much, but we won't support you either." I don't agree with that sort of approach because it sets a double standard where some countries can ignore international law because their purposes are (or at least are portrayed as being) somehow more noble than the purposes of others. "
In other words, our participation was illegal and I don't agree with us not being critical of that involvement.
Every country in my opinion has f***d up in one way or another, each with its own capabilities, I don't turn a blind eye to what the US government has done and continues to do, but can't we say the same for other countries also?
I have and continue to say the same of other countries.
Just because we are the worlds only "superpower" does that justify everyone else's crimes or apathy?
No. Your continued involvment in war crimes and crimes against humanity sets a bad example though. The US claims to be the leader of the free world. "Do as I say and not as I do," is not a phrase that real leaders use. Neither is, "Well they do it to."
Yes.
A debacle based on ideological moronity and fuelled by greed. By the way, oil played a part in the Vietnam war as well. Oil exploration by soundings (state of the art back then) was covered by the explosions of jets dumping their bombs before landing on aircraft carriers. While oil wasn't a major cause for the war, the chance to look for new fields (off-shore in this case...also a new technology) helped to encourage corporate support for the war.
We didn’t do anything in Rwanda, where was Europe?
Which part of Europe? Some were asking that something be done, others were apathetic, and France was fully with the US in blocking any action at all. While the official US story is that they were still hurting from Somalia, their actively blocking action by others points more towards protecting mineral interests in neighbouring Uganda. France was protecting the same sort of interests in Rwanda.
What set off the genocide was a plane carrying the Rwandan president being shot down by Ugandan guerilla fighters. The rocket they used was of US manufacture and had been part of Saddam's armoury during the Gulf War. It was listed as having been confiscated by the French during the end of that conflict, but they deny it.
By the way, Rwanda was a catalyst in the French beginning to examine the relationship between their foreign policy and corporate interests and the actions of their corporations when operating abroad. The investigation into that could yet see Dick Cheney indicted in a French court for his actions as CEO of Halliburton.
Why didn’t anyone accuse the French and the UN for Darfur with the same fervor as the US?
What would we accuse the UN of? Allowing the US, France, and China to block intervention? Those are the smae countries that most vociferously oppose reforms that would keep that kind of thing from happening.
Oh, sorry...I didn't just include the French, I tossed China in there too.
Are you beginning to see how this works, Jim and I think not? The US gets criticized for its actions, just like everybody else. The idea that you are somehow singled out doesn't wash. The frequency of criticism is higher because the frequency of your involvement is higher and your willingness to look at your own actions is low to non-existent.