Hypocrits!!

[Ranger68]

You know what? I just re-read the relevant sections of D'Allaire's book, and I misremembered.

I hereby withdraw the statement that the US vetoed Security Council Resolutions regarding the conduct of the UN in Rwanda.

I state, more accurately, that the US *actively* acted against the UN mission in Rwanda, insisted on the alteration of resolutions designed to support that mission, and failed to provide any remotely significant materiel to it despite repeated pleadings. They repeatedly stated, flatly, that they would NOT support any military intervention in Rwanda, and were opposed to the presence of the UN there.

So, despite hard evidence of the genocide in hand, and the presence of troops from *other* nations in Rwanda under the UN banner - that is, the agreement that the world community *needed* to be there - the US signally failed to act, though they were not alone in this.

Again, I can quote.

So, tell me, where does the failure of the "world community" lie? With "the UN", which agreed that something needed to be done, or with those member nations of the UN which failed to support those resolutions?

 

[langeweile]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1282930,00.html

Unfortunately, as Darfur illustrates, the UN system is singularly ill-suited to upholding its own stated values. Four of the countries that forced the threat of sanctions to be removed from the security council resolution - Russia, China, Pakistan and Algeria - have extremely poor human rights records. Two are permanent members with the power of veto, commercial ties to the Sudanese government and a strong interest in defending the inviolability of state sovereignty against the humanitarian imperative. Why do they enjoy this privilege? Because almost 60 years ago they happened to be on the winning side in a war

.
I found this article in "The Guardian".



This combined with this article on sudan.net
http://www.sudan.net/news/news.html

make me believe that for the USA this is more an issue of having to recognize the ICC than it is abouut helping those poor people.
The USA certainly has it's own share of blame, but there are a few other culprits, that want to protect their own interests.

 

[Ranger68]

The UN has worked reasonably well for six decades. It did what it was established to do - prevent another widespread global conflict.

I am not arguing that the UN doesn't need or couldn't use change.

I am arguing that, for the US to say that the UN doesn't work and point to Rwanda (as it has) - or, for you or the Guardian to point to the fact that some nations have vetoes and that they may use them in their own interests - is CLEARLY hypocritical and pointless.

If the UN has failed to prevent human rights abuses - well, this is neither here nor there. It was NOT established to prevent them. It is a recent development, this movement to point to the UN as the policeman necessary to prevent widespread human rights abuses. Also recent is the politically-motivated desire to point to the UN's failure to intervene in these circumstances. As if "the UN" were some alien entity, disjointed from the rest of the world's governments, and not *comprised of representatives of these same governments*.

To point to the veto and say this is the cause of the inability of the UN to act is a sword that cuts both ways, so beware. Should the veto be abolished? Probably. It was certainly absolutely needed in the day of superpowers, when it was needed to convince them even to join in. To remove it now would, I fear, merely push the US further away. Would they be interested in a UN where they weren't the absolutely dominant power? (As they have been since its inception.) Certainly not, at least as far as this current administration is concerned. They're not REMOTELY interested in serving up any of their sovereignty to any remote bodies - the ICC, Kyoto, the ABM treaty, the UN, ... Whereas other nations seem genuinely interested in doing so - the European Union being a prime example.

The UN needs to the US to work. Will it work, as is, with the US fully on-board? That depends on what you want it to do. If you want it to start *truly* being "the world's policeman", and intervening in human rights abuses and genocides, then the means for doing so need to be *properly* entrenched in the UN Charter. This would outline the parameters for discussion, action, and resolution - and would likely include the permanent establishment of a rapid reaction force.

Is this likely to happen? Possibly, but probably not.
Is this likely to happen without the US fully involved at the UN? No.

The alternatives, however, aren't very palatable. We now, thanks to the US establishment of their desire to go back to acting unilaterally and *pre-emptively*, are faced with the situation we were in a hundred years ago. Nations will do what they want, when they want, and have only to answer to themselves. I will say that this is NOT that way that most of the world has acted since WWII, and that it is a very precarious situation.

The UN needs reform, not overhaul. The difference is somewhat semantic, but not entirely so. Nations that posit that the UN needs reform would likely be willing to work with it status quo. Nations that posit that the UN needs overhaul are probably not interested in going forward as is. Note that many key US figures have posited that the UN should be abolished.

 

[langeweile]

The UN has worked reasonably well for six decades. It did what it was established to do - prevent another widespread global conflict.

The UN deserves some of the credit..maybe, but it certainly wasn't able to prevent regional conflicts. In case of the one major global conflict, USA vs UDSSR it was more a result of nuclear balance than the UN.

I am arguing that, for the US to say that the UN doesn't work and point to Rwanda (as it has) - or, for you or the Guardian to point to the fact that some nations have vetoes and that they may use them in their own interests - is CLEARLY hypocritical and pointless.

I am not so sure it is all about Rwanda. Like China, Russia, France, England nobody likes an outside body to dictate national policy.
To accuse the uSA alone of using the UN as a means to further it's own agenda..is a result of the US being the "boogey man du jour".
The history of the UN vetoes should tell you that.

If the UN has failed to prevent human rights abuses - well, this is neither here nor there. It was NOT established to prevent them. It is a recent development, this movement to point to the UN as the policeman necessary to prevent widespread human rights abuses. Also recent is the politically-motivated desire to point to the UN's failure to intervene in these circumstances. As if "the UN" were some alien entity, disjointed from the rest of the world's governments, and not *comprised of representatives of these same governments*.

i ahte to use tis worn out term "the wolrd is getting smaller" but it's a fact. Abuses against human rights have been around since the beginning of man. The difference today is, we learn about them in an instant.
This knowledge has created a desire "to do something" it's just a normal human emotion.
Maybe the UN should step in to this role? Currently thay seem half way in and half way out.
What is the purpose of condemming behaviour and filing reports if you don't do anything with them?
Shrug your shoulders and say "Oh well"?

To point to the veto and say this is the cause of the inability of the UN to act is a sword that cuts both ways, so beware. Should the veto be abolished? Probably.

i think as other nations become stronger the question of the veto will have to be adressed. How can you justify giving France and England veto power, but deny it to India?

It was certainly absolutely needed in the day of superpowers, when it was needed to convince them even to join in. To remove it now would, I fear, merely push the US further away

Agreed, but not just the USA.

Whereas other nations seem genuinely interested in doing so - the European Union being a prime example.

The Euros have no choice but to embrace this, there very survival depends on it.
Europe has to find a way out of the corner they have pushed temselves in to. They have to come to terms with the impact their social programs have created on their economy.

Is this likely to happen? Possibly, but probably not.
Is this likely to happen without the US fully involved at the UN? No.

the UN has to find a way to stay relevant. Crying about all the ills of the world, but to do nothing about it only goes so far.
If the UN doesn't become more effective, it will turn in to an "overhead eating" additional layer of ...?? What???

The alternatives, however, aren't very palatable. We now, thanks to the US
establishment of their desire to go back to acting unilaterally and *pre-emptively*, are faced with the situation we were in a hundred years ago. Nations will do what they want, when they want, and have only to answer to themselves. I will say that this is NOT that way that most of the world has acted since WWII, and that it is a very precarious situation.

I submit to you that the key members of the UN have always acted unilaterely.

 

[The Mugger]

You know what? I just re-read the relevant sections of D'Allaire's book, and I misremembered.

II state, more accurately, that the US *actively* acted against the UN mission in Rwanda, insisted on the alteration of resolutions designed to support that mission, and failed to provide any remotely significant materiel to it despite repeated pleadings. They repeatedly stated, flatly, that they would NOT support any military intervention in Rwanda, and were opposed to the presence of the UN there.

So, despite hard evidence of the genocide in hand, and the presence of troops from *other* nations in Rwanda under the UN banner - that is, the agreement that the world community *needed* to be there - the US signally failed to act, though they were not alone in this.

Well once again we have someone who likes to blame the US for all that's wrong with the world. Was US foreign policy in error regarding this tragedy, yeah but they where not alone nor are you accounting for the domestic political issues. For instance this tragedy fell on the heels of the tragic peacekeeping effort in Somalia and demands from the Congress to put tighter controls on peacekeeping missions.

In addition two other countries have a responsibility here, Belgium for having withdraw its troops precipitately after 10 of their troops were murdered and for championing total withdrawal of the UN force (grant it the US brought the proposal to the Security Council on the Belgians behalf). In addition France continued to support the Rwandan Government even though everyone knew that government was involved in genocide and to be clear I am not referring to moral support.

In addition every country in the UN brought discredit to that institution by allowing the representative of a genocidal government to continue sitting in the security council.

You see it's not that simple to just blame the US, at the time most of the countries allowed themselves to believe the Rwandan government when it said that these massacres were spontaneous events.

This was a global failure, one that the US shares in but not alone.

 

[Ranger68]

For the US to point to Rwanda and say that this illuminates the failure of the UN is the REAL hypocrisy. It was PRIMARILY THE US, not "other countries of the world", who wished the UN to stay out of Rwanda, then after they were already in, wanted them to get out. This is a matter of public record. Don't deflect the blame onto "everyone else" or "the UN".
Period. End of sentence.
Look up "hypocrisy" in a dictionary.

 

[rogerstaubach]

For the US to point to Rwanda and say that this illuminates the failure of the UN is the REAL hypocrisy. It was PRIMARILY THE US, not "other countries of the world", who wished the UN to stay out of Rwanda, then after they were already in, wanted them to get out. This is a matter of public record. Don't deflect the blame onto "everyone else" or "the UN".
Period. End of sentence.
Look up "hypocrisy" in a dictionary.

I believe The Mugger said it best, "Well once again we have someone who likes to blame the US for all thats wrong with the world."

 

[red]

I believe The Mugger said it best, "Well once again we have someone who likes to blame the US for all thats wrong with the world."

well, there you go again. ranger, in the post quoted, is not blaming the US for all the worlds troubles - he seems to be only taking exception to the fact that some in the US blame Rwanda on the failure of the UN, but do not recognize that they played a role in that failure.

 

[Ranger68]

Actually, I'm taking exception to the use of Rwanda as an example, by the US and its supporters, of the failure of "the UN".

People like strawbutt and Mugger need to learn to read.

What does it mean that "the UN" failed to act? Certainly, that means that the people whose decision it was to empower the UN to act didn't do so. Who would those people be? They'd be the representatives of the various nations on the Security Council who were opposed to intervention. Which nations would those be? From time to time, throughout the crisis, France. But, *from day one*, the US, vociferously and unambiguously.
I'm afraid that's really all there is to it.

If you want to criticize the UN, this is a TERRIBLE example. Is there blame to be shared? You bet. In spades. Does the US deserve the lion's portion of it? Yup.

 

[The Mugger]

Actually, I'm taking exception to the use of Rwanda as an example, by the US and its supporters, of the failure of "the UN".

People like strawbutt and Mugger need to learn to read.

What does it mean that "the UN" failed to act? Certainly, that means that the people whose decision it was to empower the UN to act didn't do so. Who would those people be? They'd be the representatives of the various nations on the Security Council who were opposed to intervention. Which nations would those be? From time to time, throughout the crisis, France. But, *from day one*, the US, vociferously and unambiguously.
I'm afraid that's really all there is to it.

If you want to criticize the UN, this is a TERRIBLE example. Is there blame to be shared? You bet. In spades. Does the US deserve the lion's portion of it? Yup.

You know what, some other twit claimed you mop the floor with me. Not with this post - how in the world can you assign the lion share of blame on the US here and ignore what Belgium and France did. Beligium's insistence on withdrawing from the peace keeping force was what sidelined the remaining UN troops. France supported the line the Rwandan government was spreading that this was not a systematic problem. The US unfortunately supported Belgium at the security council and didn't want to contribute money to a peacekeeping effort.

It is very typical of you rabid anti-US crowd, like *d* and cyrus, to go post this kind of dribble.

This tragedy was a profound failure by all civilized countries but really bothers me about you and your running mates is that while there is so much wrong that the US has done, I don't understand why you have to make things up or take illogical stands.

And since when is the US the only major power at the UN. I don't recall China or Russia lifting a finger to help Rwanda, they have the ability to do so, why does it all fall on the US? I read just fine - you blame the US and throw the UN as cover - you're not fooling anyone with that.

Anyways the bottom line is that major responsibility for this genocide are the Rwandan citizens and government themselves. The secondary responsibility was those nations that sat on the sidelines and watched, nothing you can say or show in a link will change that.

 

[Ranger68]

You know what, some other twit claimed you mop the floor with me. Not with this post - how in the world can you assign the lion share of blame on the US here and ignore what Belgium and France did. Beligium's insistence on withdrawing from the peace keeping force was what sidelined the remaining UN troops. France supported the line the Rwandan government was spreading that this was not a systematic problem. The US unfortunately supported Belgium at the security council and didn't want to contribute money to a peacekeeping effort.

It is very typical of you rabid anti-US crowd, like *d* and cyrus, to go post this kind of dribble.

This tragedy was a profound failure by all civilized countries but really bothers me about you and your running mates is that while there is so much wrong that the US has done, I don't understand why you have to make things up or take illogical stands.

And since when is the US the only major power at the UN. I don't recall China or Russia lifting a finger to help Rwanda, they have the ability to do so, why does it all fall on the US? I read just fine - you blame the US and throw the UN as cover - you're not fooling anyone with that.

Anyways the bottom line is that major responsibility for this genocide are the Rwandan citizens and government themselves. The secondary responsibility was those nations that sat on the sidelines and watched, nothing you can say or show in a link will change that.

Hey, Belgium COMMITTED troops in the first place. (Which was probably a bad thing to do, as they were the former imperial masters, but that's another discussion.) They put troops in when practically nobody else would. They later withdrew for what they thought were valid reasons - a bunch of their troops were killed, while the UN was totally hamstrung by ridiculous rules of engagement. Rules which were forced on them by HQ in New York. Now, do you want to get into WHO designed those rules? I'll give you one guess.

The troops were sidelined even WITH the Belgians.

The US also didn't want ANYONE to contribute money or troops, not just their own.

You call it dribble, I call it the truth. Nothing made up, nothing illogical.

It falls to the US because THEY were the ones who were ACTIVELY OPPOSED to UNAMIR. Haven't I made this clear? Not the Russians, not the Chinese. The US lobbied, time and time again, to get the UN out of Rwanda. Which eventually, they succeeded in doing.

Nobodies saying the Rwandans aren't to blame for their own genocide. There are criminals who have to answer to the world community. And they are. There are also those who CHOSE to sit on the sidelines - not only that, but who tried to FORCE OTHERS to sit on the sidelines.

You should read up on the history of the crisis. ...... Not that it'll change your mind.

Once again, don't use Rwanda to illustrate the failure of the UN. It's ridiculously hypocritical.

 

[langeweile]

The past discussions on thi board have highlighted the problem once again.

While we are debatting symantics...another 100 people have died...IMSO we are all hypocrits in this game..

 

[onthebottom]

Shake hands with the Devil is an awesome book, if sometimes very difficult to read. There is an enormous amount of blame to go around for Rwanda, enough for us all.

The Clinton administration didn't want to get embroiled in a peace-keeping mission in some non-strategic country that most American's couldn't find on a map. All of the arguments being used by the left against the Bush administration about losing troops in a foreign land that didn't threaten us would be thrust upon Clinton by the right for Rwanda had he gone in. Look at how he cut and ran from Somalia after loosing 19 troops.... like Reagan did in Libya.... all very dangerous precedents that we're now paying for.

The Canadians sent a commander but almost no troops, in fact this was the first time a country had a commanding officer of a UN peace-keeping mission but no substantial troops from his own country to back him up.

The UN had two substantial blunders, first was the bureaucracy, if you read the book you know about how absurd this was and debilitating to the mission. The second was allowing one of the warring factions representing the country at the UN to SIT ON THE UNSC because it was their turn. Just ridiculous. Kofi was slow to act, the bureaucracy was slow to act or didn't act at all. There were vehicles supplied by the UN (American I think but can't really remember) but by the time they made it to Rwanda only half of them worked, non-compatible communication equipment, silly rules of engagement like not allowing the hate-propaganda radio to be shut down and a political representative from the UN who squandered precious budget dollars on nice furniture and accommodations. The book is a peak into the world of the UN and it's easy to understand why it's the worst way to do anything.

Any nation could have provided troops to the mission, they need not have waited for the US to agree, they just didn't. We're all guilty for that.

Many more lives were lost in Rwanda than will ever be lost in Iraq, and to what good? Inaction is the greatest crime of all…….

OTB

 

[The Mugger]

Hey, Belgium COMMITTED troops in the first place. (Which was probably a bad thing to do, as they were the former imperial masters, but that's another discussion.) They put troops in when practically nobody else would. They later withdrew for what they thought were valid reasons - a bunch of their troops were killed, while the UN was totally hamstrung by ridiculous rules of engagement. Rules which were forced on them by HQ in New York. Now, do you want to get into WHO designed those rules? I'll give you one guess.


Once again, don't use Rwanda to illustrate the failure of the UN. It's ridiculously hypocritical.

Boy you really can't get this can you. You can not possibly assign the entire blame on the US.

You're wrong about Belgium - when they lost 10 troops they pulled out without consulting the UN and they were the ones who made the proposal to withdraw at the UN something the US advanced for them at the Security council.

As for money, was the US being cheap, you bet but I don't recall any other wealthy nation offering to foot the bill here.

Yet again you anti-American types are willing to hold the US to standard you will not give anyone else. The only thing new in this post is for you to try to re-write the record regarding Belgium's role in this - BTW the UN peacekeepers that remained were hamstrung by Belgium's sudden withdrawal and the resulting changes to the rules of engagement, not the other way around. All the rest of your post are nothing but posturing, I suspect to convince your followers that your somehow smart - it doesn't take much brain power to lead a bunch of idiots.

I did notice that you somehow managed not to comment on France's role in this disaster, you know their political support of a government that was part of a genocide.

You seem not willing to place other strong military, economic governments in the same standards you hold the US. No one government was all that willing to get involved here, hence the US so called blocking of the effort at the UN. The issue on money was in fact the US being very cheap with people's life's but lets face it if the UN committed peacekeeping troops to Rwanda the US would be stuck paying the bill and that's because the US will not allow it's troops to be commanded UN commanders and since this was not deemed a NATO matter the US would have to pay for the lion share themselves. For you to say that the US blocked all efforts is disingenuous at best and fails to see the reality of the situation because any effort by the UN would have required US troops - (the only ones that could be deployed in a timely fashion). I also note that you fail to lay blame where it really belongs, with the Rwandan leadership, both sides.

Ranger this is nothing more than a very shallow effort to blame all that's wrong on the world with the US. Hardly a very interesting intellectual effort.

Again, the US holds no more blame than France and Belgium directly and indirectly the US shares blame with the rest of the world. In fact I would say that Canada shares the same amount of blame on this disaster as the US, we actually had someone on the ground and we didn't even listen.

The problem I have with people like you Ranger is that you advance arguments with just enough truth to seem believable but in the end the argument can be sustained because it so ignores the circumstances surrounding the event (aka Monday morning quarterbacking). In the end, by trying to isolate the blame on one you take a chance that it will be repeated. This tragedy was caused by lies and political indifference of many on the security council (again note that a representative of a genocidal government was allowed to sit on the council).

 

[The Mugger]

.

The Canadians sent a commander but almost no troops, in fact this was the first time a country had a commanding officer of a UN peace-keeping mission but no substantial troops from his own country to back him up.


OTB

Again another one that likes to make unsubstantiated shots. Our Commander was sent as part of a "UN" force and was in command of a fair size group mainly made up of Belgians who up and left in a middle of a fight.

Canada does not share the same phobias like the US regarding command of troops and generally work as a team with other Countries when it comes to peacekeeping.

This is not an issue of Canadian troop strength or lack of, it just a simple cheap shot.

At least we did something OTB, climb into the boat with Ranger, you both seem to have the same grasp on reality.

 

[Ranger68]

Mugger, can you read?
I'm NOT assigning all the blame to the US.
Good god, man, pick up a dictionary if some of these words are tough ....

I'm NOT wrong about Belgium. The UN forces were put under RIDICULOUS constraints. When they had to basically ALLOW their forces to be captured, then when the UN HQ (Annan) wouldn't allow anyone to go in to get them and they were killed, they left. The UN forces were hamstrung BEFORE the Belgians left - this is basically why and how their forces were allowed to be murdered. Doesn't this make sense to you? If the forces weren't hamstrung when the Belgians were there, what happened?

I DID comment on France's role. Learn to read.

Look, it's clear you don't really know what you're talking about. Read Shake Hands with the Devil, then we'll talk.

 

[The Mugger]

Mugger, can you read?
I'm NOT assigning all the blame to the US.
Good god, man, pick up a dictionary if some of these words are tough ....

I'm NOT wrong about Belgium. The UN forces were put under RIDICULOUS constraints. When they had to basically ALLOW their forces to be captured, then when the UN HQ (Annan) wouldn't allow anyone to go in to get them and they were killed, they left. The UN forces were hamstrung BEFORE the Belgians left - this is basically why and how their forces were allowed to be murdered. Doesn't this make sense to you? If the forces weren't hamstrung when the Belgians were there, what happened?

I DID comment on France's role. Learn to read.

Look, it's clear you don't really know what you're talking about. Read Shake Hands with the Devil, then we'll talk.

What are you a twit - trying to change your argument are you? Did you or did you not say - "Does the US deserve the lion portion of it (blame)? Yup"

Get a proper account of what happened, the UN forces there where overwhelmed by what was going on and when 10 Belgians were murdered the Belgian government pulled them out compounding the problem. It was a question of not understanding what was happening at first, not an issue of US blocking the mission, that came later. Nice try on BS logic.

As for France, I must of missed your response but since you largely blame the US I'm sure it was some lame excuses for their behaviour.

You assign the most blame to the US, while I assign blame to many. No Sir, it would appear that it is you that has the problem comprehending what one reads. It would appear to me that this reading issue that you keep bringing up is just a tactic to protect a very weak argument, is this what your supporters point to when they call you smart?

Again since when is "LION SHARE" just part of the blame as you say now.

 

[onthebottom]

Again another one that likes to make unsubstantiated shots. Our Commander was sent as part of a "UN" force and was in command of a fair size group mainly made up of Belgians who up and left in a middle of a fight.

Canada does not share the same phobias like the US regarding command of troops and generally work as a team with other Countries when it comes to peacekeeping.

This is not an issue of Canadian troop strength or lack of, it just a simple cheap shot.

At least we did something OTB, climb into the boat with Ranger, you both seem to have the same grasp on reality.

Well if it's a cheap shot it's a cheap shot from the Canadian General himself, I'm just relaying his point. On leave back home he asked the Canadian government to send soccer balls to Rwanda as a show of good will given they wouldn't give him any troops, they denied his request. I'm quite happy to assign blame to the US for this, but if you're going to dish it you have to take it and it was pretty pathetic to let one of your Generals take command but be to cheap / chicken / short sighted to support him with troops.

OTB

 

[Ranger68]

What are you a twit - trying to change your argument are you? Did you or did you not say - "Does the US deserve the lion portion of it (blame)? Yup"

Get a proper account of what happened, the UN forces there where overwhelmed by what was going on and when 10 Belgians were murdered the Belgian government pulled them out compounding the problem. It was a question of not understanding what was happening at first, not an issue of US blocking the mission, that came later. Nice try on BS logic.

As for France, I must of missed your response but since you largely blame the US I'm sure it was some lame excuses for their behaviour.

You assign the most blame to the US, while I assign blame to many. No Sir, it would appear that it is you that has the problem comprehending what one reads. It would appear to me that this reading issue that you keep bringing up is just a tactic to protect a very weak argument, is this what your supporters point to when they call you smart?

Again since when is "LION SHARE" just part of the blame as you say now.

"Is there blame to be shared? You bet. In spades. Does the US deserve the lion's portion of it? Yup."

Yeah, I guess the term "lion's share" escapes you. This does not mean "all", this means, "the largest share". Jesus, man, if you can't follow english, perhaps you should stick to other forums.

Why do you think the Belgians were "overwhelmed" if, as you say, things were under control when they left? Explain, please. In fact, things were spiralling out of control before they left. The US was against even the original UNAMIR mission, so your statement that "that came later" is false. Nice try.

I have already stated that France was the other primary nation against intervention. If you're not going to read what I post, please don't reply. If you want to blame both France AND the US for preventing proper UN intervention, fine. Do so.

Please do what I said - read Shake Hands with the Devil - the ONE account from somebody who was there. Then, we'll talk.

Clearly, you're not going to. Why? Because you're nothing more than an American apologist. Nobody can say anything against the US policies. If they do, they're using "BS logic" or they "blame everything on the US". I don't. I never have. It doesn't matter to you, because you're incapable of distinguishing between points of view where the US is concerned. It's pointless to argue with you - never mind your lack of comprehension of simple phrases - because you'll always shift the point, or provide some straw man. You're not familiar with what we're talking about, and it wouldn't matter if you were.

However, until you have some more basic understanding of the situation under discussion, this conversation is over.

 

[onthebottom]

"Is there blame to be shared? You bet. In spades. Does the US deserve the lion's portion of it? Yup."

Yeah, I guess the term "lion's share" escapes you. This does not mean "all", this means, "the largest share". Jesus, man, if you can't follow english, perhaps you should stick to other forums.

.........

Why does the US bear the largest share of the blame?

OTB