« | Home | Recent Comments | Categories | »

Kerry on IraqRussia: “You just don’t” invade another country “on a completely trumped up pretext”

Posted on March 3rd, 2014 at 14:23 by John Sinteur in category: News -- Write a comment

[Quote]:

Secretary of State John Kerry made the round of Sunday shows this morning to condemn Russia’s “incredible act of aggression” in Ukraine, warning Prime Minister Vladimir Putin that the country faces harsh economic sanctions from the international community.

“It is really a stunning, willful choice by President Putin to invade another country,” Kerry said on Face the Nation.

But in the seriousness of the situation, the irony of Kerry’s next comments may have gone missed. ”You just don’t in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pretext,” he said.

  1. ”For us there was no choice,” the defense minister, Henk Kamp, said in an interview. ”The Americans helped us in the Second World War. Now they are helping the people in Iraq.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/02/world/dutch-send-1100-troops-to-iraq-relieving-as-many-us-marines.html

  2. if you ever find me saying the dutch government is free of corruption, stupidity and/or hypocrisy, get some of whatever I am smoking at that time, it is sure to be good stuff!

  3. I thought it was honorable, not stupid or corrupt. :)

  4. A lot of people here had big questions about the invasion. Also from the article:

    ”It is an illegal occupation,” said Hans van Heijningen, a foreign policy expert for the Socialist Party.

    Joining was certainly not without controversy. “The Americans helped us” is a cop-out. An attempt to avoid the issues. Certainly it is honorable to help the country that helped you, but if that’s the only reason for doing so, you’re doing it wrong. Stating it like Henk Kamp did raises more questions than it answers.

  5. No doubt it was controversial. Quite a debate here about Iraq, too.

  6. @Rob: “The people of Iraq” are probably the worst affected by The War on Terror.

    There are always choices. Canada didn’t invade Iraq in spite of serious pressure from the U.S. (and from Canadian hawks). The Canadian govt. agreed to send troops only to Afghanistan: a NATO ally had been attacked! (True.)

    It cost Canada a lot in terms of its friendship with the U.S. govt. (And the third highest number of dead/wounded in the coalition, after U.S. and U.K.)

    I am not a fan of Mr. Putin; he’s (re-)building an empire. He’s smart and has got more personal power than any individual since Stalin. It’s dangerous. What are the precedents for benevolent dictator?

    Lee-Kwan Yew: “Don’t worry about Singapore. My colleagues and I are sane, rational people even in our moments of anguish. We will weigh all possible consequences before we make any move on the political chessboard…”

  7. “@Rob: “The people of Iraq” are probably the worst affected by The War on Terror.”

    I’m sure you noticed those weren’t my statements, Sue.

    Personally, I’m glad they stepped up and relieved our marines but I also respect Canada for doing what they thought was right. You will never get me to say it was an easy choice, whichever choice was made.

  8. It depends, are the Russians bringing pallets of cash?

  9. @Rob: Yes, such choices are diffcult. Deciding the least worst option is difficult. The choice of the Canadian govt. to go into Afghanistan wasn’t good. I don’t think they thought it was right, it just wasn’t possible not to go in after the U.S. was attacked.

    I think those terrorists created an opportunity and opportunists have turned our societies into police states.

previous post: Ukraine

next post: But you should see the size of the ones that got away