NationStates Jolt Archive

I am serious here. The United States, since its creation, has always been a war nation. Like the states we have replaced(such as Britain, Germany, France, Russia), our nation revolves around our ability to wage war. It is even evident in our National Anthem!

Oh, say can you see by the dawn's early light
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.

Chorus
Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

II.
On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream

Chorus
'Tis the star-spangled banner! Oh long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

III.
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion,
A home and a country should leave us no more!
Their blood has washed out of their foul footsteps' pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight and the gloom of the grave

Chorus
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

IV.
Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Bles't with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."

Chorus
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

(I highlighed the parts I thought showed my point)


Now, what I don't get is why you people can't come to terms with that! Just because it's a new millenia doesn't mean everything has to change! Do you think then it went from 3001 B.C.E. to 3000 B.C.E. everything changed? Hell no! When it changed from 1 B.C.E. to 1 C.E.? No! So why should it now? Sure, the world is different than it was 2,000 years ago, but that's no reason for the entire world to change in a blink of an eye. The sooner you accept that the U.S. is a war nation, and always will be, the better.

There is a diffence between the US and past war nations. The US is stomping around the world in some kind of propoganda-high manifest destiny trip believing itself to be running the world. Its not.

There is a diffence between the US and past war nations. The US is stomping around the world in some kind of propoganda-high manifest destiny trip believing itself to be running the world. Its not.
http://xenohistorian.faithweb.com/worldhis/map27.gif

Hmm...

Sure, the world is different than it was 2,000 years ago, but that's no reason for the entire world to change in a blink of an eye. The sooner you accept that the U.S. is a war nation, and always will be, the better.

No one has claimed anything changed in the blink of an eye. The change has been gradual.

That song was written by an American experiencing a British naval attack on the U.S. in 1812, you know that right?


And by your generalizations, litterally every nation is a war nation. Except those that apparently were founded upon diplomatic means, which is pretty rare when it comes to nations that make a difference in the world.

http://xenohistorian.faithweb.com/worldhis/map27.gif

Hmm...
Oh. A map of the US empire.

http://xenohistorian.faithweb.com/worldhis/map27.gif

Hmm...

Yes, but Britian did not believe itself to be the best thing to happen to all these places. It was just the one that managed to do it. They didn't believe it was their "right" to do it, or that the people in these countries somehow "deserved" to be under British rule. They were just doint what they did best at the time. Imperial conquest.

http://xenohistorian.faithweb.com/worldhis/map27.gif

Hmm...

Whats this represent?

Yes, but Britian did not believe itself to be the best thing to happen to all these places. It was just the one that managed to do it. They didn't believe it was their "right" to do it, or that the people in these countries somehow "deserved" to be under British rule. They were just doint what they did best at the time.
Imperial conquest.
Yeah....and they let everyone go left and right the second they met resistance.

I am serious here. The United States, since its creation, has always been a war nation.

Ain't that cool? A country that has the abilities to fight and not chicken out when shit really hits the fan. :)

Yes, but Britian did not believe itself to be the best thing to happen to all these places. It was just the one that managed to do it. They didn't believe it was their "right" to do it, or that the people in these countries somehow "deserved" to be under British rule. They were just doint what they did best at the time. Imperial conquest.

Yes the leaders of Britain believed it was their right to do it. That they were entitled to it by their birth. You know how they were civilised and that those heathens needed British rule. And yes they thought that the British way was the best way.

Please don't bury your head in the sand.

Yes, but Britian did not believe itself to be the best thing to happen to all these places. It was just the one that managed to do it. They didn't believe it was their "right" to do it, or that the people in these countries somehow "deserved" to be under British rule. They were just doint what they did best at the time. Imperial conquest.
Yes they did. Europeans all over believed it was their duty to civilize the dark-skinned people and expose them to their 'superior' culture.

http://xenohistorian.faithweb.com/worldhis/map27.gif

Hmm...

actually that was the british empire

actually that was the british empire
No. The UK is marked red. That means it's under US control.

Whats this repersent?
Its the British Empire, although at the time of the map (1919 I suppose) one could claim that some countries were independent enough that they shouldn't be on the map.

actually that was the british empire
Exactly - If you read Neo Cannen's quote, you'd understand.

No. The UK is marked red. That means it's under US control.

I think you may have been huffing gas too long.

Oh. A map of the US empire.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

That's the BRITISH EMPIRE Von Witzleben!

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

That's the BRITISH EMPIRE Von Witzleben!
Silly Von Witzleben, pot is for stoned teenagers!

Whats this represent?
The British Empire! :)

British Empire.. In fact it's an old map. Some of the Countries are no more under British empire..

No. The UK is marked red. That means it's under US control.

Every country marked in red is or was British Territory! Great Britain is in red because they are the epicenter of the British Empire.

Silly Von Witzleben, pot is for stoned teenagers!
I'm currently out of pot. And it's too cold outside to go get some.

On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream


i always think this bit sounds really scientific,

explaining how the light defracts off the nylon ploycarbonate sheet

British Empire.. In fact it's an old map. Some of the Countries are no more under British empire..

Are you 100% sure about that? Ever hear of the British Comonwealth? They are still theoretically attached to the British Empire but are soveriegn enough to do what they want but can still call on British soldiers to defend them if necessary.

Ain't that cool? A country that has the abilities to fight and not chicken out when shit really hits the fan. :)

Yes, very cool. I love the United States. :)

There is a diffence between the US and past war nations. The US is stomping around the world in some kind of propoganda-high manifest destiny trip believing itself to be running the world. Its not.

How is that different then when the Biritsh said that they practically owned the world? The British(and all Europeans) believed that they were the "masters" of the world, and it was heir god-given duty to civilize the world.

Oh, say can you see by the dawn's early light
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

II.
On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream
'Tis the star-spangled banner! Oh long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

III.
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion,
A home and a country should leave us no more!
Their blood has washed out of their foul footsteps' pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight and the gloom of the grave
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

IV.
Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Bles't with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Francis Scott Key
On board a British Flagship negotiating a Prisoner Exchange
1814

Originally written as a poem if my memory serves me right :)

It still makes me tear up no matter how many times I hear this song playes. May God continue to bless America!

Whats this represent?
another example of american ignorance





ignorwhat?????

I am serious here. The United States, since its creation, has always been a war nation. Like the states we have replaced(such as Britain, Germany, France, Russia), our nation revolves around our ability to wage war. It is even evident in our National Anthem!Now, what I don't get is why you people can't come to terms with that! Just because it's a new millenia doesn't mean everything has to change! Do you think then it went from 3001 B.C.E. to 3000 B.C.E. everything changed? Hell no! When it changed from 1 B.C.E. to 1 C.E.? No! So why should it now? Sure, the world is different than it was 2,000 years ago, but that's no reason for the entire world to change in a blink of an eye. The sooner you accept that the U.S. is a war nation, and always will be, the better.

:rolleyes: :( :headbang:

How is that different then when the Biritsh said that they practically owned the world? The British(and all Europeans) believed that they were the "masters" of the world, and it was heir god-given duty to civilize the world.

They did an excellent Job with the USA!

Thank God we tossed these "masters" right out of our country.

Are you 100% sure about that? Ever hear of the British Comonwealth? They are still theoretically attached to the British Empire but are soveriegn enough to do what they want but can still call on British soldiers to defend them if necessary.
The republic of Ireland is not a part of that so it is VERY out of date.

They did an excellent Job with the USA!

Thank God we tossed these "masters" right out of our country.

It was more France than you

The republic of Ireland is not a part of that so it is out of date.

Outside of Ireland, most if not all of them belong to the Commonwealth of Nations which is part of the British Empire!

That song was written by an American experiencing a British naval attack on the U.S. in 1812, you know that right?


And by your generalizations, litterally every nation is a war nation. Except those that apparently were founded upon diplomatic means, which is pretty rare when it comes to nations that make a difference in the world.

I know the song was written by an American. I've had it drummed into my head ever since I began school. They have to teach it in U.S. Public Schools, y'know.

No, it's just our nation is a war nation. Alot of other nations are just...nations. Example: Is Panama a war nation? No! Why? Because it's society and politics doesn't revolve around the army. I never said the U.S. is the ONLY War nation, I was just pointing out to all those people who say "Why does the U.S. go to war?" that it's drummed into our society.

It was more France than you

Hmm no it wasn't. The French only really helped out in any large part at Yorktown. Other than that, it was the Colonial Troops that kept the fight going long enough for France to Recognize us. When France went to war, spain moved with France! The Dutch got involved thanks to an ultimatum, and the rest of the Crowned Heads of Europe, lead by the Russian Empress, formed a "Armed Neutrality" against Britain.

None of this wouldn't have happened if the Colonial Army didn't defeat the Brits at the Battle of Saratoga.

British Empire.. In fact it's an old map. Some of the Countries are no more under British empire..
Outside of Ireland, most if not all of them belong to the Commonwealth of Nations which is part of the British Empire!
It's still a very old map. I'm pretty sure they could leave if they wanted to.

It was more France than you

Not true. Silly rabbit, heavy metal sucks.

It's not that it is ground into our society to be a war nation. The populace of this country was very reluctan to enter WWI, until the sinkning of the Lusitania. People were also unwilling to enter WWII until the bombing of Pearl Harbor. War has been ground into the Economy. We have not had a peace time economy since before WWII. War is good for making money. Not that I agree with that idea, but hey.

Hmm no it wasn't. The French only really helped out in any large part at Yorktown. Other than that, it was the Colonial Troops that kept the fight going long enough for France to Recognize us. When France went to war, spain moved with France! The Dutch got involved thanks to an ultimatum, and the rest of the Crowned Heads of Europe, lead by the Russian Empress, formed a "Armed Neutrality" against Britain.

None of this wouldn't have happened if the Colonial Army didn't defeat the Brits at the Battle of Saratoga.

Ok then, it was more the "Crowned Heads of Europe" than you.

I know the song was written by an American. I've had it drummed into my head ever since I began school. They have to teach it in U.S. Public Schools, y'know.

No, it's just our nation is a war nation. Alot of other nations are just...nations. Example: Is Panama a war nation? No! Why? Because it's society and politics doesn't revolve around the army. I never said the U.S. is the ONLY War nation, I was just pointing out to all those people who say "Why does the U.S. go to war?" that it's drummed into our society.Nope... most of the wars were forced upon the US. American Revolution. Britian wouldn't let us go when we asked to go... so we had to bite--- hard. WWI, we went in to help our allies in Europe... at their request. WWII, the US was neutral. reluctant to get into the fight until Pear Harbor showed the US that standing on the sidelines still makes the US a target. Korea: A war that the US Allies called for help. Vietnam, they wanted the Americans in there to protect them from the North Vietnamese. Desert Storm I. Saddam attacked Kuait... they called for America to help and America and her allies came to the rescue. Rowanda: UN needed US Support... being the nice guys they were, they said yes. Afghanistan. 9/11 'nuff said.

We are a War Nation but we are not a WARMONGERING Nation.

Not true. Silly rabbit, heavy metal sucks.
Just cause the USA cant make music or fight a war with out help

It's not that it is ground into our society to be a war nation. The populace of this country was very reluctan to enter WWI, until the sinkning of the Lusitania. People were also unwilling to enter WWII until the bombing of Pearl Harbor. War has been ground into the Economy. We have not had a peace time economy since before WWII. War is good for making money. Not that I agree with that idea, but hey.

Oh so true. America is using war in a similar way to 'The Party' in "1984" by George Orwell. If you've read it you'll already have seen the similarities and comparisons. I do not believe I have to elaborate.

Edit: But lets not forget that America was not meant to be a "Christian nation" or a religious nation at all. Reagan changed that to gather support from Bible-bashers and it has stuck. Hopefully America's ways can change for the better in the future :( .

Nope... most of the wars were forced upon the US. American Revolution. Britian wouldn't let us go when we asked to go... so we had to bite--- hard. WWI, we went in to help our allies in Europe... at their request. WWII, the US was neutral. reluctant to get into the fight until Pear Harbor showed the US that standing on the sidelines still makes the US a target. Korea: A war that the US Allies called for help. Vietnam, they wanted the Americans in there to protect them from the North Vietnamese. Desert Storm I. Saddam attacked Kuait... they called for America to help and America and her allies came to the rescue. Rowanda: UN needed US Support... being the nice guys they were, they said yes. Afghanistan. 9/11 'nuff said.

We are a War Nation but we are not a WARMONGERING Nation.

Your just soooooo wrong

Ok then, it was more the "Crowned Heads of Europe" than you.

No! The Colonial Army or Continental Amry if you prefer, did most of the fighting! They took on the British, and though they did suffer defeats, proved that holding onto the American Colonies wasn't worth it.

The Continental Army won Saratoga, NOT the French or the Crown Heads of Europe. The Continental Army WON Trenton, NOT the French of the Crown Heads of Europe. The Continental Army won the last few battles forcing Yorktown without the French or the Crown Heads of Europe. The French assisted us in defeating Cornwallis at Yorktown by blockading it preventing them from escaping.

Nope... most of the wars were forced upon the US. American Revolution. Britian wouldn't let us go when we asked to go... so we had to bite--- hard. WWI, we went in to help our allies in Europe... at their request. WWII, the US was neutral. reluctant to get into the fight until Pear Harbor showed the US that standing on the sidelines still makes the US a target. Korea: A war that the US Allies called for help. Vietnam, they wanted the Americans in there to protect them from the North Vietnamese. Desert Storm I. Saddam attacked Kuait... they called for America to help and America and her allies came to the rescue. Rowanda: UN needed US Support... being the nice guys they were, they said yes. Afghanistan. 9/11 'nuff said.

We are a War Nation but we are not a WARMONGERING Nation.

Check your WWII Facts again my friend. We've been fighting Japan in China before a declaration of war. They were volunteers who was fighting along side the Chinese. For Europe, Lend-Lease ring abell? Cash and Carry ring abell?

Your just soooooo wrong*Yawn* sorry, your aurgument was...

Just cause the USA cant make music or fight a war with out help

oh brother! I just gotta believe that your a European who is so ignorant of history.

No! The Colonial Army or Continental Amry if you prefer, did most of the fighting! They took on the British, and though they did suffer defeats, proved that holding onto the American Colonies wasn't worth it.

The Continental Army won Saratoga, NOT the French or the Crown Heads of Europe. The Continental Army WON Trenton, NOT the French of the Crown Heads of Europe. The Continental Army won the last few battles forcing Yorktown without the French or the Crown Heads of Europe. The French assisted us in defeating Cornwallis at Yorktown by blockading it preventing them from escaping.

And you were taught this in the USA? ^^

And you were taught this in the USA? ^^

Actually, I've researched the Revolutionary War. Did you learn what you were taught in a european school?

The French only really helped out in any large part at Yorktown. Other than that, it was the Colonial Troops that kept the fight going long enough for France to Recognize us. When France went to war, spain moved with France! The Dutch got involved thanks to an ultimatum, and the rest of the Crowned Heads of Europe, lead by the Russian Empress, formed a "Armed Neutrality" against Britain.

None of this wouldn't have happened if the Colonial Army didn't defeat the Brits at the Battle of Saratoga.

Around 90% of the weapons used at Saratoga were French.

Sure, the colonials had to revolt, but they wouldn't have won without European (mostly French) help.

Around 90% of the weapons used at Saratoga were French.

Sure, the colonials had to revolt, but they wouldn't have won without European (mostly French) help.

:D at least SOMEONE agrees with me

Actually, I've researched the Revolutionary War. Did you learn what you were taught in a european school?

I think you've only researched the bits that agreed with what you wanted to believe. French involvement in the American Revolution was significant.

Around 90% of the weapons used at Saratoga were French.

Sure, the colonials had to revolt, but they wouldn't have won without European (mostly French) help.

Then if you want to use this line of logic, then the US won WWII considering the Brits were using US Ships and weapons and artillery as was the Soviet Union.

We may have been using their guns but it was the Colonists that fought the war. The French only truely helped out at Yorktown and the Spanish took Florida.

Check your WWII Facts again my friend. We've been fighting Japan in China before a declaration of war. They were volunteers who was fighting along side the Chinese. For Europe, Lend-Lease ring abell? Cash and Carry ring abell?we were not fighting them. we (with the aid of China and Britian) were blockading them because they were invading the Asian mainland. Remember the ABC blockade? Japan was moving into mainland Asia and China and her allies needed help. we were there as a show of power. but the main fighting was done by the Chinese.

2) VOLUNTEERS, they were not offically sent by the US. In order to maintain Neutrality, the US could not send troops. however, we did not forbid anyone from "taking a trip, and if you just so happen to pick up a gun over there you can start fighting." that's why they never referred to themselves as Americans until the war started.

I think you've only researched the bits that agreed with what you wanted to believe. French involvement in the American Revolution was significant.

Few Frenchmen were assisting the Americans! They mostly helped with drilling and training. Outside of that, their military importance was limited to Yorktown.

Yes the leaders of Britain believed it was their right to do it. That they were entitled to it by their birth. You know how they were civilised and that those heathens needed British rule. And yes they thought that the British way was the best way.

Please don't bury your head in the sand.

Britian did not believe it was somehow entitiled to the land or was on some kind of ideological resque mission. They were just acting out of imperialism. I'm not saying thats right, but Britian was not deluding itself into believing that imperial conquest was somehow morally right. Thats what America seems to be doing here.

I think you've only researched the bits that agreed with what you wanted to believe. French involvement in the American Revolution was significant.May be true, but for that logic, then the Brits never won a war without help either.

we were not fighting them. we (with the aid of China and Britian) were blockading them because they were invading the Asian mainland. Remember the ABC blockade? Japan was moving into mainland Asia and China and her allies needed help. we were there as a show of power. but the main fighting was done by the Chinese.

Your right it was done primarily by the chinese. I wasn't disputing that. However, we were arming the Chinese as well as the Brits and Soviet Union before the US got involved in WWII

2) VOLUNTEERS, they were not offically sent by the US. In order to maintain Neutrality, the US could not send troops. however, we did not forbid anyone from "taking a trip, and if you just so happen to pick up a gun over there you can start fighting." that's why they never referred to themselves as Americans until the war started.

Not offiially sent is the right phrase. They couldn't officially send them. That would've been an act of war.

Ok, this is what happened people.

The americans Rebeled(yay!) and fought a few battles with the British. Very quickly, they realized that their weapons sucked. So they sent my good ole' buddy Ben Franklin to get some weapons from the French. After the Americans did a bit of negotiating, the French sent alot of weapons and clothes to help us. BUT, they didn't supply any fighting soldiers or ships. After we beat the brits at Saratoga and got our act together at Valley Forge the French said "What the hey! Let's go join 'em and kick some British buttocks!" so they sent their forces. At first, all the really did was sit in Rhode Island, fight a few brits, and sit outside of Newport. Then, however, they went to the Carolinas where we needed some help. After helping us beat the brits there, the Frenchies said "We're going to send our fleet south to kick some British butt in the Carribean! Bye bye!"

However, some ships stayed behind for a little while. These French soldiers and their ships were to help take Yorktown. The French and American Marines surrounded and bombarded the city(with mostly French Cannon, might I add), and the French Fleet kept the British from getting on their boats. Eventually, Cornwallis surrendered. The end.

Corneliu, u arent trying to say that lend-lease was an act of war, are u?

I think that its fair to say that the US remained out of WWII until Pearl Harbor.

May be true, but for that logic, then the Brits never won a war without help either.

You don't have to go back much more than 20 years for the last war the UK won entirely single handedly, i.e. the Falklands War.

Corneliu, u arent trying to say that lend-lease was an act of war, are u?

I think that its fair to say that the US remained out of WWII until Pearl Harbor.

No I'm not saying that it was. What I am saying is though that we have been supporting the Allies through economic means by suppling them before we got involved.

You don't have to go back much more than 20 years for the last war the UK won entirely single handedly, i.e. the Falklands War.

And the US had to cover their obligations while they did that.

I think you've only researched the bits that agreed with what you wanted to believe. French involvement in the American Revolution was significant.

The French did help the Americans a lot. But even without French aid, the colonists eventually would have won. The American revolution was a guerilla war, and history has proven many times over that it is impossible for a foreign conventional army (British) to defeat an indigenous geurilla army.

Rwanda: UN needed US Support... being the nice guys they were, they said yes.
Really?

Remind me how many UN/US troops were sent to Rwanda.


For the next couple of weeks, many questionable decisions were made by members of the United Nations Security Council. The UN had a peacekeeping force in the country, UNAMIR (The United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda).

UNAMIR's Force Commander General Dallaire became aware of the genocide taking place, and pleaded for reinforcements of 2000 soldiers and logistical support. The UN Security Council refused, several journalists laying blame on a gunshy Clinton administration who refused to provide requested material aid after the failed US efforts in Mogadishu, Somalia. The Security Council voted to reduce UNAMIR down to 260 men.

Following the Belgian forces' withdrawal after 10 soldiers were killed, General Dallaire consolidated his contingent of Canadian, Ghanian, and Dutch soldiers in urban areas and focused on providing areas of 'safe control'. His actions are credited with directly saving the lives of 20,000 Tutsis.

The new Rwandan government led by self-proclaimed President Sindikubwabo worked hard to minimize international criticism. Rwanda at that time had a seat on the Security Council and its ambassador argued that the claims of genocide were exaggerated and that the government was doing all that it could to stop it. Representatives of the Rwandan Catholic Church, long associated with the radical Hutus in Rwanda, also used their links in Europe to reduce criticism. France, which felt the United States and United Kingdom would use the massacres to try to expand their influence in that francophone part of Africa also worked to prevent a foreign intervention.

Finally, on May 17, 1994, the UN conceded that "acts of genocide may have been committed." By that time, the Red Cross estimated that 500,000 Rwandans had been killed. The UN agreed to send 5,500 troops to Rwanda which were to be provided by mostly African countries. The UN also requested 50 armored personnel carriers from the United States. However, deployment of these forces was delayed due to arguments over their cost.

The USA helped after the genocide. After the war. They sent aid.

I'm not anti-american. I'm just anti-ignorance. :headbang:

Really?

Remind me how many UN/US troops were sent to Rwanda. :headbang: oops... sorry working on 2 hrs of sleep... damn... what's the name of that country now...

Check your WWII Facts again my friend. We've been fighting Japan in China before a declaration of war. They were volunteers who was fighting along side the Chinese. For Europe, Lend-Lease ring abell? Cash and Carry ring abell?

Sure, the US had been helping the allies out "unofficially" for a long time. The reason, if I'm not mistaken, is that Roosevelt wanted a declaration of war but the people wouldn't have it. That doesn't sound warmongering to me.

In general, the US is not a War Nation. We have needed war as much as any other country to build up our power base, but not more than anyone else. Our real strength has always been our economy.

However, I would agree that there is a streak of militarism running through US culture. We historically haven't constantly used war as a solution for problems, but when we have, it has almost always worked. We have an idea that violent revolutions can create working democratic governments, when our revolution is just about the only violent revolution that ever did. And we're still pretty nationalistic- we're very damn proud of our nation, and probably with good reason.

But essentially, we haven't had the humbling experience most nations have. We don't really experience defeat in warfare, or defeat at all, very much. Vietnam humbled us for a little while but after the Gulf War we shook out of it like it was a phase.

So we use war too much today.

Britian did not believe it was somehow entitiled to the land or was on some kind of ideological resque mission. They were just acting out of imperialism. I'm not saying thats right, but Britian was not deluding itself into believing that imperial conquest was somehow morally right. Thats what America seems to be doing here.

Naah, dude, I've got to disagree with you there. We genuinely did believe that what we were doing was more or less right and good.

If you want a quick summation of public opinion on the subject, read Rudyard Kiplings White Mans Burden . Interestingly enough, it was written for the American invasion of the Phillipinnes (or however they're spelt).

In general, the US is not a War Nation. We have needed war as much as any other country to build up our power base, but not more than anyone else. Our real strength has always been our economy.


I wish I could agree with this, however the US economy has been almost totally created through war. It is not the wheat from the mid west, nor the steel from Pittsburgh that created your economy. Other countries produce as much if not more of these types of things. It is military spending throughout the 20th century, both by the US and by other nations, that has created the US economy.
Right now, with military spending being cut back everywhere except in the US and one or two smaller countries. The US economy is in trouble. Or hadn't you noticed.

The British could have won the revolutionary war, but some of their leaders on the battlefield acted like bloody buggers. Commander Ralls from Jolly Old Germany didn't read the intelligence report that would have told him that Washington was crossing the Deleware. General Howe never got the memo and went to Philadelphia instead of Albany. And Johnny Burgoyne thought it to be a good idea to haul around his iron bathtub with him on the warpath. The Continentals chopped down redwoods over that warpath, and the lobsterbacks marched at the pace of a mile a day. Therefore, when they got to Saratoga, everyone was ready for them, and they lost. Then the Frenchies got involved, and the war was pretty much over. You could say that Burgoyne's bathtub was the reason the British lost the war.

As to the US being a war nation, I could deal with that, if everyone would stop smoking flowers and stop being afraid of war. Newsflash guys, no matter what you hear on the internets, there's no draft.

Outside of Ireland, most if not all of them belong to the Commonwealth of Nations which is part of the British Empire!

Erm- that's a sadly distorted view of things.. so wrong it's not funny. :headbang: but I still hope you weren't serious ;)

The British Empire no longer exists damnit and hasn't for ages. Decades prior to WWI, some of the colonies became self-governing, and achieved a status equal to Britain. (After WWI, these nations independently participated in the peace treaties - Britain didn't sign for them.) After WWII, much of the remaining empire was slowly let go, and the Commonwealth was set up.

The Commonwealth is more like a cooperative group, sort of like the UN but only concerned with its member nations, which frees them of both the US's selfinterested influence and of trying to play policeman. Many of the former Imperial colonies are members because of cultural links - but some are not. Note the absence of Egypt, Sudan, Zimbabwe and, yeah, Palestine.

Membership is voluntary on the part of those nations. Some member nations (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Jamaica, etc) have HM Queen Elizabeth II as their heads of state. Others have their own heads of state and have nothing to do with Britain any more (India, Singapore, Uganda, Malaysia, etc). When the current monarch dies, I suspect even more will join the latter list :rolleyes:

Their website has a full list of member nations (http://www.thecommonwealth.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=20724) by the way.

Whats this represent?


another example of american ignorance

Typically, one provides a caption or explanation with a graphic. DrunkenDove not knowing what Kwangistar's unexplained map represented is not an example of "American ignorance".


Not true. Silly rabbit, heavy metal sucks.


Just cause the USA cant make music or fight a war with out help

Heavy metal is a mostly American genre, isn't it? Or am I just unfamiliar with European Heavy Metal artists?

I've always understood Electronica to be the big European music.


And as for French involvement in the American Revolution... It was vital, to say the least. France bankrupted itself supporting the American Revolution. In truth, supporting the Americans wasn't the true agenda of the French royalty. If one recalls European history, France and England were in constant competition. By supporting America, France had a chance to hurt the British Empire.

Unfortunately for the French royalty, bankrupting their country didn't exactly... please the commoners. Several years later, starving French peasants and some of the clergy and nobility revolted.

:rolleyes: :( :headbang:

Joins in.

:rolleyes: :( :headbang:

It was more France than you

yeah... and then we saved the world and halted hitler's takeover of the entire european continent. i'm pretty sure we're even with france.

Erm- that's a sadly distorted view of things.. so wrong it's not funny. :headbang: but I still hope you weren't serious ;)

The British Empire no longer exists damnit and hasn't for ages. Decades prior to WWI, some of the colonies became self-governing, and achieved a status equal to Britain. (After WWI, these nations independently participated in the peace treaties - Britain didn't sign for them.) After WWII, much of the remaining empire was slowly let go, and the Commonwealth was set up.

The Commonwealth is more like a cooperative group, sort of like the UN but only concerned with its member nations, which frees them of both the US's selfinterested influence and of trying to play policeman. Many of the former Imperial colonies are members because of cultural links - but some are not. Note the absence of Egypt, Sudan, Zimbabwe and, yeah, Palestine.

Membership is voluntary on the part of those nations. Some member nations (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Jamaica, etc) have HM Queen Elizabeth II as their heads of state. Others have their own heads of state and have nothing to do with Britain any more (India, Singapore, Uganda, Malaysia, etc). When the current monarch dies, I suspect even more will join the latter list :rolleyes:

Their website has a full list of member nations (http://www.thecommonwealth.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=20724) by the way.

A nice first post. Welcome to NS :)

A nice first post. Welcome to NS :)
Thanks :)

Just cause the USA cant make music or fight a war with out help


Yeah I guess Jazz doesn't count, or rock music. What about the War of 1812, Spanish American War, US Civil War, Vietnam.

You Euro's can't fight a war without our help.

Yes, but Britian did not believe itself to be the best thing to happen to all these places. It was just the one that managed to do it. They didn't believe it was their "right" to do it, or that the people in these countries somehow "deserved" to be under British rule. They were just doint what they did best at the time. Imperial conquest.
Actually, the Brits believed all these things.

Been there, done that.

You Euro's can't fight a war without our help.
Yeah, we decided to dump the whole bloodthirsty nationalist warmongering a long time ago, but the children of America are just getting started.

A History of American Wars

The mother of all terrorists...to be taken quite literally!

For those of you who want facts and figures and have the intellect to judge 'good' from 'evil' and the courage to know and say out the truth....for the rest, don't bother reading any further!

Ever since the United States Army massacred 300 Lakotas in 1890, American forces have intervened elsewhere around the globe 100 times. Indeed the United States has sent troops abroad or militarily struck other countries' territory 216 times since independence from Britain. Since 1945 the United States has intervened in more than 20 countries throughout the world.

Since World War II, the United States actually dropped bombs on 23 countries. These include: China 1945-46, Korea 1950-53, China 1950-53, Guatemala 1954, Indonesia 1958, Cuba 1959-60, Guatemala 1960, Congo 1964, Peru 1965, Laos 1964-73, Vietnam 1961-73, Cambodia 1969-70, Guatemala 1967-69, Grenada 1983, Lebanon 1984, Libya 1986, El Salvador 1980s, Nicaragua 1980s, Panama 1989, Iraq 1991-1999, Sudan 1998, Afghanistan 1998, Yugoslavia 1999, Afghanistan 2001- and Iraq 2001-.

Post World War II, the United States has also assisted in over 20 different coups throughout the world, and the CIA was responsible for half a dozen assassinations of political heads of state.

The following is a comprehensive summary of the imperialist strategy of the United States over the span of the past century:

Argentina - 1890 - Troops sent to Buenos Aires to protect business interests.
Chile - 1891 - Marines sent to Chile and clashed with nationalist rebels.
Haiti - 1891 - American troops suppress a revolt by Black workers on United States-claimed Navassa Island.
Hawaii - 1893 - Navy sent to Hawaii to overthrow the independent kingdom - Hawaii annexed by the United States.
Nicaragua - 1894 - Troops occupied Bluefield's, a city on the Caribbean Sea, for a month.
China - 1894-95 - Navy, Army, and Marines landed during the Sino-Japanese War.
Korea - 1894-96 - Troops kept in Seoul during the war.
Panama - 1895 - Army, Navy, and Marines landed in the port city of Corinto.
China - 1894-1900 - Troops occupied China during the Boxer Rebellion.
Philippines - 1898-1910 - Navy and Army troops landed after the Philippines fell during the Spanish-American War; 600,000 Filipinos were killed.
Cuba - 1898-1902 - Troops seized Cuba in the Spanish-American War; the United States still maintains troops at Guantanamo Bay today.
Puerto Rico - 1898 - present - Troops seized Puerto Rico in the Spanish-American War and still occupy Puerto Rico today.
Nicaragua - 1898 - Marines landed at the port of San Juan del Sur.
Samoa - 1899 - Troops landed as a result over the battle for succession to the throne.
Panama - 1901-14 - Navy supported the revolution when Panama claimed independence from Colombia. American troops have occupied the Canal Zone since 1901 when construction for the canal began.
Honduras - 1903 - Marines landed to intervene during a revolution.
Dominican Rep 1903-04 - Troops landed to protect American interests during a revolution.
Korea - 1904-05 - Marines landed during the Russo-Japanese War.
Cuba - 1906-09 - Troops landed during an election.
Nicaragua - 1907 - Troops landed and a protectorate was set up.
Honduras - 1907 - Marines landed during Honduras' war with Nicaragua.
Panama - 1908 - Marines sent in during Panama's election.
Nicaragua - 1910 - Marines landed for a second time in Bluefields and Corinto.
Honduras - 1911 - Troops sent in to protect American interests during Honduras' civil war.
China - 1911-41 - Navy and troops sent to China during continuous flare-ups.
Cuba - 1912 - Troops sent in to protect American interests in Havana.
Panama - 1912 - Marines landed during Panama's election.
Honduras - 1912 - Troops sent in to protect American interests.
Nicaragua - 1912-33 - Troops occupied Nicaragua and fought guerrillas during its 20-year civil war.
Mexico - 1913 - Navy evacuated Americans during revolution.
Dominican Rep 1914 - Navy fought with rebels over Santo Domingo.
Mexico - 1914-18 - Navy and troops sent in to intervene against nationalists.
Haiti - 1914-34 - Troops occupied Haiti after a revolution and occupied Haiti for 19 years.
Dominican Rep 1916-24 - Marines occupied the Dominican Republic for eight years.
Cuba - 1917-33 - Troops landed and occupied Cuba for 16 years; Cuba became an economic protectorate.
World War I - 1917-18 - Navy and Army sent to Europe to fight the Axis powers.
Russia - 1918-22 - Navy and troops sent to eastern Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution; Army made five landings.
Honduras - 1919 - Marines sent during Honduras' national elections.
Guatemala - 1920 - Troops occupied Guatemala for two weeks during a union strike.
Turkey - 1922 - Troops fought nationalists in Smyrna.
China - 1922-27 - Navy and Army troops deployed during a nationalist revolt.
Honduras - 1924-25 - Troops landed twice during a national election.
Panama - 1925 - Troops sent in to put down a general strike.
China - 1927-34 - Marines sent in and stationed for seven years throughout China.
El Salvador - 1932 - Naval warships deployed during the FMLN revolt under Marti.
World War II - 1941-45 - Military fought the Axis powers: Japan, Germany, and Italy.
Yugoslavia - 1946 - Navy deployed off the coast of Yugoslavia in response to the downing of an American plane.
Uruguay - 1947 - Bombers deployed as a show of military force.
Greece - 1947-49 - United States operations insured a victory for the far right in national "elections."
Germany - 1948 - Military deployed in response to the Berlin blockade; the Berlin airlift lasts 444 days.
Philippines - 1948-54 - The CIA directed a civil war against the Filipino Huk revolt.
Puerto Rico - 1950 - Military helped crush an independence rebellion in Ponce.
Korean War - 1951-53 - Military sent in during the war.
Iran - 1953 - The CIA orchestrated the overthrow of democratically elected Mossadegh and restored the Shah to power.
Vietnam - 1954 - The United States offered weapons to the French in the battle against Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Minh.
Guatemala - 1954 - The CIA overthrew the democratically elected Arbenz and placed Colonel Armas in power.
Egypt - 1956 - Marines deployed to evacuate foreigners after Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal.
Lebanon - 1958 - Navy supported an Army occupation of Lebanon during its civil war.
Panama - 1958 - Troops landed after Panamanians demonstrations threatened the Canal Zone.
Vietnam - 1950s-75 - Vietnam War.
Cuba - 1961 - The CIA-directed Bay of Pigs invasions failed to overthrow the Castro government.
Cuba - 1962 - The Navy quarantines Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Laos - 1962 - Military occupied Laos during its civil war against the Pathet Lao guerrillas.
Panama - 1964 - Troops sent in and Panamanians shot while protesting the United States presence in the Canal Zone.
Indonesia - 1965 - The CIA orchestrated a military coup.
Dominican Rep- 1965-66 - Troops deployed during a national election.
Guatemala - 1966-67 - Green Berets sent in.
Cambodia - 1969-75 - Military sent in after the Vietnam War expanded into Cambodia.
Oman - 1970 - Marines landed to direct a possible invasion into Iran.
Laos - 1971-75 - Americans carpet-bomb the countryside during Laos' civil war.
Chile - 1973 - The CIA orchestrated a coup, killing President Allende who had been popularly elected. The CIA helped to establish a military regime under General Pinochet.
Cambodia - 1975 - Twenty-eight Americans killed in an effort to retrieve the crew of the ayaquez, which had been seized.
Angola - 1976-92 - The CIA backed South African rebels fighting against Marxist Angola.
Iran - 1980 - Americans aborted a rescue attempt to liberate 52 hostages seized in the Teheran embassy.
Libya - 1981 - American fighters shoot down two Libyan fighters.
El Salvador - 1981-92 - The CIA, troops, and advisers aid in El Salvador's war against the FMLN.
Nicaragua - 1981-90 - The CIA and NSC directed the Contra War against the Sandinistas.
Lebanon - 1982-84 - Marines occupied Beirut during Lebanon's civil war; 241 were killed in the American barracks and Reagan "redeployed" the troops to the Mediterranean.
Honduras - 1983-89 - Troops sent in to build bases near the Honduran border.
Grenada - 1983-84 - American invasion overthrew the Maurice Bishop government.
Iran - 1984 - American fighters shot down two Iranian planes over the Persian Gulf.
Libya - 1986 - American fighters hit targets in and around the capital city of Tripoli.
Bolivia - 1986 - The Army assisted government troops on raids of cocaine areas.
Iran - 1987-88 - The United States intervened on the side of Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War.
Libya - 1989 - Navy shot down two more Libyan jets.
Virgin Islands - 1989 - Troops landed during unrest among Virgin Island peoples.
Philippines - 1989 - Air Force provided air cover for government during coup.
Panama - 1989-90 - 27,000 Americans landed in overthrow of President Noriega; over 2,000 Panama civilians were killed.
Liberia - 1990 - Troops entered Liberia to evacuate foreigners during civil war.
Saudi Arabia - 1990-91 - American troops sent to Saudi Arabia, which was a staging area in the war against Iraq.
Kuwait - 1991 - Troops sent into Kuwait to turn back Saddam Hussein.
Somalia - 1992-94 - Troops occupied Somalia during civil war.
Bosnia - 1993-95 - Air Force jets bombed "no-fly zone" during civil war in Yugoslavia.
Haiti - 1994-96 - American troops and Navy provided a blockade against Haiti's military government. The CIA restored Aristide to power.
Zaire - 1996-97 - Marines sent into Rwanda Hutus' refugee camps in the area where the Congo revolution began.
Albania - 1997 - Troops deployed during evacuation of foreigners.
Sudan - 1998 - American missiles destroyed a pharmaceutical complex where alleged nerve gas components were manufactured.
Afghanistan - 1998 - Missiles launched towards alleged Afghan terrorist training camps.
Yugoslavia - 1999 - Bombings and missile attacks carried out by the United States in conjunction with NATO in the 11 week war against Milosevic.
Iraq - 1998-2001 - Missiles launched into Baghdad and other large Iraq cities for four days. American jets enforced "no-fly zone" and continued to hit Iraqi targets since December 1998.

These **100** instances of American military intervention did not include times when the United States:
(1) deployed military police overseas;
(2) mobilized the National Guard;
(3) sent Navy ships off the coast of numerous countries as a show of strength;
(4) sent additional troops to areas where Americans were already stationed;
(5) carried out covert actions where American forces were not under the direct rule of an American command;
(6) used small hostage rescue units;
(7) used American pilots to fly foreign planes;
(8) carried out military training and advisory programs which did not involve direct combat.

U. S. Government Assassination Plots

Following is a list of foreign leaders whose assassination (or planning for same) the United States has been involved in since the end of Second World War. The list does not include several assassinations in various parts of the world carried out by anti-Castro Cubans employed by CIA and headquartered in the United States:

List A: Non-Muslims

1949 - Kim Koo, Korean opposition leader
1950's - CIA/Neo-Nazi hit list of numerous political figures in West Germany
1955 - Jose' Antonio Remon, President of Panama
1950's Chou Enlai, Prime Minister of China, several attempts on his life
1951 - Kim Il Sung, Premiere of North Korea
1950s (mid) - Claro M. Recto, Philippines opposition leader
1955 - Jawhar Lal Nehru, Prime Minister of India
1959 and 1963 - Norodom Sihanouk, leader of Cambodia
1950s-70s - Jose Figueres, President of Costa Rica, two attempts on his life
1961 - Francois "Papa Doc"Duvalier, leader of Haiti
1961 - Patrice Lumumba , Prime Minister of Congo (Zaire)
1961 - Gen. Rafael Trujillo, leader of Dominican Republic
1963 - Ngo Dinh Diem, President of South Vietnam
1960s - Fidel Castro, President of Cuba, more than 15 attempts on his life
1960s - Raul Castro, high official in government of Cuba
1965 - Francisco Caamanao, Dominican Republic opposition leader
1965 - Pierre Ngendandumwe, Prime Minister of Burundi
1965-6 - Charles de Gaulle, President of France
1967 - Che Guevara, Cuban leader
1970 - Salvadore Allende, President of Chile
1970 - General Rene Schneider, Commander-in-Chief of Army, Chile
1970s and 1981 - Gen. Omar Torrijos, leader of Panama
1972 - General Manuel Noriega, Chief of Panama Intelligence
1975 - Mobutu Sese Seko, President of Zaire
1976 - Michael Manley, Prime Minister of Jamaica
1983 - Miguel d'Escoto, Foreign Minister of Nicaragua
1984 - The nine commandantes of the Sandanista National Directorate
1980's - Dr. Gerald Bull, Canadian Ballistics Scientist assassinated by Mossad in Belgium.

Partial List of Muslim Leaders Assassinated or Attempted Assassinations

1950's Sukarno, President of Indonesia
1957 Gamal Abdul Nasser, President of Egypt
1960 Brigadier General, Abdul Karim Kassem, Leader of Iraq
1980-86 Muammar Qaddafi, Leader of Libya, several plots and attempts upon his life
1982 Ayatullah Khomeini, Leader of Iran
1983 General Ahmed Dlimi, Moroccan army Commander
1985 Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadllallah, Lebanese Shiite Leader (80 people killed in that attempt)
1991 Saddam Hussein, Leader of Iraq

Very likely Victims :

April 4, 1979 - Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, Leader of Pakistan, for pursuing making of Nuclear Bomb.
August, 1988. General Ziaul Haq, Military Leader of Pakistan.
1995 - Murtaza Bhutto, Son of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, Anti-American would-be Leader - Pakistan.
March 25, 1975 - King Faisal of Saudi Arabia through his Nephew, Saudi Arabia for imposing 1973 Oil Embargo.
August 24, 1999. Mullah Mohammad Omar, in Kandhar, Afghanistan.

A List of Known Assassination Plots

1950's Sukarno, President of Indonesia
1957 Gamal Abdul Nasser, President
2001 Since early this year more than 40 Palestinian leaders assassinated through surrogate Israel.

Law of Nature:

Newton's Third Law of Physics: "For every Action, there is an equal and opposite Reaction."

Reaction: Tuesday, September 11, 2001, World Trade Center struck by two planes, and Pentagon, commandeered by 19 hijackers of Arab origin, killing more than 5 thousand people.

Every nation was born in blood. You're not going to get and maintain a country by asking nicely.

Every nation was born in blood. You're not going to get and maintain a country by asking nicely.

Reasoning helps more then you know. Asking nicely may not help but standing your ground will.

First of all, you blame the US for a lot of things it didn't do. Israel isn't our surrogate, they are an ally. And I can rattle off a list of dead for every other country that's at least twice as long.

As far as the US goes, let us take a look at the man who is probably their most revered leader, and the only US president to get every electoral vote: George Washington. After serving for a total of 2 terms, he was exhausted, and decided to retire to Virginia, setting a precedent that no president until FDR would break. In any case, the citizens of the US didn't know what to do, for Washington was their first leader, and held in such high esteem that to criticize him was all but treason. So Washington issued his farewell address. His farewell address contained numerous important points. Among them was his belief that political parties are a bad thing. The most important, however, was his belief that neutrality was the best course of action, and that the US should not form any permanent alliances. In his mind, the US wasn't to be a "world police" and they should only act when in their own best interests.

That was the first president of the USA.

And I can rattle off a list of dead for every other country that's at least twice as long.
Okay, make a list for me.
Republic of Iceland. Take your time.

As far as the US goes, let us take a look at the man who is probably their most revered leader, and the only US president to get every electoral vote: George Washington. After serving for a total of 2 terms, he was exhausted, and decided to retire to Virginia, setting a precedent that no president until FDR would break. In any case, the citizens of the US didn't know what to do, for Washington was their first leader, and held in such high esteem that to criticize him was all but treason. So Washington issued his farewell address. His farewell address contained numerous important points. Among them was his belief that political parties are a bad thing. The most important, however, was his belief that neutrality was the best course of action, and that the US should not form any permanent alliances. In his mind, the US wasn't to be a "world police" and they should only act when in their own best interests.

That was the first president of the USA.

However, the war Nepolianic War showed us that we cannot stay out of Foreign Affairs otherwise, we'll get dragged into it. We were dragged into it and it resulted into the War of 1812. No one envisioned the US becoming a superpower in less than 250 years.

It is not as if the US didn't try to remain neutral. Economically, neutrality makes the most sense--you are free to trade with both combatants. The US also likes to profit off of the wars of others, as is shown by their purchase of the Louisiana Territory by none other than a certain French dictator. I will concede that the US can be trigger-happy, as the War of 1812 could have been avoided if news traveled faster. Even so, America was rarely aggresive. To look back at the president America had for most of WWII, it is interesting to listen to what FDR says before the US's involvement: "America hates war!"

Okay, make a list for me.
Republic of Iceland. Take your time.
While I can't make one for the Republic of Iceland, (not being an expert on Icelandic history), the Icelanders were also vikings, responsible for the rape, plunder, and slaughter of countless people.

It is not as if the US didn't try to remain neutral. Economically, neutrality makes the most sense--you are free to trade with both combatants. The US also likes to profit off of the wars of others, as is shown by their purchase of the Louisiana Territory by none other than a certain French dictator. I will concede that the US can be trigger-happy, as the War of 1812 could have been avoided if news traveled faster. Even so, America was rarely aggresive. To look back at the president America had for most of WWII, it is interesting to listen to what FDR says before the US's involvement: "America hates war!"

Hey, don't blame 1812 on us. Yea we declared it but if Britain hadn't been seizing our ships and impressing our people into their navy, we wouldn't have had to take that step.

Your right! It could've been avoided if news travel faster but alas, Britain AND France shouldn't have been impressing our people into their armed forces.

While I can't make one for the Republic of Iceland, (not being an expert on Icelandic history), the Icelanders were also vikings, responsible for the rape, plunder, and slaughter of countless people.

You need to read Icelandic history if you are going to argue that. ;)
Many types of Vikings you know, Danes, Swedes, Norse and Fins.

You need to read Icelandic history if you are going to argue that. ;)
Many types of Vikings you know, Danes, Swedes, Norse and Fins.
Wasn't Icelandid conquerd by vikings who slaughtered the peaceful Irish monks living there? Doesn't seem so good to me.

Yes, but Britian did not believe itself to be the best thing to happen to all these places. It was just the one that managed to do it. They didn't believe it was their "right" to do it, or that the people in these countries somehow "deserved" to be under British rule. They were just doint what they did best at the time. Imperial conquest.Umm, say what? (I suppose in 8 pages, someone else may have called you on this, but if not...)

The Brits were just as convinced of their superior form of government, administration and culture as the (current) USians, if not more so. Empirical Britain believed to its core that the British were inherently superior and their superiority gave them the right to subjugate "subhuman" native populations.

First of all, you blame the US for a lot of things it didn't do. Israel isn't our surrogate, they are an ally. And I can rattle off a list of dead for every other country that's at least twice as long.

You were challenged to produce a list for Iceland, a small island country with no borders (except fishing zone ones) which has relatively little influence in the world. (Even you will have to admit that North Island).

I will now suggest a slightly bigger country to look at over the last century. Brazil. (Geographically larger than the continental US, nearly as many people, and is now becoming a significant economic power.) Find me a list of the bloodshed caused or provoked by Brazil.

Wasn't Icelandid conquerd by vikings who slaughtered the peaceful Irish monks living there? Doesn't seem so good to me.
Do you people have any idea how many monks lived here? VERY few and even fewer were killd and the Irish and Scots came with us. We are the natives of Iceland.

You were challenged to produce a list for Iceland, a small island country with no borders (except fishing zone ones) which has relatively little influence in the world. (Even you will have to admit that North Island).

Yes, but he said he could make a list for every other country in the world. I did not think he could do it, he still has not, but I wanted to see what he would come up with.
But okay, Brazil. Make the list Armandian Cheese.

Gotta give him some time people! He's not on 24/7 and he's gotta look it all up too. That takes time.

While I can't make one for the Republic of Iceland, (not being an expert on Icelandic history), the Icelanders were also vikings, responsible for the rape, plunder, and slaughter of countless people.
Ok name a country that you can make a list thats twice as long.

Do you people have any idea how many monks lived here? VERY few and even fewer were killd and the Irish and Scots came with us. We are the natives of Iceland.
Size doesn't matter, it still wasn't a nice thing to do. Didn't they kill ALL the monks?

I don't have the time for a full list, but here's a few examples.
Iceland: Vikings
Great Britain: Imperialism, Industrial Revolution, etc.
Brazil: Drug smuggling, horribly blood revolutions and upheavals
Russia: From the Tsar to the Communists to Putin, one long streak of blood
Get my point? The US is not perfect, but no nation is. Also, many times we are accused of things we didn't do (such as giving blankets of smallpox to Indians...There is no evidence for it) and often blamed when we had reasonable justification to do it. (Iraq, Afghanistan.)

If you want a full list, give me time. Finding every person a nation has killed takes time, you know.

Size doesn't matter, it still wasn't a nice thing to do. Didn't they kill ALL the monks?
No, they did not. Probably under 20 people were killd the others just went back to Ireland.

If you want a full list, give me time. Finding every person a nation has killed takes time, you know.

Don't worry! I'll make sure they give you time.

...often blamed when we had reasonable justification to do it. (Iraq, Afghanistan.)
That can be argued.

Do Luxembourg! :)

Ok name a country that you can make a list thats twice as long.

You seriously think the U.S. is the worst country ever?

Ignorance, pure ignorance...

You seriously think the U.S. is the worst country ever?

Ignorance, pure ignorance...
No, just can't think of any twice as long, longer sure but twice as long?

That can be argued.

Do Luxembourg! :)
Ahhh! Too many countries! Well, for a short list, the Luxembour nation is mainly descended from a line of incrediibly oppressive nobility.

No, just can't think of any twice as long, longer sure but twice as long?
Russia! The Tsar Ivan the Terrible alone slaughtered more.

No, just can't think of any twice as long, longer sure but twice as long?

Russia? Britain? France? Ottoman Empire? Germany? Portugal? Spain? I can

No, just can't think of any twice as long, longer sure but twice as long?

Russia? Britain? France? Ottoman Empire? Germany? Portugal? Spain? I can

If you want a full list, give me time. Finding every person a nation has killed takes time, you know.
Take all the time you need. P.S. The Icelandic Vikings came straight from Norway for the most part and had nothing to do with England, murders, etc.
And the rest were Celts from Scotland and Ireland, not Vikings.
You are talking about the Danes that invaded England, murder, Ireland etc.
Many types of Vikings Norse, Danes, Swedes and Finns. My nations people were farmers in Norway before coming here for the most part.

I don't have the time for a full list, but here's a few examples.

Brazil: Drug smuggling, horribly blood revolutions and upheavals

Get my point? The US is not perfect, but no nation is. Also, many times we are accused of things we didn't do (such as giving blankets of smallpox to Indians...There is no evidence for it) and often blamed when we had reasonable justification to do it. (Iraq, Afghanistan.)
Brazil: Drug smuggling. Hum to where, from where by whom when. Brazil has a problem with drugs being shipped through Brazil, and uses internal police measures for this, where is the violence against other countries.

Bloody revolution and upheavals? When. Against whom? where? There have been coups d'estats in Brzail, but no bloody ones since the inconfiança in the 18th century. And that was just a minor skirmish. There was a secessionist war, farroupilha, which was quite bloody, but completely internal from 1835 to 1845. Is this what you mean?

Please do not make unjustified, ridiculous claims about countries you obcviously know nothing about.

No-one has said that the rest of the world is as white as Bo-Peep's sheep, but the US does have a spectacularly bloody history for the 350 years or so that it has been in existence.

Yeah, we decided to dump the whole bloodthirsty nationalist warmongering a long time ago, but the children of America are just getting started.

Well it is our turn. You Euro's had centuries to play around, now it's our turn. It's only fair.

to be honest, most of those places don't have accurate history keeping. even Englands history is mired in myths and legends. After all King Aurthur is French in origin.

the question for you North Islands is why do you include police actions in your catagory of War. you claim that one can take a stand peacefully, but in your list the majority of your examples are US troops putting down violent revolts that threaten US civilians/property. Every country will have a list that long if you include every military deployment.

Oh and your list fails to mention that most of those "military" actions were results of Revolutions or Civil Wars that threatened US Citizens and Property and includes wars we were asked to assist in... or should I say the Student who bought that essay off of the internet failed to notice the missing data.

Hope he didn't pay too much for that donated Essay. (http://papercamp.com/am.shtml)

the question for you North Islands is why do you include police actions in your catagory of War. you claim that one can take a stand peacefully, but in your list the majority of your examples are US troops putting down violent revolts that threaten US civilians/property. Every country will have a list that long if you include every military deployment.

Oh and your list fails to mention that most of those "military" actions were results of Revolutions or Civil Wars that threatened US Citizens and Property and includes wars we were asked to assist in... or should I say the Student who bought that essay off of the internet failed to notice the missing data.

Hope he didn't pay too much for that donated Essay. (http://papercamp.com/am.shtml)

The point is that almost no country has a list even approaching that for military/police intervention in foreign lands. I would also like to know how you justify overseas action as policing? Police are for the enforcement of your own law in your own territories.
Threat to US citizen being defined as what. Some group or groups actually attacking a US embassy, or some civil disturbance in a bar next to the US embassy. (Exaggerated I know) Seriously, what qualifies a threat to US citizens to a level that justifies military (not police) intervention.

Where the list originated from is irrelevant to the discusasion. The list is historically accurate. It may have missed a few things, but what it includes, happened.

Russia! The Tsar Ivan the Terrible alone slaughtered more.
But thats a different type of list!
North's lists
1.
military interventions,
((did not include
(1) deployed military police overseas;
(2) mobilized the National Guard;
(3) sent Navy ships off the coast of numerous countries as a show of strength;
(4) sent additional troops to areas where Americans were already stationed;
(5) carried out covert actions where American forces were not under the direct rule of an American command;
(6) used small hostage rescue units;
(7) used American pilots to fly foreign planes;
(8) carried out military training and advisory programs which did not involve direct combat.))

and,
2. Government Assassination Plots


I might still be wrong about a nation with a list twice as long I admit, but why are you saying a list of dead when thats not what he did??

Yes, it was, and still is, wrong for nations to impress the men of other nations into their armies or navies. However, the war of 1812 was still a bad idea. Indeed, it wasn't very popular in the Northeast states, because their economy was very dependent on shipping, as they contained both major ports and shipbuilding facilities. Both of these economic activities were seriously hindered by the war. Additionally, the most important battle of the war, in which Andrew Jackson became a national hero, was fought after the signing of a peace treaty. Oops.

The point is that almost no country has a list even approaching that for military/police intervention in foreign lands. I would also like to know how you justify overseas action as policing? Police are for the enforcement of your own law in your own territories.
Threat to US citizen being defined as what. Some group or groups actually attacking a US embassy, or some civil disturbance in a bar next to the US embassy. (Exaggerated I know) Seriously, what qualifies a threat to US citizens to a level that justifies military (not police) intervention.

Where the list originated from is irrelevant to the discusasion. The list is historically accurate. It may have missed a few things, but what it includes, happened.That's because when they need military action... they call on the US.

so of course their list won't be as long as the US cuz we're fighting along side our Allies as Allies ought to do.

and there are so much left out of the discriptions, it make Fox News seem honest. For instance... what business in argentina did the US protect? all references I found outside the essay (which is everywhere) all state Argentian intrestests were protected by US forces. Including Argentinian's historical records. Big difference from the "Business Interests" quoted in the essay.

Now how many of your citizens need to be threatened before your government reacts. I would rather the US government reacts if 1 of our citizens are threatened. and how do you know diplomatic relations were tried first? again... alot was left out and the paper was slanted to give the worse impression.

No, they did not. Probably under 20 people were killd the others just went back to Ireland.
CONGRATULATIONS!

You're probably the first person who managed to convince someone on NS. I here by announce my debate-defeat openly for all to see. To my defense, I'm not Icelandic and Google wasn't being helpful.

Hurrah for North Island!

Yes, it was, and still is, wrong for nations to impress the men of other nations into their armies or navies. However, the war of 1812 was still a bad idea. Indeed, it wasn't very popular in the Northeast states, because their economy was very dependent on shipping, as they contained both major ports and shipbuilding facilities. Both of these economic activities were seriously hindered by the war. Additionally, the most important battle of the war, in which Andrew Jackson became a national hero, was fought after the signing of a peace treaty. Oops.

That was only ONE important battle! You forgot about the Battle of Fort McHenry.

No, they did not. Probably under 20 people were killd the others just went back to Ireland.really? can you site the reference... all I could find was that the monks "dissappeared when the Vikings arrived" it would be nice to know that not all Vikings were blood thirsty savages that hollywood portays them as.

That's because when they need military action... they call on the US.

so of course their list won't be as long as the US cuz we're fighting along side our Allies as Allies ought to do.

and there are so much left out of the discriptions, it make Fox News seem honest. For instance... what business in argentina did the US protect? all references I found outside the essay (which is everywhere) all state Argentian intrestests were protected by US forces. Including Argentinian's historical records. Big difference from the "Business Interests" quoted in the essay.

Now how many of your citizens need to be threatened before your government reacts. I would rather the US government reacts if 1 of our citizens are threatened. and how do you know diplomatic relations were tried first? again... alot was left out and the paper was slanted to give the worse impression.

Brazil, as a democratic country, has NEVER called upon the US to defend it. It has never even done this when it was a US sponsored military dictatorship.

Brazil, is no more Argentina then the USA is Mexico. You are managing to show just how ignorant you really are. Be proud of it, there is the chance that you may lose this ignorance with some time and some education, but it is only a chance.

If Brazilian citizens, or even american citizens are threatened or attacked inside Brazil, then Brazil reacts. If Brazilian diplomats are threatened in their embassies, then Brazil reacts appropriately. Breaking of relations, stopping trade, rejecting diplomats from Brazil etc. Not by bombing civilians.

If Brazilian citizens are in a foreign country and are threatened by the outbreak of war or insurrection, then the Brazilian government assists in their safe return to Brazil. Agfain no establishing a safe ground inside foreign territory by armed force, as this is not necesary.
If Brazilian citizens are imprisoned abroad fro breaking the laws of the country wheer they are, that is a problem for that citizen and his or her lawyers etc. If they are imprisioned without motive, as happened to some Brazilian engineers working in Iraq, diplomatic means are used to obtain their release. Nearly always with success.

CONGRATULATIONS!

You're probably the first person who managed to convince someone on NS. I here by announce my debate-defeat openly for all to see. To my defense, I'm not Icelandic and Google wasn't being helpful.

Hurrah for North Island!

Respect to Haken Rider.

A History of American Wars

The mother of all terrorists...to be taken quite literally!

For those of you who want facts and figures and have the intellect to judge 'good' from 'evil' and the courage to know and say out the truth....for the rest, don't bother reading any further!

Ever since the United States Army massacred 300 Lakotas in 1890, American forces have intervened elsewhere around the globe 100 times. Indeed the United States has sent troops abroad or militarily struck other countries' territory 216 times since independence from Britain. Since 1945 the United States has intervened in more than 20 countries throughout the world.

Since World War II, the United States actually dropped bombs on 23 countries. These include: China 1945-46, Korea 1950-53, China 1950-53, Guatemala 1954, Indonesia 1958, Cuba 1959-60, Guatemala 1960, Congo 1964, Peru 1965, Laos 1964-73, Vietnam 1961-73, Cambodia 1969-70, Guatemala 1967-69, Grenada 1983, Lebanon 1984, Libya 1986, El Salvador 1980s, Nicaragua 1980s, Panama 1989, Iraq 1991-1999, Sudan 1998, Afghanistan 1998, Yugoslavia 1999, Afghanistan 2001- and Iraq 2001-.

Post World War II, the United States has also assisted in over 20 different coups throughout the world, and the CIA was responsible for half a dozen assassinations of political heads of state.

The following is a comprehensive summary of the imperialist strategy of the United States over the span of the past century:

Argentina - 1890 - Troops sent to Buenos Aires to protect business interests.
Chile - 1891 - Marines sent to Chile and clashed with nationalist rebels.
Haiti - 1891 - American troops suppress a revolt by Black workers on United States-claimed Navassa Island.
Hawaii - 1893 - Navy sent to Hawaii to overthrow the independent kingdom - Hawaii annexed by the United States.
Nicaragua - 1894 - Troops occupied Bluefield's, a city on the Caribbean Sea, for a month.
China - 1894-95 - Navy, Army, and Marines landed during the Sino-Japanese War.
Korea - 1894-96 - Troops kept in Seoul during the war.
Panama - 1895 - Army, Navy, and Marines landed in the port city of Corinto.
China - 1894-1900 - Troops occupied China during the Boxer Rebellion.
Philippines - 1898-1910 - Navy and Army troops landed after the Philippines fell during the Spanish-American War; 600,000 Filipinos were killed.
Cuba - 1898-1902 - Troops seized Cuba in the Spanish-American War; the United States still maintains troops at Guantanamo Bay today.
Puerto Rico - 1898 - present - Troops seized Puerto Rico in the Spanish-American War and still occupy Puerto Rico today.
Nicaragua - 1898 - Marines landed at the port of San Juan del Sur.
Samoa - 1899 - Troops landed as a result over the battle for succession to the throne.
Panama - 1901-14 - Navy supported the revolution when Panama claimed independence from Colombia. American troops have occupied the Canal Zone since 1901 when construction for the canal began.
Honduras - 1903 - Marines landed to intervene during a revolution.
Dominican Rep 1903-04 - Troops landed to protect American interests during a revolution.
Korea - 1904-05 - Marines landed during the Russo-Japanese War.
Cuba - 1906-09 - Troops landed during an election.
Nicaragua - 1907 - Troops landed and a protectorate was set up.
Honduras - 1907 - Marines landed during Honduras' war with Nicaragua.
Panama - 1908 - Marines sent in during Panama's election.
Nicaragua - 1910 - Marines landed for a second time in Bluefields and Corinto.
Honduras - 1911 - Troops sent in to protect American interests during Honduras' civil war.
China - 1911-41 - Navy and troops sent to China during continuous flare-ups.
Cuba - 1912 - Troops sent in to protect American interests in Havana.
Panama - 1912 - Marines landed during Panama's election.
Honduras - 1912 - Troops sent in to protect American interests.
Nicaragua - 1912-33 - Troops occupied Nicaragua and fought guerrillas during its 20-year civil war.
Mexico - 1913 - Navy evacuated Americans during revolution.
Dominican Rep 1914 - Navy fought with rebels over Santo Domingo.
Mexico - 1914-18 - Navy and troops sent in to intervene against nationalists.
Haiti - 1914-34 - Troops occupied Haiti after a revolution and occupied Haiti for 19 years.
Dominican Rep 1916-24 - Marines occupied the Dominican Republic for eight years.
Cuba - 1917-33 - Troops landed and occupied Cuba for 16 years; Cuba became an economic protectorate.
World War I - 1917-18 - Navy and Army sent to Europe to fight the Axis powers.
Russia - 1918-22 - Navy and troops sent to eastern Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution; Army made five landings.
Honduras - 1919 - Marines sent during Honduras' national elections.
Guatemala - 1920 - Troops occupied Guatemala for two weeks during a union strike.
Turkey - 1922 - Troops fought nationalists in Smyrna.
China - 1922-27 - Navy and Army troops deployed during a nationalist revolt.
Honduras - 1924-25 - Troops landed twice during a national election.
Panama - 1925 - Troops sent in to put down a general strike.
China - 1927-34 - Marines sent in and stationed for seven years throughout China.
El Salvador - 1932 - Naval warships deployed during the FMLN revolt under Marti.
World War II - 1941-45 - Military fought the Axis powers: Japan, Germany, and Italy.
Yugoslavia - 1946 - Navy deployed off the coast of Yugoslavia in response to the downing of an American plane.
Uruguay - 1947 - Bombers deployed as a show of military force.
Greece - 1947-49 - United States operations insured a victory for the far right in national "elections."
Germany - 1948 - Military deployed in response to the Berlin blockade; the Berlin airlift lasts 444 days.
Philippines - 1948-54 - The CIA directed a civil war against the Filipino Huk revolt.
Puerto Rico - 1950 - Military helped crush an independence rebellion in Ponce.
Korean War - 1951-53 - Military sent in during the war.
Iran - 1953 - The CIA orchestrated the overthrow of democratically elected Mossadegh and restored the Shah to power.
Vietnam - 1954 - The United States offered weapons to the French in the battle against Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Minh.
Guatemala - 1954 - The CIA overthrew the democratically elected Arbenz and placed Colonel Armas in power.
Egypt - 1956 - Marines deployed to evacuate foreigners after Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal.
Lebanon - 1958 - Navy supported an Army occupation of Lebanon during its civil war.
Panama - 1958 - Troops landed after Panamanians demonstrations threatened the Canal Zone.
Vietnam - 1950s-75 - Vietnam War.
Cuba - 1961 - The CIA-directed Bay of Pigs invasions failed to overthrow the Castro government.
Cuba - 1962 - The Navy quarantines Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Laos - 1962 - Military occupied Laos during its civil war against the Pathet Lao guerrillas.
Panama - 1964 - Troops sent in and Panamanians shot while protesting the United States presence in the Canal Zone.
Indonesia - 1965 - The CIA orchestrated a military coup.
Dominican Rep- 1965-66 - Troops deployed during a national election.
Guatemala - 1966-67 - Green Berets sent in.
Cambodia - 1969-75 - Military sent in after the Vietnam War expanded into Cambodia.
Oman - 1970 - Marines landed to direct a possible invasion into Iran.
Laos - 1971-75 - Americans carpet-bomb the countryside during Laos' civil war.
Chile - 1973 - The CIA orchestrated a coup, killing President Allende who had been popularly elected. The CIA helped to establish a military regime under General Pinochet.
Cambodia - 1975 - Twenty-eight Americans killed in an effort to retrieve the crew of the ayaquez, which had been seized.
Angola - 1976-92 - The CIA backed South African rebels fighting against Marxist Angola.
Iran - 1980 - Americans aborted a rescue attempt to liberate 52 hostages seized in the Teheran embassy.
Libya - 1981 - American fighters shoot down two Libyan fighters.
El Salvador - 1981-92 - The CIA, troops, and advisers aid in El Salvador's war against the FMLN.
Nicaragua - 1981-90 - The CIA and NSC directed the Contra War against the Sandinistas.
Lebanon - 1982-84 - Marines occupied Beirut during Lebanon's civil war; 241 were killed in the American barracks and Reagan "redeployed" the troops to the Mediterranean.
Honduras - 1983-89 - Troops sent in to build bases near the Honduran border.
Grenada - 1983-84 - American invasion overthrew the Maurice Bishop government.
Iran - 1984 - American fighters shot down two Iranian planes over the Persian Gulf.
Libya - 1986 - American fighters hit targets in and around the capital city of Tripoli.
Bolivia - 1986 - The Army assisted government troops on raids of cocaine areas.
Iran - 1987-88 - The United States intervened on the side of Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War.
Libya - 1989 - Navy shot down two more Libyan jets.
Virgin Islands - 1989 - Troops landed during unrest among Virgin Island peoples.
Philippines - 1989 - Air Force provided air cover for government during coup.
Panama - 1989-90 - 27,000 Americans landed in overthrow of President Noriega; over 2,000 Panama civilians were killed.
Liberia - 1990 - Troops entered Liberia to evacuate foreigners during civil war.
Saudi Arabia - 1990-91 - American troops sent to Saudi Arabia, which was a staging area in the war against Iraq.
Kuwait - 1991 - Troops sent into Kuwait to turn back Saddam Hussein.
Somalia - 1992-94 - Troops occupied Somalia during civil war.
Bosnia - 1993-95 - Air Force jets bombed "no-fly zone" during civil war in Yugoslavia.
Haiti - 1994-96 - American troops and Navy provided a blockade against Haiti's military government. The CIA restored Aristide to power.
Zaire - 1996-97 - Marines sent into Rwanda Hutus' refugee camps in the area where the Congo revolution began.
Albania - 1997 - Troops deployed during evacuation of foreigners.
Sudan - 1998 - American missiles destroyed a pharmaceutical complex where alleged nerve gas components were manufactured.
Afghanistan - 1998 - Missiles launched towards alleged Afghan terrorist training camps.
Yugoslavia - 1999 - Bombings and missile attacks carried out by the United States in conjunction with NATO in the 11 week war against Milosevic.
Iraq - 1998-2001 - Missiles launched into Baghdad and other large Iraq cities for four days. American jets enforced "no-fly zone" and continued to hit Iraqi targets since December 1998.

These **100** instances of American military intervention did not include times when the United States:
(1) deployed military police overseas;
(2) mobilized the National Guard;
(3) sent Navy ships off the coast of numerous countries as a show of strength;
(4) sent additional troops to areas where Americans were already stationed;
(5) carried out covert actions where American forces were not under the direct rule of an American command;
(6) used small hostage rescue units;
(7) used American pilots to fly foreign planes;
(8) carried out military training and advisory programs which did not involve direct combat.

U. S. Government Assassination Plots

Following is a list of foreign leaders whose assassination (or planning for same) the United States has been involved in since the end of Second World War. The list does not include several assassinations in various parts of the world carried out by anti-Castro Cubans employed by CIA and headquartered in the United States:

List A: Non-Muslims

1949 - Kim Koo, Korean opposition leader
1950's - CIA/Neo-Nazi hit list of numerous political figures in West Germany
1955 - Jose' Antonio Remon, President of Panama
1950's Chou Enlai, Prime Minister of China, several attempts on his life
1951 - Kim Il Sung, Premiere of North Korea
1950s (mid) - Claro M. Recto, Philippines opposition leader
1955 - Jawhar Lal Nehru, Prime Minister of India
1959 and 1963 - Norodom Sihanouk, leader of Cambodia
1950s-70s - Jose Figueres, President of Costa Rica, two attempts on his life
1961 - Francois "Papa Doc"Duvalier, leader of Haiti
1961 - Patrice Lumumba , Prime Minister of Congo (Zaire)
1961 - Gen. Rafael Trujillo, leader of Dominican Republic
1963 - Ngo Dinh Diem, President of South Vietnam
1960s - Fidel Castro, President of Cuba, more than 15 attempts on his life
1960s - Raul Castro, high official in government of Cuba
1965 - Francisco Caamanao, Dominican Republic opposition leader
1965 - Pierre Ngendandumwe, Prime Minister of Burundi
1965-6 - Charles de Gaulle, President of France
1967 - Che Guevara, Cuban leader
1970 - Salvadore Allende, President of Chile
1970 - General Rene Schneider, Commander-in-Chief of Army, Chile
1970s and 1981 - Gen. Omar Torrijos, leader of Panama
1972 - General Manuel Noriega, Chief of Panama Intelligence
1975 - Mobutu Sese Seko, President of Zaire
1976 - Michael Manley, Prime Minister of Jamaica
1983 - Miguel d'Escoto, Foreign Minister of Nicaragua
1984 - The nine commandantes of the Sandanista National Directorate
1980's - Dr. Gerald Bull, Canadian Ballistics Scientist assassinated by Mossad in Belgium.

Partial List of Muslim Leaders Assassinated or Attempted Assassinations

1950's Sukarno, President of Indonesia
1957 Gamal Abdul Nasser, President of Egypt
1960 Brigadier General, Abdul Karim Kassem, Leader of Iraq
1980-86 Muammar Qaddafi, Leader of Libya, several plots and attempts upon his life
1982 Ayatullah Khomeini, Leader of Iran
1983 General Ahmed Dlimi, Moroccan army Commander
1985 Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadllallah, Lebanese Shiite Leader (80 people killed in that attempt)
1991 Saddam Hussein, Leader of Iraq

Very likely Victims :

April 4, 1979 - Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, Leader of Pakistan, for pursuing making of Nuclear Bomb.
August, 1988. General Ziaul Haq, Military Leader of Pakistan.
1995 - Murtaza Bhutto, Son of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, Anti-American would-be Leader - Pakistan.
March 25, 1975 - King Faisal of Saudi Arabia through his Nephew, Saudi Arabia for imposing 1973 Oil Embargo.
August 24, 1999. Mullah Mohammad Omar, in Kandhar, Afghanistan.

A List of Known Assassination Plots

1950's Sukarno, President of Indonesia
1957 Gamal Abdul Nasser, President
2001 Since early this year more than 40 Palestinian leaders assassinated through surrogate Israel.

Law of Nature:

Newton's Third Law of Physics: "For every Action, there is an equal and opposite Reaction."

Reaction: Tuesday, September 11, 2001, World Trade Center struck by two planes, and Pentagon, commandeered by 19 hijackers of Arab origin, killing more than 5 thousand people.

Ya know..I'm not even sure where to start ripping into this post. There are plenty of inaccuracies, and misconceptions, and halftruths. Nasser was killed by an islamic fundamentalist for trying to make peace with Israel. How is that a CIA plot? King Faisel of Saudi Arabia was killed by a nephew on a side of his family that did not like him after one of their members were killed by the Royal Police in a violent protest and Faisel refused to put the police officer to death. Mullah Mohammad Omar in 99? Amazing....he managed to live till 2001 and be in the Afgan war..slippery sob huh?

Of course there is plenty of other things on that assassination list which smack of stupidity and falsehoods. Che? Killed by the Bolivians, although it can be pretty much said that lack of support form Castro was the real thing that did him in. Not the CIA.

Then you've got all those listing of conflicts. Nevermind some of those were legitimate acts conducted during wartime. Or the policy for every nation at the time. How many instances during the British empire can you find of them deploying troops? The Sepoy Rebellion comes to mind. Better yet the deployment of Military during the Russo-Japanese war was to enforce a peace settlement which was being conducted by then President Teddy Roosevelt. But they wont go into that will they? Because that would prove that not everytime the US deployed troops they were doing something bad.

Or how about that Boxer Rebellion? Thats nothing new. The Chinese were going around attacking foreigners out of the blue and so every industralized nation with military strength sent troops to do something about it. These kind of actions are constant with what goes on today. Just look at what happened in the Ivory Coast and how the French deployed troops to get foreigners from French to US citizens out of the nation. Now of course there are plenty of suspect military deployments on that list...but so what? You act as if other industralized nations havent gone on to do the same thing in that time period. Gunboat Diplomacy was an internationally used method of forcing a settlement to an issue. Then you had the cold war period..you mention the Berlin Airlift..how I wanted to piss myself laughing..but I found myself crying really. Why? Because now I want to know..how are we a terrorist nation or the mother of all terrorist nations? Because if I'm not mistaken the Soviets did the whole blockade to starve the allied controlled portions of Berlin. Where we supposed to sit back and allow that to happen? Or the Cuban missile crisis?

We are a War Nation but we are not a WARMONGERING Nation.
With the invasion of Iraq, the sabre rattling with Iran and North Korea, YES you are a "WARMONGERING Nation". :(

With the invasion of Iraq, the sabre rattling with Iran and North Korea, YES you are a "WARMONGERING Nation". :(More accurately, we currently have a warmongering administration. Alas, we are (truly) an apathetic nation.

With the invasion of Iraq, the sabre rattling with Iran and North Korea, YES you are a "WARMONGERING Nation". :(


Aside from Iraq, sabre rattling with Iran and North Korea isnt anything new.

Hell sabre rattling with North Korea has gone on since 1953. And Iran its been on and off really. So how are any of these make us warmongering when they've been going on for decades?

CONGRATULATIONS!

You're probably the first person who managed to convince someone on NS. I here by announce my debate-defeat openly for all to see. To my defense, I'm not Icelandic and Google wasn't being helpful.

Hurrah for North Island!

Þakka þér fyrir!
Þú ert til fyrirmyndar.

Most admirable.

With the invasion of Iraq, the sabre rattling with Iran and North Korea, YES you are a "WARMONGERING Nation". :(

HAHA!! You make me laugh CH! We've been sabre rattling with Iraq since the end of the Gulf War. How many resolutions did Iraq have before we decided to do something about it? hmmm?

Then you need to check your history of Iran and North Korea. If we were a warmongering nation, don't you think that they would've been taken out by now?

Historically, the Battle of New Orleans is the most important. Why? First, it was the battle Americans took the most pride in, despite the fact that it shouldn't have been fought in the first place. More importantly, had it not been fought, Andrew Jackson would probably never have been president. Had Andrew Jackson never been president, the US might still have the National Bank, and the Native Americans might not have gone on the trail of tears. The US's policy had been up to the time during Jackson's presidency to negotiate with tribes as if they were nations, which ended when Jackson decided that states could tell them to leave. While it wasn't the only important battle, it was the most important.

And if President Jefferson hadn't declared neutrality and picked a side in the British/French Conflict then maybe we wouldn't have had the war of 1812. Also if he hadn't hacked our military, well I won't go along that path. Also, we had an act of war when the British fired on the Chesapeak, he had a war there. He choose not to take it. That pissed off everyone.

New York and Jersey

Found the info on an Islamic propaganda site. :mp5:
Funny for the most part but some facts can be found on the list.
Amazing load of crap they wright about you guys.

Ah, it is good to know that someone else is familiar with the US's history. You are definately right about Jefferson's military cuts. Part of the reason that I say the US was foolish to go to war in 1812 was that they had less than two dozen battle ready ships, and as I said, it was an unpopular war in certain key areas.

On a different note, what's wrong with the "What ifs" of history?

So how are any of these make us warmongering when they've been going on for decades?

I'm not sure I understand this question.

You're asking how an abundance of aggressive military conflicts makes the USA a warmongering nation?

Ah, it is good to know that someone else is familiar with the US's history. You are definately right about Jefferson's military cuts. Part of the reason that I say the US was foolish to go to war in 1812 was that they had less than two dozen battle ready ships, and as I said, it was an unpopular war in certain key areas.

On a different note, what's wrong with the "What ifs" of history?

Nothing! I love alternate history. I'm thinking about petitioning a university to have a alternate history class. Could be fun to have! :)

As for knowing US History, its a habit of mine. After all I am an American and all Americans should know the history of their country. That goes for any citizen of any country. They all should know the history of their country and I'm not talking about the water down version either.

Your right, we did have very few ships in our navy at the time but they were very well constructed and took on the British Navy and actually won several engagements. Also, the navy on the Great Lakes prevented an invasion by lake. "We have met the enemy and they are ours" was the call after the Battle of Lake Erie. After the British Defeat on Lake Champlain, the British were forced to retreat.

Yes, always learn your nation's history. Then you'll see that NO NATION is perfect. It'll always have a past that has to be recognized so that it'll never happen again.

Yes the US Navy wasn't strong but it did enough to preserve the Union. The Army wasn't strong but it did its job near the end of the war. 1812 was a tie for the most part and if you want to get technical, is really still going on since the Treaty of Ghent was really an armistace and NOT a peace treaty.

I'm not sure I understand this question.

You're asking how an abundance of aggressive military conflicts makes the USA a warmongering nation?

Umm..he pointed to two nations which have been hostile toward the US and mentioned sabre rattling in terms of them..I'd like to know how those two mean anything.

The point is that almost no country has a list even approaching that for military/police intervention in foreign lands. I would also like to know how you justify overseas action as policing? Police are for the enforcement of your own law in your own territories.
Threat to US citizen being defined as what. Some group or groups actually attacking a US embassy, or some civil disturbance in a bar next to the US embassy. (Exaggerated I know) Seriously, what qualifies a threat to US citizens to a level that justifies military (not police) intervention.

That, of course, is because the U.S. approach to empire differed from the European one; grasping that in the modern capitalist world empire is more about business than naked conquest (and that, in fact, the latter only makes it more difficult), the U.S. has rarely felt it necessary to formally own the countries it manipulates (yes, there have been exceptions, mostly in the early, testing-the-waters stages. By about 1900, the current policy had been adopted). The fact is that the much of the planet has been the American Empire for the last century, even as it has been lulled by the myth of sovereignty -- making the most of the interventions you cite comparable to any police action British or French troops would have made in their imperial holdings in Africa or Asia during their heyday. This behavior in one way or another is to be expected of any empire, and it really has very little to do with the culture of the 'core' country or the needs of it citizens. If anything, empire makes the core nation's culture more militaristic, not the other way around.

Umm..he pointed to two nations which have been hostile toward the US and mentioned sabre rattling in terms of them..I'd like to know how those two mean anything.he means that because we react in kind, we are warmongering! he thinks that we should ignore all threats untill another 9/11.

On the morning of September 11, 2001, a few more chickens – along with some half-million dead Iraqi children – came home to roost in a very big way at the twin towers of New York's World Trade Center. Well, actually, a few of them seem to have nestled in at the Pentagon as well.

The Iraqi youngsters, all of them under 12, died as a predictable – in fact, widely predicted – result of the 1991 US "surgical" bombing of their country's water purification and sewage facilities, as well as other "infrastructural" targets upon which Iraq's civilian population depends for its very survival.

If the nature of the bombing were not already bad enough – and it should be noted that this sort of "aerial warfare" constitutes a Class I Crime Against humanity, entailing myriad gross violations of international law, as well as every conceivable standard of "civilized" behavior – the death toll has been steadily ratcheted up by US-imposed sanctions for a full decade now. Enforced all the while by a massive military presence and periodic bombing raids, the embargo has greatly impaired the victims' ability to import the nutrients, medicines and other materials necessary to saving the lives of even their toddlers.

All told, Iraq has a population of about 18 million. The 500,000 kids lost to date thus represent something on the order of 25 percent of their age group. Indisputably, the rest have suffered – are still suffering – a combination of physical debilitation and psychological trauma severe enough to prevent their ever fully recovering. In effect, an entire generation has been obliterated.

The reason for this holocaust was/is rather simple, and stated quite straightforwardly by President George Bush, the 41st "freedom-loving" father of the freedom-lover currently filling the Oval Office, George the 43rd: "The world must learn that what we say, goes," intoned George the Elder to the enthusiastic applause of freedom-loving Americans everywhere. How Old George conveyed his message was certainly no mystery to the US public. One need only recall the 24-hour-per-day dissemination of bombardment videos on every available TV channel, and the exceedingly high ratings of these telecasts, to gain a sense of how much they knew.

In trying to affix a meaning to such things, we would do well to remember the wave of elation that swept America at reports of what was happening along the so-called Highway of Death: perhaps 100,000 "towel-heads" and "camel jockeys" – or was it "sand ...s" that week? – in full retreat, routed and effectively defenseless, many of them conscripted civilian laborers, slaughtered in a single day by jets firing the most hyper-lethal types of ordnance. It was a performance worthy of the nazis during the early months of their drive into Russia. And it should be borne in mind that Good Germans gleefully cheered that butchery, too. Indeed, support for Hitler suffered no serious erosion among Germany's "innocent civilians" until the defeat at Stalingrad in 1943.

There may be a real utility to reflecting further, this time upon the fact that it was pious Americans who led the way in assigning the onus of collective guilt to the German people as a whole, not for things they as individuals had done, but for what they had allowed – nay, empowered – their leaders and their soldiers to do in their name.

If the principle was valid then, it remains so now, as applicable to Good Americans as it was the Good Germans. And the price exacted from the Germans for the faultiness of their moral fiber was truly ghastly. Returning now to the children, and to the effects of the post-Gulf War embargo – continued bull force by Bush the Elder's successors in the Clinton administration as a gesture of its "resolve" to finalize what George himself had dubbed the "New World Order" of American military/economic domination – it should be noted that not one but two high United Nations officials attempting to coordinate delivery of humanitarian aid to Iraq resigned in succession as protests against US policy.

One of them, former U.N. Assistant Secretary General Denis Halladay, repeatedly denounced what was happening as "a systematic program . . . of deliberate genocide." His statements appeared in the New York Times and other papers during the fall of 1998, so it can hardly be contended that the American public was "unaware" of them. Shortly thereafter, Secretary of State Madeline Albright openly confirmed Halladay's assessment. Asked during the widely-viewed TV program Meet the Press to respond to his "allegations," she calmly announced that she'd decided it was "worth the price" to see that U.S. objectives were achieved.

The Politics of a Perpetrator Population
As a whole, the American public greeted these revelations with yawns.. There were, after all, far more pressing things than the unrelenting misery/death of a few hundred thousand Iraqi tikes to be concerned with. Getting "Jeremy" and "Ellington" to their weekly soccer game, for instance, or seeing to it that little "Tiffany" and "Ashley" had just the right roll-neck sweaters to go with their new cords. And, to be sure, there was the yuppie holy war against ashtrays – for "our kids," no less – as an all-absorbing point of political focus.

In fairness, it must be admitted that there was an infinitesimally small segment of the body politic who expressed opposition to what was/is being done to the children of Iraq. It must also be conceded, however, that those involved by-and-large contented themselves with signing petitions and conducting candle-lit prayer vigils, bearing "moral witness" as vast legions of brown-skinned five-year-olds sat shivering in the dark, wide-eyed in horror, whimpering as they expired in the most agonizing ways imaginable.

Be it said as well, and this is really the crux of it, that the "resistance" expended the bulk of its time and energy harnessed to the systemically-useful task of trying to ensure, as "a principle of moral virtue" that nobody went further than waving signs as a means of "challenging" the patently exterminatory pursuit of Pax Americana. So pure of principle were these "dissidents," in fact, that they began literally to supplant the police in protecting corporations profiting by the carnage against suffering such retaliatory "violence" as having their windows broken by persons less "enlightened" – or perhaps more outraged – than the self-anointed "peacekeepers."

Property before people, it seems – or at least the equation of property to people – is a value by no means restricted to America's boardrooms. And the sanctimony with which such putrid sentiments are enunciated turns out to be nauseatingly similar, whether mouthed by the CEO of Standard Oil or any of the swarm of comfort zone "pacifists" queuing up to condemn the black block after it ever so slightly disturbed the functioning of business-as-usual in Seattle.

Small wonder, all-in-all, that people elsewhere in the world – the Mideast, for instance – began to wonder where, exactly, aside from the streets of the US itself, one was to find the peace America's purportedly oppositional peacekeepers claimed they were keeping.

The answer, surely, was plain enough to anyone unblinded by the kind of delusions engendered by sheer vanity and self-absorption. So, too, were the implications in terms of anything changing, out there, in America's free-fire zones.

Tellingly, it was at precisely this point – with the genocide in Iraq officially admitted and a public response demonstrating beyond a shadow of a doubt that there were virtually no Americans, including most of those professing otherwise, doing anything tangible to stop it – that the combat teams which eventually commandeered the aircraft used on September 11 began to infiltrate the United States.

Meet the "Terrorists"
Of the men who came, there are a few things demanding to be said in the face of the unending torrent of disinformational drivel unleashed by George Junior and the corporate "news" media immediately following their successful operation on September 11.

They did not, for starters, "initiate" a war with the US, much less commit "the first acts of war of the new millennium."

A good case could be made that the war in which they were combatants has been waged more-or-less continuously by the "Christian West" – now proudly emblematized by the United States – against the "Islamic East" since the time of the First Crusade, about 1,000 years ago. More recently, one could argue that the war began when Lyndon Johnson first lent significant support to Israel's dispossession/displacement of Palestinians during the 1960s, or when George the Elder ordered "Desert Shield" in 1990, or at any of several points in between. Any way you slice it, however, if what the combat teams did to the WTC and the Pentagon can be understood as acts of war – and they can – then the same is true of every US "overflight' of Iraqi territory since day one. The first acts of war during the current millennium thus occurred on its very first day, and were carried out by U.S. aviators acting under orders from their then-commander-in-chief, Bill Clinton. The most that can honestly be said of those involved on September 11 is that they finally responded in kind to some of what this country has dispensed to their people as a matter of course.

That they waited so long to do so is, notwithstanding the 1993 action at the WTC, more than anything a testament to their patience and restraint.

They did not license themselves to "target innocent civilians."

There is simply no argument to be made that the Pentagon personnel killed on September 11 fill that bill. The building and those inside comprised military targets, pure and simple. As to those in the World Trade Center . . .

Well, really. Let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire – the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved – and they did so both willingly and knowingly. Recourse to "ignorance" – a derivative, after all, of the word "ignore" – counts as less than an excuse among this relatively well-educated elite. To the extent that any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they were involved in – and in many cases excelling at – it was because of their absolute refusal to see. More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it.

The men who flew the missions against the WTC and Pentagon were not "cowards." That distinction properly belongs to the "firm-jawed lads" who delighted in flying stealth aircraft through the undefended airspace of Baghdad, dropping payload after payload of bombs on anyone unfortunate enough to be below – including tens of thousands of genuinely innocent civilians – while themselves incurring all the risk one might expect during a visit to the local video arcade. Still more, the word describes all those "fighting men and women" who sat at computer consoles aboard ships in the Persian Gulf, enjoying air-conditioned comfort while launching cruise missiles into neighborhoods filled with random human beings. Whatever else can be said of them, the men who struck on September 11 manifested the courage of their convictions, willingly expending their own lives in attaining their objectives.

Nor were they "fanatics" devoted to "Islamic fundamentalism."

One might rightly describe their actions as "desperate." Feelings of desperation, however, are a perfectly reasonable – one is tempted to say "normal" – emotional response among persons confronted by the mass murder of their children, particularly when it appears that nobody else really gives a damn (ask a Jewish survivor about this one, or, even more poignantly, for all the attention paid them, a Gypsy).

That desperate circumstances generate desperate responses is no mysterious or irrational principle, of the sort motivating fanatics. Less is it one peculiar to Islam. Indeed, even the FBI's investigative reports on the combat teams' activities during the months leading up to September 11 make it clear that the members were not fundamentalist Muslims. Rather, it's pretty obvious at this point that they were secular activists – soldiers, really – who, while undoubtedly enjoying cordial relations with the clerics of their countries, were motivated far more by the grisly realities of the U.S. war against them than by a set of religious beliefs.

And still less were they/their acts "insane."

Insanity is a condition readily associable with the very American idea that one – or one's country – holds what amounts to a "divine right" to commit genocide, and thus to forever do so with impunity. The term might also be reasonably applied to anyone suffering genocide without attempting in some material way to bring the process to a halt. Sanity itself, in this frame of reference, might be defined by a willingness to try and destroy the perpetrators and/or the sources of their ability to commit their crimes. (Shall we now discuss the US "strategic bombing campaign" against Germany during World War II, and the mental health of those involved in it?)

Which takes us to official characterizations of the combat teams as an embodiment of "evil."

Evil – for those inclined to embrace the banality of such a concept – was perfectly incarnated in that malignant toad known as Madeline Albright, squatting in her studio chair like Jaba the Hutt, blandly spewing the news that she'd imposed a collective death sentence upon the unoffending youth of Iraq. Evil was to be heard in that great American hero "Stormin' Norman" Schwartzkopf's utterly dehumanizing dismissal of their systematic torture and annihilation as mere "collateral damage." Evil, moreover, is a term appropriate to describing the mentality of a public that finds such perspectives and the policies attending them acceptable, or even momentarily tolerable.

Had it not been for these evils, the counterattacks of September 11 would never have occurred. And unless "the world is rid of such evil," to lift a line from George Junior, September 11 may well end up looking like a lark.

There is no reason, after all, to believe that the teams deployed in the assaults on the WTC and the Pentagon were the only such, that the others are composed of "Arabic-looking individuals" – America's indiscriminately lethal arrogance and psychotic sense of self-entitlement have long since given the great majority of the world's peoples ample cause to be at war with it – or that they are in any way dependent upon the seizure of civilian airliners to complete their missions.

To the contrary, there is every reason to expect that there are many other teams in place, tasked to employ altogether different tactics in executing operational plans at least as well-crafted as those evident on September 11, and very well equipped for their jobs. This is to say that, since the assaults on the WTC and Pentagon were act of war – not "terrorist incidents" – they must be understood as components in a much broader strategy designed to achieve specific results. From this, it can only be adduced that there are plenty of other components ready to go, and that they will be used, should this become necessary in the eyes of the strategists. It also seems a safe bet that each component is calibrated to inflict damage at a level incrementally higher than the one before (during the 1960s, the Johnson administration employed a similar policy against Vietnam, referred to as "escalation").

Since implementation of the overall plan began with the WTC/Pentagon assaults, it takes no rocket scientist to decipher what is likely to happen next, should the U.S. attempt a response of the inexcusable variety to which it has long entitled itself.

About Those Boys (and Girls) in the Bureau
There's another matter begging for comment at this point. The idea that the FBI's "counterterrorism task forces" can do a thing to prevent what will happen is yet another dimension of America's delusional pathology.. The fact is that, for all its publicly-financed "image-building" exercises, the Bureau has never shown the least aptitude for anything of the sort.

Oh, yeah, FBI counterintelligence personnel have proven quite adept at framing anarchists, communists and Black Panthers, sometimes murdering them in their beds or the electric chair. The Bureau's SWAT units have displayed their ability to combat child abuse in Waco by burning babies alive, and its vaunted Crime Lab has been shown to pad its "crime-fighting' statistics by fabricating evidence against many an alleged car thief. But actual "heavy-duty bad guys" of the sort at issue now? This isn't a Bruce Willis/Chuck Norris/Sly Stallone movie, after all.. And J. Edgar Hoover doesn't get to approve either the script or the casting.

The number of spies, saboteurs and bona fide terrorists apprehended, or even detected by the FBI in the course of its long and slimy history could be counted on one's fingers and toes. On occasion, its agents have even turned out to be the spies, and, in many instances, the terrorists as well.

To be fair once again, if the Bureau functions as at best a carnival of clowns where its "domestic security responsibilities" are concerned, this is because – regardless of official hype – it has none. It is now, as it's always been, the national political police force, an instrument created and perfected to ensure that all Americans, not just the consenting mass, are "free" to do exactly as they're told.

The FBI and "cooperating agencies" can be thus relied upon to set about "protecting freedom" by destroying whatever rights and liberties were left to U.S. citizens before September 11 (in fact, they've already received authorization to begin). Sheeplike, the great majority of Americans can also be counted upon to bleat their approval, at least in the short run, believing as they always do that the nasty implications of what they're doing will pertain only to others.

Oh Yeah, and "The Company," Too

A possibly even sicker joke is the notion, suddenly in vogue, that the CIA will be able to pinpoint "terrorist threats," "rooting out their infrastructure" where it exists and/or "terminating" it before it can materialize, if only it's allowed to beef up its "human intelligence gathering capacity" in an unrestrained manner (including full-bore operations inside the US, of course).

Yeah. Right.

Since America has a collective attention-span of about 15 minutes, a little refresher seems in order: "The Company" had something like a quarter-million people serving as "intelligence assets" by feeding it information in Vietnam in 1968, and it couldn't even predict the Tet Offensive. God knows how many spies it was fielding against the USSR at the height of Ronald Reagan's version of the Cold War, and it was still caught flatfooted by the collapse of the Soviet Union. As to destroying "terrorist infrastructures," one would do well to remember Operation Phoenix, another product of its open season in Vietnam. In that one, the CIA enlisted elite US units like the Navy Seals and Army Special Forces, as well as those of friendly countries – the south Vietnamese Rangers, for example, and Australian SAS – to run around "neutralizing" folks targeted by The Company's legion of snitches as "guerrillas" (as those now known as "terrorists" were then called).

Sound familiar?

Upwards of 40,000 people – mostly bystanders, as it turns out – were murdered by Phoenix hit teams before the guerrillas, stronger than ever, ran the US and its collaborators out of their country altogether. And these are the guys who are gonna save the day, if unleashed to do their thing in North America?

The net impact of all this "counterterrorism" activity upon the combat teams' ability to do what they came to do, of course, will be nil.

Instead, it's likely to make it easier for them to operate (it's worked that way in places like Northern Ireland). And, since denying Americans the luxury of reaping the benefits of genocide in comfort was self-evidently a key objective of the WTC/Pentagon assaults, it can be stated unequivocally that a more overt display of the police state mentality already pervading this country simply confirms the magnitude of their victory.

On Matters of Proportion and Intent
As things stand, including the 1993 detonation at the WTC, "Arab terrorists" have responded to the massive and sustained American terror bombing of Iraq with a total of four assaults by explosives inside the US. That's about 1% of the 50,000 bombs the Pentagon announced were rained on Baghdad alone during the Gulf War (add in Oklahoma City and you'll get something nearer an actual 1%).

They've managed in the process to kill about 5,000 Americans, or roughly 1% of the dead Iraqi children (the percentage is far smaller if you factor in the killing of adult Iraqi civilians, not to mention troops butchered as/after they'd surrendered and/or after the "war-ending" ceasefire had been announced).

In terms undoubtedly more meaningful to the property/profit-minded American mainstream, they've knocked down a half-dozen buildings – albeit some very well-chosen ones – as opposed to the "strategic devastation" visited upon the whole of Iraq, and punched a $100 billion hole in the earnings outlook of major corporate shareholders, as opposed to the U.S. obliteration of Iraq's entire economy.

With that, they've given Americans a tiny dose of their own medicine.. This might be seen as merely a matter of "vengeance" or "retribution," and, unquestionably, America has earned it, even if it were to add up only to something so ultimately petty.

The problem is that vengeance is usually framed in terms of "getting even," a concept which is plainly inapplicable in this instance. As the above data indicate, it would require another 49,996 detonations killing 495,000 more Americans, for the "terrorists" to "break even" for the bombing of Baghdad/extermination of Iraqi children alone. And that's to achieve "real number" parity. To attain an actual proportional parity of damage – the US is about 15 times as large as Iraq in terms of population, even more in terms of territory – they would, at a minimum, have to blow up about 300,000 more buildings and kill something on the order of 7.5 million people.

Were this the intent of those who've entered the US to wage war against it, it would remain no less true that America and Americans were only receiving the bill for what they'd already done. Payback, as they say, can be a real motherfucker (ask the Germans). There is, however, no reason to believe that retributive parity is necessarily an item on the agenda of those who planned the WTC/Pentagon operation. If it were, given the virtual certainty that they possessed the capacity to have inflicted far more damage than they did, there would be a lot more American bodies lying about right now.

Hence, it can be concluded that ravings carried by the "news" media since September 11 have contained at least one grain of truth: The peoples of the Mideast "aren't like" Americans, not least because they don't "value life' in the same way. By this, it should be understood that Middle-Easterners, unlike Americans, have no history of exterminating others purely for profit, or on the basis of racial animus. Thus, we can appreciate the fact that they value life – all lives, not just their own – far more highly than do their U.S. counterparts.

The Makings of a Humanitarian Strategy
In sum one can discern a certain optimism – it might even be call humanitarianism – imbedded in the thinking of those who presided over the very limited actions conducted on September 11.

Their logic seems to have devolved upon the notion that the American people have condoned what has been/is being done in their name – indeed, are to a significant extent actively complicit in it – mainly because they have no idea what it feels like to be on the receiving end.

Now they do.

That was the "medicinal" aspect of the attacks.

To all appearances, the idea is now to give the tonic a little time to take effect, jolting Americans into the realization that the sort of pain they're now experiencing first-hand is no different from – or the least bit more excruciating than – that which they've been so cavalier in causing others, and thus to respond appropriately.

More bluntly, the hope was – and maybe still is – that Americans, stripped of their presumed immunity from incurring any real consequences for their behavior, would comprehend and act upon a formulation as uncomplicated as "stop killing our kids, if you want your own to be safe."

Either way, it's a kind of "reality therapy" approach, designed to afford the American people a chance to finally "do the right thing" on their own, without further coaxing.

Were the opportunity acted upon in some reasonably good faith fashion – a sufficiently large number of Americans rising up and doing whatever is necessary to force an immediate lifting of the sanctions on Iraq, for instance, or maybe hanging a few of America's abundant supply of major war criminals (Henry Kissinger comes quickly to mind, as do Madeline Albright, Colin Powell, Bill Clinton and George the Elder) – there is every reason to expect that military operations against the US on its domestic front would be immediately suspended.

Whether they would remain so would of course be contingent upon follow-up. By that, it may be assumed that American acceptance of onsite inspections by international observers to verify destruction of its weapons of mass destruction (as well as dismantlement of all facilities in which more might be manufactured), Nuremberg-style trials in which a few thousand US military/corporate personnel could be properly adjudicated and punished for their Crimes Against humanity, and payment of reparations to the array of nations/peoples whose assets the US has plundered over the years, would suffice.

Since they've shown no sign of being unreasonable or vindictive, it may even be anticipated that, after a suitable period of adjustment and reeducation (mainly to allow them to acquire the skills necessary to living within their means), those restored to control over their own destinies by the gallant sacrifices of the combat teams the WTC and Pentagon will eventually (re)admit Americans to the global circle of civilized societies. Stranger things have happened.

In the Alternative
Unfortunately, noble as they may have been, such humanitarian aspirations were always doomed to remain unfulfilled. For it to have been otherwise, a far higher quality of character and intellect would have to prevail among average Americans than is actually the case. Perhaps the strategists underestimated the impact a couple of generations-worth of media indoctrination can produce in terms of demolishing the capacity of human beings to form coherent thoughts. Maybe they forgot to factor in the mind-numbing effects of the indoctrination passed off as education in the US. Then, again, it's entirely possible they were aware that a decisive majority of American adults have been reduced by this point to a level much closer to the kind of immediate self-gratification entailed in Pavlovian stimulus/response patterns than anything accessible by appeals to higher logic, and still felt morally obliged to offer the dolts an option to quit while they were ahead.

What the hell? It was worth a try.

But it's becoming increasingly apparent that the dosage of medicine administered was entirely insufficient to accomplish its purpose.

Although there are undoubtedly exceptions, Americans for the most part still don't get it.

Already, they've desecrated the temporary tomb of those killed in the WTC, staging a veritable pep rally atop the mangled remains of those they profess to honor, treating the whole affair as if it were some bizarre breed of contact sport. And, of course, there are the inevitable pom-poms shaped like American flags, the school colors worn as little red-white-and-blue ribbons affixed to labels, sportscasters in the form of "counterterrorism experts" drooling mindless color commentary during the pregame warm-up.

Refusing the realization that the world has suddenly shifted its axis, and that they are therefore no longer "in charge," they have by-and-large reverted instantly to type, working themselves into their usual bloodlust on the now obsolete premise that the bloodletting will "naturally" occur elsewhere and to someone else.

"Patriotism," a wise man once observed, "is the last refuge of scoundrels."

And the braided, he might of added.

Braided Scoundrel-in-Chief, George Junior, lacking even the sense to be careful what he wished for, has teamed up with a gaggle of fundamentalist Christian clerics like Billy Graham to proclaim a "New Crusade" called "Infinite Justice" aimed at "ridding the world of evil."

One could easily make light of such rhetoric, remarking upon how unseemly it is for a son to threaten his father in such fashion – or a president to so publicly contemplate the murder/suicide of himself and his cabinet – but the matter is deadly serious.

They are preparing once again to sally forth for the purpose of roasting brown-skinned children by the scores of thousands. Already, the B-1 bombers and the aircraft carriers and the missile frigates are en route, the airborne divisions are gearing up to go.

To where? Afghanistan?

The Sudan?

Iraq, again (or still)?

How about Grenada (that was fun)?

Any of them or all. It doesn't matter.

The desire to pummel the helpless runs rabid as ever.

Only, this time it's different.

The time the helpless aren't, or at least are not so helpless as they were.

This time, somewhere, perhaps in an Afghani mountain cave, possibly in a Brooklyn basement, maybe another local altogether – but somewhere, all the same – there's a grim-visaged (wo)man wearing a Clint Eastwood smile.

"Go ahead, punks," s/he's saying, "Make my day."

And when they do, when they launch these airstrikes abroad – or may a little later; it will be at a time conforming to the "terrorists"' own schedule, and at a place of their choosing – the next more intensive dose of medicine administered here "at home."

Of what will it consist this time? Anthrax? Mustard gas? Sarin? A tactical nuclear device?

That, too, is their choice to make.

Looking back, it will seem to future generations inexplicable why Americans were unable on their own, and in time to save themselves, to accept a rule of nature so basic that it could be mouthed by an actor, Lawrence Fishburn, in a movie, The Cotton Club.

"You've got to learn, " the line went, "that when you push people around, some people push back."

As they should.

As they must.

And as they undoubtedly will.

There is justice in such symmetry.

ADDENDUM
The preceding was a "first take" reading, more a stream-of-consciousness interpretive reaction to the September 11 counterattack than a finished piece on the topic. Hence, I'll readily admit that I've been far less than thorough, and quite likely wrong about a number of things.

For instance, it may not have been (only) the ghosts of Iraqi children who made their appearance that day. It could as easily have been some or all of their butchered Palestinian cousins.

Or maybe it was some or all of the at least 3.2 million Indochinese who perished as a result of America's sustained and genocidal assault on Southeast Asia (1959-1975), not to mention the millions more who've died because of the sanctions imposed thereafter.

Perhaps there were a few of the Korean civilians massacred by US troops at places like No Gun Ri during the early ‘50s, or the hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians ruthlessly incinerated in the ghastly fire raids of World War II (only at Dresden did America bomb Germany in a similar manner).

And, of course, it could have been those vaporized in the militarily pointless nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

There are others, as well, a vast and silent queue of faceless victims, stretching from the million-odd Filipinos slaughtered during America's "Indian War" in their islands at the beginning of the twentieth century, through the real Indians, America's own, massacred wholesale at places like Horseshoe Bend and the Bad Axe, Sand Creek and Wounded Knee, the Washita, Bear River, and the Marias.

Was it those who expired along the Cherokee Trial of Tears of the Long Walk of the Navajo?

Those murdered by smallpox at Fort Clark in 1836?

Starved to death in the concentration camp at Bosque Redondo during the 1860s?

Maybe those native people claimed for scalp bounty in all 48 of the continental US states? Or the Raritans whose severed heads were kicked for sport along the streets of what was then called New Amsterdam, at the very site where the WTC once stood?

One hears, too, the whispers of those lost on the Middle Passage, and of those whose very flesh was sold in the slave market outside the human kennel from whence Wall Street takes its name. And of coolie laborers, imported by the gross-dozen to lay the tracks of empire across scorching desert sands, none of them allotted "a Chinaman's chance" of surviving.

The list is too long, too awful to go on.

No matter what its eventual fate, America will have gotten off very, very cheap.

The full measure of its guilt can never be fully balanced or atoned for.

That's bullshit. We didn't become a 'war nation' until the end of the nineteenth century (Spanish-American War). Prior to that, we took a few baby steps in that direction (Mexican-American War), but the original U.S. pursued a non-aligned, non-interventionist foreign policy, a wise course which should be resumed.

Did you get that essay from Churchil? The Native American who is the center of controversy?

Way to use it to try to make a point. That'll just outrage more people.

Snip

An article by a leftist professor, while some tones ring true, other things he reaches for. If you'll excuse me I'm alittle tired of having to refute this guy on the board. If you believe what this man to have said as the gods honest truth well that thats you. How someone who worked on the 50th floor in the claims department for some company wasnt innocent, how the janitors or security people werent innocent I do not understand. I cant ever agree with anyone who uses such horribly firey rheotirc to get their point across. He's nothing be a provocatour looking for press light.

An article by a leftist professor, while some tones ring true, other things he reaches for. If you'll excuse me I'm alittle tired of having to refute this guy on the board. If you believe what this man to have said as the gods honest truth well that thats you. How someone who worked on the 50th floor in the claims department for some company wasnt innocent, how the janitors or security people werent innocent I do not understand. I cant ever agree with anyone who uses such horribly firey rheotirc to get their point across. He's nothing be a provocatour looking for press light.

I couldn't agree more NY&NJ!

HAHA!! You make me laugh CH! We've been sabre rattling with Iraq since the end of the Gulf War. How many resolutions did Iraq have before we decided to do something about it? hmmm?

Then you need to check your history of Iran and North Korea. If we were a warmongering nation, don't you think that they would've been taken out by now?
Someday, you will read Resolution 1441, and realize that there was no blank cheque for a US invasion of Iraq. It may also dawn on you that the US actually violated that Resolution themselves.

Iran, is a whole different entity. First you supplied Saddam with all the deadly goods necessary to wipe out the hated Iranians, then when it looked liked the Iraqis were going to defeat the Iranians, the US decided to supply arms to the those same Iranians.

Now some 25 years later and the world's oil supplies past the "peak", the US has decided it wants to control the Middle East. First Afghanistan, then Iraq, and then Iran?

US imperialism at work, and the world be damned. Laugh your little HAHA, perhaps a nervous laugh won't be a bad asset when some "terrorist" is shooting at you, while you defend America's oil rights in the Middle East?

That's bullshit. We didn't become a 'war nation' until the end of the nineteenth century (Spanish-American War). Prior to that, we took a few baby steps in that direction (Mexican-American War), but the original U.S. pursued a non-aligned, non-interventionist foreign policy, a wise course which should be resumed.

No it isn't.

We were born in a baptism of fire, so to speak. Very quickly, we went to war against the British...againt. Then we went to war against the Mexicans. Then ourselves, then the Native Americans, and then the Spanish. We didn't follow a non aligned, non-interventinist policy. We followed a Non-alinged, non-internventionist policy except for when we wanted to conquer more land and get more money(which was always). What do you think our attacks on the Barbary Coast were? Every generation(20 years), we go to war at least once, and that has true ever since we were created.

Oh, and every hear of "Manifest Destiny"? It stated that we should conquer the entire continent. If that isn't what a war nation believes, then what is?

Someday, you will read Resolution 1441, and realize that there was no blank cheque for a US invasion of Iraq. It may also dawn on you that the US actually violated that Resolution themselves.

I guess you FORGOT that Saddam violated EVEN THAT RESOLUTION!! We showed that he did.

Iran, is a whole different entity. First you supplied Saddam with all the deadly goods necessary to wipe out the hated Iranians, then when it looked liked the Iraqis were going to defeat the Iranians, the US decided to supply arms to the those same Iranians.

Amazing how politics work ain't it. We didn't want either side to win that war.

Now some 25 years later and the world's oil supplies past the "peak", the US has decided it wants to control the Middle East. First Afghanistan, then Iraq, and then Iran?

Check your maps! Afghanistan is NOT in the Middle East! Iraq violated every single resolution it had on them. Iran we've been sabre rattling with for decades. We've should've gone in when they took our Embassy. We were going to as well when Reagan took office. They knew it too. Why do you think they released the hostages?

US imperialism at work, and the world be damned. Laugh your little HAHA, perhaps a nervous laugh won't be a bad asset when some "terrorist" is shooting at you, while you defend America's oil rights in the Middle East?

Last time I checked, the American Flag is NOT flying above their capitol buildings. Nor are we in control of the government. Last time I checked, both countries had elections. Iraq is having a constitutional convention of sorts and NO ONE has a majority. The Kurds did better than expected and the Sunnis have veto power thanks to them controling 3 provinces. So what were you saying about American Imperialism?

No it isn't.

We were born in a baptism of fire, so to speak. Very quickly, we went to war against the British...againt. Then we went to war against the Mexicans. Then ourselves, then the Native Americans, and then the Spanish. We didn't follow a non aligned, non-interventinist policy. We followed a Non-alinged, non-internventionist policy except for when we wanted to conquer more land and get more money(which was always). What do you think our attacks on the Barbary Coast were? Every generation(20 years), we go to war at least once, and that has true ever since we were created.

Problem with the Barbary Pirates. We didn't want to pay tribute. Europe didn't do anything so the US took care of it. Funny isn't it? US didn't want to pay tribute, we got tired of waiting on Europe to do something (who was more than content to pay the tribute) so we took them out. "To the shores of Tripoli"

Oh, and every hear of "Manifest Destiny"? It stated that we should conquer the entire continent. If that isn't what a war nation believes, then what is?

And Manifest Destiny was NOT for the whole continent. It was to go coast to coast.

Problem with the Barbary Pirates. We didn't want to pay tribute. Europe didn't do anything so the US took care of it. Funny isn't it? US didn't want to pay tribute, we got tired of waiting on Europe to do something (who was more than content to pay the tribute) so we took them out. "To the shores of Tripoli"

That's what a War nation would do: use their own military force. I'm not saying it's bad, I'm just saying it's what a war nation would do.



And Manifest Destiny was NOT for the whole continent. It was to go coast to coast.

That's not what the origional meaning was(this is from Wikipedia):

The phrase "manifest destiny," was coined by New York journalist John O'Sullivan in 1845, when he wrote that "it was the nation's manifest destiny to overspread and to possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us for the development of the great experiment of liberty and federated self-government entrusted to us." That same year on December 2, U.S. President James Polk announced to Congress that the Monroe Doctrine should be strictly enforced and that the United States should aggressively expand into the West.

Sure, it was mainly to go to the west, but then why did we go south when we invaded Mexico? Why not by-pass the Mexican states altogether and get the other pacific area states(like Oregon)?

Funny thing about Manifest Destiny. The main reason that the United States didn't take Mexico entirely is that the people were, for the most part, racist. They were perfectly content to take large areas of land that were relatively unoccupied, and could be settled with WASPs, but they were afraid that they would damage the nation by taking in "half breeds" (in reference, of course, to the fact that most Mexicans are the result of Spanish and Native American unions).

That's what a War nation would do: use their own military force. I'm not saying it's bad, I'm just saying it's what a war nation would do.


Umm..thats what a war nation would do? Try a nation tired of being extorted. The Barbary Pirates took a gamble that the US would pay whatever. They knew they could only charge European nations so much and the Europeans didnt mind paying at all. However the Barbary Pirates raised the extortion fee and the US as a fledgling nation couldnt pay to keep its transports from being harassed...there is a reason why they were called PIRATES. Its not a matter of being a war nation or not. Its a matter of protecting trade against extortion.

yes it is a "war nation"an hypocritical one ,using puppets nation using puppets organisations and hiding history.

bump
double

yes it is a "war nation"an hypocritical one ,using puppets nation using puppets organisations and hiding history.

In 1795 it wasnt a war nation, and honestly can you keep the rhetoric down to the topic at hand. I can only view so much dribble coming from the left.

In 1795 it wasnt a war nation, and honestly can you keep the rhetoric down to the topic at hand. I can only view so much dribble coming from the left.

Here here NY!

Attacking Iraq and rattling with Iran and North Korea does not make us a warmongering nation.
It makes us noble...because THEY are the warmongering nations.

Saddam was not a friend of the United States; period. He did not call us the Great Satan, but he most certainly made clear the the United States was his enemy and that he would certainly take a course of action that would harm us if it kept him in power.
Thus making it legimitate for us to invade(though I still do not agree with the decision to do that)

Iranian citizens BURN American flags. They actually DO call us the Great Satan. And they have a nuclear program that we are not entirely comfortable with.
Enemy. Not warmongering.

North Korea has invaded our allies...and they have nukes.
We are not warmongering.


Warmongering would be saber rattling for no reason.

The French did help the Americans a lot. But even without French aid, the colonists eventually would have won. The American revolution was a guerilla war, and history has proven many times over that it is impossible for a foreign conventional army (British) to defeat an indigenous geurilla army.

As long as the resistance is properly armed of course with a good amount of organizational skills.

In 1795 it wasnt a war nation, and honestly can you keep the rhetoric down to the topic at hand. I can only view so much dribble coming from the left.

oh no .and why?it was not a nation yet,on paper it was. but it was not a nation
after1812 (i think)it became a nation

oh no .and why?it was not a nation yet,on paper it was. but it was not a nation
after1812 (i think)it became a nation

Its own currency, military, government, diplomatic corps, justice system. It was a country technically. But it wasnt respected until 1812. The twelve colonies became the US in 1783. Thats a country.

They did an excellent Job with the USA!

Thank God we tossed these "masters" right out of our country.

Yup. Good thing we did so we could go about owning slaves than they did in the British Empire.

Massas indeedy!

Yup. Good thing we did so we could go about owning slaves than they did in the British Empire.

Massas indeedy!

Umm..when the US became a country the British still practiced the slave trade. Infact they didnt get around to outlawing British citizens from moving slaves until 1820 and only because it wasnt nearly as profitable anymore. Then again they no longer needed a slave trade having lost the US. The US shortly after banned importing slaves from Africa.

Yeah I guess Jazz doesn't count, or rock music. What about the War of 1812, Spanish American War, US Civil War, Vietnam.

You Euro's can't fight a war without our help.

How many wars have the US fought and won without anyone's help?

Hmm no it wasn't. The French only really helped out in any large part at Yorktown. Other than that, it was the Colonial Troops that kept the fight going long enough for France to Recognize us. When France went to war, spain moved with France! The Dutch got involved thanks to an ultimatum, and the rest of the Crowned Heads of Europe, lead by the Russian Empress, formed a "Armed Neutrality" against Britain.

None of this wouldn't have happened if the Colonial Army didn't defeat the Brits at the Battle of Saratoga.

In fact, Britain retired from the conflict cause they didn't have enough funds to continue the war against the states. The king was tired of this too costly war. A little more and the US would have never been... Betcha you didn't know about this... And France only seized a chance to weaken the British. I don't think it's the intervention of the French army itself that did a difference, but the fact that they were supporting the rebels, and if it were going further, it would have been a hard slap in the face of the treasury of the British crown.

War is costly after all... americans should know this. After all, Bush prefers to wage war to a far away weak neighbor rather than using this money to help fighting poverty in his own backyard.

Yeah, US loves to wage war. But the cowards prefer weak enemies, it's then easier to plunder their ressources by sending companies to supposedly "rebuild" and make loads of money.

1.In fact, Britain retired from the conflict cause they didn't have enough funds to continue the war against the states. The king was tired of this too costly war. A little more and the US would have never been... Betcha you didn't know about this... And France only seized a chance to weaken the British. I don't think it's the intervention of the French army itself that did a difference, but the fact that they were supporting the rebels, and if it were going further, it would have been a hard slap in the face of the treasury of the British crown.

2.War is costly after all... americans should know this. After all, Bush prefers to wage war to a far away weak neighbor rather than using this money to help fighting poverty in his own backyard.

3.Yeah, US loves to wage war. But the cowards prefer weak enemies, it's then easier to plunder their ressources by sending companies to supposedly "rebuild" and make loads of money.

1. I agree. Money paid a huge role. The British could have kept going for 100 years, if they had the money. But we were too costly to keep.

2. Flame-bait *sets the flame-bait on fire and throws in river*

3. If we are so "cowardly", then how did we defeat the Japanese nearly singlehandedly(note the nearly. The British helped in the India area and the chinese in China, the Soviets did almost didly-squat), why did we go to war against Mexico(which most of the world, including ourselves, thought were roughly equal too us, if not better), and China(in the Korean War)?

How many wars have the US fought and won without anyone's help?

Mexican American War
Spanish American War
We fought most of the Pacific by ourselves.(Not to belittle the contributions of ANZAC but without the USN, New Guniea would have been taken.)

Then you've got most of the conflicts the nation has fought on its own in this hemisphere to police its own interests.

Then again no nation ever really fights a war on its own anymore.

It's always the same...The only thing that changes is who's got the big stick...

Rome fell because it's citizens got ignorant, lazy and fat... The yanks are bloody humongous blobs of solid ignorance. So it probably won't be long now.

It's always the same...The only thing that changes is who's got the big stick...

Rome fell because it's citizens got ignorant, lazy and fat... The yanks are bloody humongous blobs of solid ignorance. So it probably won't be long now.

Nah. We aren't as bad as the Romans were. Their Emperors all had brain damage because of A. Interbreeding, B. Too much Wine, and C. Lead Goblets=Lead Poisoning. You can tell we are in deep shit when a president sets Washington, D.C. on fire...

Nah. We aren't as bad as the Romans were. Their Emperors all had brain damage because of A. Interbreeding, B. Too much Wine, and C. Lead Goblets=Lead Poisoning. You can tell we are in deep shit when a president sets Washington, D.C. on fire...

George doesn't play the violin, does he? He seems more like the banjo type. ;)
But you guys have alot of watery beer and msg is not much healthier than lead.

Its own currency, military, government, diplomatic corps, justice system. It was a country technically. But it wasnt respected until 1812. The twelve colonies became the US in 1783. Thats a country.

That's 13 Colonies! We didn't become a nation until the Articles of Confederation were approved. Before then, we were 13 seperate nations.

I guess you FORGOT that Saddam violated EVEN THAT RESOLUTION!! We showed that he did.
How did he violate it? Remember that over 300 inspectors were in Iraq and they were doing a credible job, according to Blix. It wasn't perfect but it was undeniably progressive.

You still haven't looked at the numerous violations that the US comitted in Resolution 1441?

Amazing how politics work ain't it. We didn't want either side to win that war.
Yeah that is called dirty politics, and/or a double cross. Is that anyway to treat a so called "friendly" nation? Where was the US outcry when Saddam used gas on the Iranian troops? It was non existent. Yet you would claim this is a valid reason to invade his country later. Kuwait was double cross number two.

Check your maps! Afghanistan is NOT in the Middle East!
According to this map, it is and at any rate you are nickel and diming the argument?

http://www.sitesatlas.com/Maps/Maps/MEast.htm


Iraq violated every single resolution it had on them.
Iraq was a toothless tabby and if Bush had allowed the inspectors to continue their jobs, the world would have seen this. Heck...most of the world wasn't buying the WMD scam that the US was perpetrating. The US violated Resolution 1441, and by invading Iraq, the US violated the terms of the UN Charter.

Iran we've been sabre rattling with for decades. We've should've gone in when they took our Embassy. We were going to as well when Reagan took office. They knew it too. Why do you think they released the hostages?
If you look into it, the United States agreed to unfreeze most Iranian assets in exchange for the hostages.

Last time I checked, the American Flag is NOT flying above their capitol buildings. Nor are we in control of the government.
Whether the US flag is flying is irrelevant considering that US troops still call the shots.

Last time I checked, both countries had elections. Iraq is having a constitutional convention of sorts and NO ONE has a majority.
Check again, because the Shiites have a majority:

Iraq's electoral commission Thursday certified the results of the Jan. 30 elections and allocated 140 National Assembly seats to the United Iraqi Alliance, giving the Shiite-dominated party a majority in the new parliament.

The Kurds did better than expected and the Sunnis have veto power thanks to them controling 3 provinces.
I guess you still haven't researched the far reaching aspects of Bremer's Orders yet?

So what were you saying about American Imperialism?
It is alive and well in the Middle East. :eek: Unfortunately, it has led to increased terrorism, more hatred of the US by the Islamic/Arabic states, alienated many allies, and has unfortunately escalated the push for nuclear weaponry by the countries who are next on Bush's hit list.

That's 13 Colonies! We didn't become a nation until the Articles of Confederation were approved. Before then, we were 13 seperate nations.

Whoops..teaches me to post while watching an episode of Battlestar Galactica :eek:

George doesn't play the violin, does he? He seems more like the banjo type. ;)
But you guys have alot of watery beer and msg is not much healthier than lead.
Ahhhhhhhh DELIVERANCE (http://mfile.akamai.com/3153/wm2/muze.download.akamai.com/2890/us/uswm2/522/367522_1_20.asx?obj=v20128)!!

How did he violate it? Remember that over 300 inspectors were in Iraq and they were doing a credible job, according to Blix. It wasn't perfect but it was undeniably progressive.

How about requiring to be notified when they are about to inspect something with a surprise inspection? Notification on a surprised inspection? What did he have to hide?

You still haven't looked at the numerous violations that the US comitted in Resolution 1441?

He had missing pages in a report that should've detailed everything. That's a violation of 1441. He didn't fully cooperate with inspectors for 1441 either. I listened to Hans Blix's speeches. He gave ammunition to both sides of the aisle. He showed that He wasn't following 1441 but then gave the otherside ammunition as well.

Yeah that is called dirty politics, and/or a double cross. Is that anyway to treat a so called "friendly" nation? Where was the US outcry when Saddam used gas on the Iranian troops? It was non existent. Yet you would claim this is a valid reason to invade his country later. Kuwait was double cross number two.

And yet we liberated Kuwait from Iraqi control so I have to ask how they were doubled cross. As for the gasing of the Iranian troops, I don't remember that because I was 6 when it ended. It ended in 1988 didn't it? Besides, no one won the Iran/Iraq War.

According to this map, it is and at any rate you are nickel and diming the argument?

http://www.sitesatlas.com/Maps/Maps/MEast.htm

How am I nickle and diming an arguement?

Iraq was a toothless tabby and if Bush had allowed the inspectors to continue their jobs, the world would have seen this. Heck...most of the world wasn't buying the WMD scam that the US was perpetrating. The US violated Resolution 1441, and by invading Iraq, the US violated the terms of the UN Charter.

I didn't buy the WMD line either. However, I DID NOT CARE! We should've dealt with him in 1991 and we didn't. Frankly, I'm glad we went in. I'm glad he's gone. I cheered loudly when the statue fell. I cheered when I saw the dancing in the streets. I cheered when I saw Iraqis defacing Saddam's portraits. I cheered even more when we captured that son of a bitch. I did not care what the reasons where and neither did the stock market which soared 300 points when we withdrew that second resolution and it went up still through the deadline. We did not violate 1441, Hussein violated it by NOT COMING CLEAN!!!! If he came clean, we wouldn't have invaded. If he came clean from the start, he wouldn't have had 17 resolutions on his country.

If you look into it, the United States agreed to unfreeze most Iranian assets in exchange for the hostages.

Nice excuse. I actually like it. Could be true. Did we do it? Frankly, Reagan would've gone in if they didn't release the hostages and he would've too. To bad we didn't.

Whether the US flag is flying is irrelevant considering that US troops still call the shots.

Are you 100% sure of that?

Check again, because the Shiites have a majority:

Iraq's electoral commission Thursday certified the results of the Jan. 30 elections and allocated 140 National Assembly seats to the United Iraqi Alliance, giving the Shiite-dominated party a majority in the new parliament.

They did not get 50% of the vote. The Kurds did better than expected. Any constitution has to be approved by a 2/3rds majority. That means they have to take into account the Kurds and the Sunnies. The Sunnies hold the trump card. I suggest you look into that.

I guess you still haven't researched the far reaching aspects of Bremer's Orders yet?

Which order would that be? Its a KNOWN FACT that the Sunnis can veto any constitution because they are the majority in 3 provinces. Three provinces is all that is needed to veto ANY Constitution.

It is alive and well in the Middle East. :eek: Unfortunately, it has led to increased terrorism, more hatred of the US by the Islamic/Arabic states, alienated many allies, and has unfortunately escalated the push for nuclear weaponry by the countries who are next on Bush's hit list.

Keep your delusions. We are not an imperialist country no matter what your canadian press says or the European press for that matter. To be an imperialist nation, we WOULD NOT have had an election in Afghanistan. We WOULD NOT have had an electoin in Iraq. We WOULD BE in full control of Afghanistan AND in Iraq. If we were Imperialist, there WOULD NOT be a Constitutional Convention in Baghdad. Do you see that we are NOT imperialist?

George doesn't play the violin, does he? He seems more like the banjo type. ;)
But you guys have alot of watery beer and msg is not much healthier than lead.

In respect to the music part...pardon my language, but wtf are you talking about? Where did the banjo part come out of!
In response to the beer part...I personally wouldn't know what our beer is like(I'm a "Don't drink unless your in a place where you have to to avoid being clubed" kinda guy), but MSG isn't exactly the best thing for yer body :).

Ahhhhhhhh DELIVERANCE (http://mfile.akamai.com/3153/wm2/muze.download.akamai.com/2890/us/uswm2/522/367522_1_20.asx?obj=v20128)!!

:eek: I can see it!

Whoops..teaches me to post while watching an episode of Battlestar Galactica :eek:

LOL!! :D

No problem dude. I figured you ment 13 but I just had to say something :)

In respect to the music part...pardon my language, but wtf are you talking about? Where did the banjo part come out of!
In response to the beer part...I personally wouldn't know what our beer is like(I'm a "Don't drink unless your in a place where you have to to avoid being clubed" kinda guy), but MSG isn't exactly the best thing for yer body :).

Nero set fire to Rome and then played the violin as it burned.

Nero set fire to Rome and then played the violin as it burned.

Then he blamed the Christians for Rome burning.

Nero set fire to Rome and then played the violin as it burned.

No he didn't.

The violin as invented in the 1500's! Over a thousand years after Nero!

Oh yeah...

But wait a second...

The violin as invented in the 1500's! Over a thousand years after Nero!

You know...You're right.
But that's how the legend goes, and a violin is a much cooler instrument for a crazy person than whatever they had back then.
I think conspiracy nuts would have alot of fun with the comparison between Nero and Bush... You know, Nero setting a fire to Rome, then blaming the christians and using the fire as a reason to persecuting them.

Ahhhhhhhh DELIVERANCE (http://mfile.akamai.com/3153/wm2/muze.download.akamai.com/2890/us/uswm2/522/367522_1_20.asx?obj=v20128)!!

Are you from CanaDUH?

That is not the music from Deliverance! If you are going to insult people, at least get your facts right.

Are you from CanaDUH?

That is not the music from Deliverance! If you are going to insult people, at least get your facts right.

No, you idiot, he's from Soviet Canuckistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Canuckistan). Duh.

Are you from CanaDUH?

That is not the music from Deliverance! If you are going to insult people, at least get your facts right.
Well DUH....I saw the movie when it first came out and guess what? That sure is the music from Deuling Banjos. :eek:

And who did I insult?

No, you idiot, he's from Soviet Canuckistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Canuckistan). Duh.
Cute!! :rolleyes:

Cute!! :rolleyes:

I made the flag. You like?

Oh, and just for the record, I don't see anything wrong with Canada. Except for Maybe the tax rates, but besides that it's a nice place. Think New England with Funny Accents.

No, you idiot, he's from Soviet Canuckistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Canuckistan). Duh.

Dude, that is very funny!

I like it :D

Are you 100% sure about that? Ever hear of the British Comonwealth? They are still theoretically attached to the British Empire but are soveriegn enough to do what they want but can still call on British soldiers to defend them if necessary.

Yup. Well, not Malaysia at least. And I don't think they can call up India and Canada. Probably send in some small troops, but I won't trust in the commonwealth countries if England is in a dire mess.

We've won our independence already. We are part of the commonwealth, but not part of UK anymore. We don't swear to the Queen or have half British citizenship (though I wish we still kept that).

What does this say for America wanting peace?

What does this say for America wanting peace?

I never said America wants peace. Whoever said that is a moron,lying, or not-american. We are(at least for now) a war nation, and if we wish to continue our poltiical and conomic dominance(which most Americans do), we need to enforce our will. By any means needed. Of course, we usually try the more peaceful way.

Britian did not believe it was somehow entitiled to the land or was on some kind of ideological resque mission. They were just acting out of imperialism. I'm not saying thats right, but Britian was not deluding itself into believing that imperial conquest was somehow morally right. Thats what America seems to be doing here.

Wrong wrong wrong wrong WRONG!!!! The imperialism of Europe, especially Britain, was DRIVEN by (1) the resources they could exploit but perhaps more by (2) the line of thinking that the British way of life was civilized and superior, and that the "poor savages" they conquered WANTED to be "civilized". The British thought they were doing their new citizens a FAVOR by conquering them and imposing European civilization on them.

Think about the Romans for a minute or two. They were superpowerful both militarily and economically. What did they do? They came, they saw, they conquered, and they CIVILIZED THE CONQUERED PEOPLES!!! They taught Latin, built schools, wiped out "barbaric" customs and such. Ring any bells?

This is similar to what the US is doing. It is a natural and inevitable consequense of world power. BUT, because of our freedom to access dissenting arguments, our arrogance is less so. Do you recall anyone bemoaning British or Roman imperialism at the time? At least we are exposed to the idea of being imperialist. Besides, we are not "conquering the world".

Ok name a country that you can make a list thats twice as long.

I would wager a LARGE AMOUNT of money that Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and China each have "bloodshed lists" that are orders of magnitude larger and longer than that of the United States. And that's just in the last couple hundred years or so. Think about the Middle Ages or before if you want real bloodshed and war.

He had missing pages in a report that should've detailed everything. That's a violation of 1441

I think this sums it up pretty good. Saddam was a bad book-keeper, therefore, The USA was justified in invading a sovereign country, now with well over 1200 American and British troops dead and a possibly over 100,000 Iraqi's dead, maybe NOW people will get there book-keeping straight! Remember Bush doesn't like bad book-keepers!

Let this be a lesson to you all. The IRS is watching... O.o

Although as a footnote, I still have never seen a single person point out in 1441 were it said "war" was justified for bad book-keeping let alone any other reason. Lets not forget, Iraq is not the only country to ever defy a UN resolution, many in fact, but I don't recall them getting the crap bombed out of them. I suppose because there was no American interest to do so. In fact, half the countries who have had resolutions passed against them were in bed with the United States... might explain it no?

I think this sums it up pretty good. Saddam was a bad book-keeper, therefore, The USA was justified in invading a sovereign country, now with well over 1200 American and British troops dead and a possibly over 100,000 Iraqi's dead, maybe NOW people will get there book-keeping straight! Remember Bush doesn't like bad book-keepers!

Let this be a lesson to you all. The IRS is watching... O.o

Although as a footnote, I still have never seen a single person point out in 1441 were it said "war" was justified for bad book-keeping let alone any other reason. Lets not forget, Iraq is not the only country to ever defy a UN resolution, many in fact, but I don't recall them getting the crap bombed out of them. I suppose because there was no American interest to do so. In fact, half the countries who have had resolutions passed against them were in bed with the United States... might explain it no?

*sigh*

"Come on guys, can't we all just get along?"

*pulls out knife and stabs Stephistans brains out*

"Psych!"

*pulls out knife and stabs Stephistans brains out*

OMG, death threat, quick, some one BOMB him!

oh no .and why?it was not a nation yet,on paper it was. but it was not a nation
after1812 (i think)it became a nation

Wow. And I nearly thought you were intelligent after reading your copy-and-paste example of anti-american propaganda. Shame on me.

OMG, death threat, quick, some one BOMB him!

Ahhh! t3h b0mbz!

*gets out bomb-proof box and jumps in it*

"You'll never get me in here!"

(You know I was just joking, right? I mean, even if I wanted to kill you, there's no way I could.)

You know I was just joking, right?

Haha, of course :)

Haha, of course :)

Good...

Sucker...

Shit. Did I say that out loud?

I think this sums it up pretty good. Saddam was a bad book-keeper, therefore, The USA was justified in invading a sovereign country, now with well over 1200 American and British troops dead and a possibly over 100,000 Iraqi's dead, maybe NOW people will get there book-keeping straight! Remember Bush doesn't like bad book-keepers!

Let this be a lesson to you all. The IRS is watching... O.o

Although as a footnote, I still have never seen a single person point out in 1441 were it said "war" was justified for bad book-keeping let alone any other reason. Lets not forget, Iraq is not the only country to ever defy a UN resolution, many in fact, but I don't recall them getting the crap bombed out of them. I suppose because there was no American interest to do so. In fact, half the countries who have had resolutions passed against them were in bed with the United States... might explain it no?

Well its not really fair to the UN Security Council. Think about it..for most of the UNs creation you got two members of the Security Council with veto power locked in a struggle for supremecy. Any time the UN wasnt deadlocked was when the Russians boycotted the UN in the 50s..which led to Korea. And then you got the Gulf War...UN Sanctioned..then you had the invasion of Somalia..sanctioned. Then you had Kosovo..which would have been sanctioned if it werent for the Russians blocking involvement in Yugoslavia.

As for bad book keeping, its hard to believe that after 11 years they still couldnt get their act together. Especially with a 4 year break between 1998 and 2002.

Well its not really fair to the UN Security Council. Think about it..for most of the UNs creation you got two members of the Security Council with veto power locked in a struggle for supremecy. Any time the UN wasnt deadlocked was when the Russians boycotted the UN in the 50s..which led to Korea. And then you got the Gulf War...UN Sanctioned..then you had the invasion of Somalia..sanctioned. Then you had Kosovo..which would have been sanctioned if it werent for the Russians blocking involvement in Yugoslavia.

As for bad book keeping, its hard to believe that after 11 years they still couldnt get their act together. Especially with a 4 year break between 1998 and 2002.
I would concure :)

Well its not really fair to the UN Security Council. Think about it..for most of the UNs creation you got two members of the Security Council with veto power locked in a struggle for supremecy. Any time the UN wasnt deadlocked was when the Russians boycotted the UN in the 50s..which led to Korea.

Perhaps, but a little misleading. Russia has very, very seldom vetoed any resolution. They have on occasion yes. Not very often though. Usually if they have disagreed with one, they have abstained, same with China, and many others. The United States has in fact used it's veto power more than all the other 4 combined since the inception of the UN. So, that says quite a bit, no?

Perhaps, but a little misleading. Russia has very, very seldom vetoed any resolution. They have on occasion yes. Not very often though. Usually if they have disagreed with one, they have abstained, same with China, and many others. The United States has in fact used it's veto power more than all the other 4 combined since the inception of the UN. So, that says quite a bit, no?

Misconception. The Russians used their veto power far more than given credit for. 122 of them to be exact. The US comes in second at 80. Britain 32, France 18, and they arent sure exactly on China

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/data/vetotab.htm

Misconception. The Russians used their veto power far more than given credit for. 122 of them to be exact. The US comes in second at 80. Britain 32, France 18, and they arent sure exactly on China

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/data/vetotab.htm

TY! Its about time someone set the record straight on VETO USE! Now maybe Canada will shut up about the US using it more than any other VETO holding nation!

Well its not really fair to the UN Security Council. Think about it..for most of the UNs creation you got two members of the Security Council with veto power locked in a struggle for supremecy. Any time the UN wasnt deadlocked was when the Russians boycotted the UN in the 50s..which led to Korea. And then you got the Gulf War...UN Sanctioned..then you had the invasion of Somalia..sanctioned. Then you had Kosovo..which would have been sanctioned if it werent for the Russians blocking involvement in Yugoslavia.

Wasn't China in on Yugoslavia too? I could've sworn it was them that vetoed that operation. Alwell, it doesn't matter. The UN failed to act as it always has done. Stephistan, you really need to start learning the fine art of Research.

As for bad book keeping, its hard to believe that after 11 years they still couldnt get their act together. Especially with a 4 year break between 1998 and 2002.

Yep! Nice posting NY&NJ

Stephistan, you really need to start learning the fine art of Research.

This coming from the guy who researches nothing..lol


Perhaps those stats should be put into context. 80 of the 122 are prior to 1955...

Let's stay in the here and now people. I'm talking about in the last several decades. Not from 1946-55.

Try in recent times. Unless of course we are living in the past.

Wow. And I nearly thought you were intelligent after reading your copy-and-paste example of anti-american propaganda. Shame on me.

i meant after the secession civil war, was it 1865? :)
intelligence is nothing ,sarcasme is everythings

TY! Its about time someone set the record straight on VETO USE! Now maybe Canada will shut up about the US using it more than any other VETO holding nation!
Now maybe you would care to look at the reasons for the Vetoes?

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/membship/veto/vetosubj.htm

You will notice that most of the Russian vetoes were from 1946 to 1958 and were related to Application for Membership by various countries.

How about requiring to be notified when they are about to inspect something with a surprise inspection? Notification on a surprised inspection? What did he have to hide?
The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt.

~~~~Blix Report~~~~


He had missing pages in a report that should've detailed everything. That's a violation of 1441. He didn't fully cooperate with inspectors for 1441 either. I listened to Hans Blix's speeches. He gave ammunition to both sides of the aisle. He showed that He wasn't following 1441 but then gave the otherside ammunition as well.
Well since you won’t take time to read the Blix Report or apply it fairly, I post the following text from the bottom of the report:

UNMOVIC’s capability

Mr President, I must not conclude this “update” without some notes on the growing capability of UNMOVIC.

In the past two months, UNMOVIC has built-up its capabilities in Iraq from nothing to 260 staff members from 60 countries. This includes approximately 100 UNMOVIC inspectors, 60 air operations staff, as well as security personnel, communications, translation and interpretation staff, medical support, and other services at our Baghdad office and Mosul field office. All serve the United Nations and report to no one else. Furthermore, our roster of inspectors will continue to grow as our training programme continues — even at this moment we have a training course in session in Vienna. At the end of that course, we shall have a roster of about 350 qualified experts from which to draw inspectors.

A team supplied by the Swiss Government is refurbishing our offices in Baghdad, which had been empty for four years. The Government of New Zealand has contributed both a medical team and a communications team. The German Government will contribute unmanned aerial vehicles for surveillance and a group of specialists to operate them for us within Iraq. The Government of Cyprus has kindly allowed us to set up a Field Office in Larnaca. All these contributions have been of assistance in quickly starting up our inspections and enhancing our capabilities. So has help from the UN in New York and from sister organizations in Baghdad.

In the past two months during which we have built-up our presence in Iraq, we have conducted about 300 inspections to more than 230 different sites. Of these, more than 20 were sites that had not been inspected before. By the end of December, UNMOVIC began using helicopters both for the transport of inspectors and for actual inspection work. We now have eight helicopters. They have already proved invaluable in helping to “freeze” large sites by observing the movement of traffic in and around the area.

Setting up a field office in Mosul has facilitated rapid inspections of sites in northern Iraq. We plan to establish soon a second field office in the Basra area, where we have already inspected a number of sites.

Mr. President,

We have now an inspection apparatus that permits us to send multiple inspection teams every day all over Iraq, by road or by air. Let me end by simply noting that that capability which has been built-up in a short time and which is now operating, is at the disposal of the Security Council.


And yet we liberated Kuwait from Iraqi control so I have to ask how they were doubled cross. As for the gasing of the Iranian troops, I don't remember that because I was 6 when it ended. It ended in 1988 didn't it? Besides, no one won the Iran/Iraq War.
What does your age have to do with what happened in Iraq? Computers are a powerful tool you know and it allows you to verify what has been stated. The only problem is that you seem reluctant to do the research to support your counter claim(s) or pass it off as unimportant because you were young when it happened.

As far as the double cross is concerned check out the meeting between APRIL GLASPIE and Saddam Hussein:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE5/april.html

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - What solutions would be acceptable?

Saddam Hussein - If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al Arab - our strategic goal in our war with Iran - we will make concessions (to the Kuwaitis). But, if we are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq (i.e., in Saddam s view, including Kuwait ) then we will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. (pause) What is the United States' opinion on this?

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. (Saddam smiles)

On August 2, 1990, Saddam's massed troops invade and occupy Kuwait.

One month later, British journalists obtain the the above tape and transcript of the Saddam - Glaspie meeting of July 29, 1990. Astounded, they confront Ms. Glaspie as she leaves the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.

[I] Journalist 2 - You knew Saddam was going to invade (Kuwait ) but you didn't warn him not to. You didn't tell him America would defend Kuwait. You told him the opposite - that America was not associated with Kuwait.

Journalist 1 - You encouraged this aggression - his invasi on. What were you thinking?

U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - Obviously, I didn't think, and nobody else did, that the Iraqis were going to take all of Kuwait.

What a great excuse for a war?

I didn't buy the WMD line either. However, I DID NOT CARE! We should've dealt with him in 1991 and we didn't. Frankly, I'm glad we went in. I'm glad he's gone. I cheered loudly when the statue fell. I cheered when I saw the dancing in the streets. I cheered when I saw Iraqis defacing Saddam's portraits. I cheered even more when we captured that son of a bitch.
Okay….stop the parade. Your government supported Iraq against Iran, supplied WMD, turned a blind eye to the gassing of the hated Iranians, then double crossed him by supplying arms to Iran, and then double crossed him a second time in regards to Kuwait. You are somehow proud of this?

TY! Its about time someone set the record straight on VETO USE! Now maybe Canada will shut up about the US using it more than any other VETO holding nation!


Fine. Most since '55, in other words - the most by far for 50 years now. Happy? Does that make the US look better somehow? Or was the fact that you got edged out overal by a country that was long considered the "evil Empire" which no longer exists somehow a justification to you?


Stephistan, you really need to start learning the fine art of Research.


Corneliu, this coming from you is rediculous. I've nailed your ass on more false statements than almost any other poster here on the board. But here you are doing what you do best - jumping on the coat-tails of a point SOMEONE ELSE made to try and make yourself look good, or to try and make someone else look bad. You change arguments more often than our baby changes diapers, depending on who else you think has made a point that supports your position.

Yep! Nice posting NY&NJ

As I said.....

This coming from the guy who researches nothing..lol

This coming from a girl who can't get over her anti-americanism long enough to see the truth? I do alot of Research Stephistan. Sorry that I have a personal life as well as school work so that I can't do enough of it. Maybe if you get off your butt once and awhile and get out of Canada, maybe you'll see how the real world works. At least I can claim to have gone to another country outside of US and Canada. Not to mention the experiences of other cultures thanks to my parents who were stationed at an overseas base. I probably know far more than you think I do but I am choosing not to show it because it'll make you look like a fool.

Perhaps those stats should be put into context. 80 of the 122 are prior to 1955...

Care to place a bet?

Let's stay in the here and now people. I'm talking about in the last several decades. Not from 1946-55.

And yet, the US had to enforce 17 Resolutions that the UNSC failed to enforce. Also, it seems to do alot of picking on certain people and not on the people that are responsible. Yea, screw the UN is what I say.

Try in recent times. Unless of course we are living in the past.

Prove it.

i meant after the secession civil war, was it 1865? :)
intelligence is nothing ,sarcasme is everythings

It started when Lincoln got elected in 1860. The Civil War started in 1861 and went until 1865.

Fine. Most since '55, in other words - the most by far for 50 years now. Happy? Does that make the US look better somehow? Or was the fact that you got edged out overal by a country that was long considered the "evil Empire" which no longer exists somehow a justification to you?

Hey, the USSR has used it Vetoes more than the US. Don't try to play number games when the facts point to itself. As I said, don't play number games with me and since we're on a country that no longer exists, all treaties that have been formed with said nation ALSO NO LONGER exists.


Corneliu, this coming from you is rediculous. I've nailed your ass on more false statements than almost any other poster here on the board. But here you are doing what you do best - jumping on the coat-tails of a point SOMEONE ELSE made to try and make yourself look good, or to try and make someone else look bad. You change arguments more often than our baby changes diapers, depending on who else you think has made a point that supports your position.

What NY&NJ said was correct! Why shouldn't I applaud him for being right? I have a right to agree with whomever I want and when the facts are there to prove something is right, I will applaud it. As for me being false, I've posted many things that were right Zeppistan but with technology they way it is, you can find ammunition to prove it wrong just like you can find information to prove it right. That is why I don't trust internet sources. There are very very few that I trust when it comes to history and even fewer when it comes to politics. Just because I don't post a link DOES NOT make what I say wrong.

As I said.....

Whatever! I'm outta here for now. Got to go to lunch followed by my Intro to Global Politics Class.

I find it hard to say that Iraq had "the crap bombed out of it".

Total airdropped ordnance was far less than the total dropped on either Germany in WW II or Vietnam in the Vietnam War.

Also, since nearly all bombs were GPS or laser guided, nearly all of them hit their intended targets. Although there was collateral damage and civilian casualties, compared to any previous war in history this number is very low in proportion to the number of sorties, number of bombs dropped, or number of desired targets eliminated.

Saying that Iraq had "the crap bombed out of it" implies a random carpet bombing of the place.

Germany, in WW II, had the crap bombed out of it. Both in gross tonnage and in terms of collateral damage and missed targets, it was by modern standards, a terrible thing.

Iraqis, during both this war and the first Gulf War, were treated by and large to scenes of destruction of their conventional military forces and Saddam's power structure, while still being able to go to the central market. Yes, there were casualties - and if you were in the conventional Iraqi military and you resisted, you died.

But I can't say that the US "bombed the crap" out of Iraq.

Now, as for those two divisions that rolled out of Baghdad right near the end of the war, and disappeared into Valhalla as death rained from three B-52s overhead dropping cluster bombs with guided bomblets - well, we bombed the crap out of them. If you can imagine three planes so high that when the bombs opened to release their bomblets at several thousand feet, the bombs were already falling faster than the speed of sound (so no one could see the planes or hear the bombs falling), and then the bomblets each homed in on vehicles and warm bodies in the two divisional formations, and detonated in the space of 30 seconds, killing 32,000 Iraqi soldiers and destroying 2000 vehicles (tanks, APCs, trucks), then that's "bombing the crap" out of someone.

But I don't believe that we did that sort of thing to civilians - at least not on purpose.

I find it hard to say that Iraq had "the crap bombed out of it".

Total airdropped ordnance was far less than the total dropped on either Germany in WW II or Vietnam in the Vietnam War.

Also, since nearly all bombs were GPS or laser guided, nearly all of them hit their intended targets. Although there was collateral damage and civilian casualties, compared to any previous war in history this number is very low in proportion to the number of sorties, number of bombs dropped, or number of desired targets eliminated.

Saying that Iraq had "the crap bombed out of it" implies a random carpet bombing of the place.

Germany, in WW II, had the crap bombed out of it. Both in gross tonnage and in terms of collateral damage and missed targets, it was by modern standards, a terrible thing.

Iraqis, during both this war and the first Gulf War, were treated by and large to scenes of destruction of their conventional military forces and Saddam's power structure, while still being able to go to the central market. Yes, there were casualties - and if you were in the conventional Iraqi military and you resisted, you died.

But I can't say that the US "bombed the crap" out of Iraq.

Now, as for those two divisions that rolled out of Baghdad right near the end of the war, and disappeared into Valhalla as death rained from three B-52s overhead dropping cluster bombs with guided bomblets - well, we bombed the crap out of them. If you can imagine three planes so high that when the bombs opened to release their bomblets at several thousand feet, the bombs were already falling faster than the speed of sound (so no one could see the planes or hear the bombs falling), and then the bomblets each homed in on vehicles and warm bodies in the two divisional formations, and detonated in the space of 30 seconds, killing 32,000 Iraqi soldiers and destroying 2000 vehicles (tanks, APCs, trucks), then that's "bombing the crap" out of someone.

But I don't believe that we did that sort of thing to civilians - at least not on purpose.Yep... we bomb military targets... now if the dictator puts civilians in with those targets...who's to blame. the guys taking out the weapons or the man who sheilds his weapons with civilians.

anyone remembers the "Baby Milk Factory" that was bombed when Saddam occupied Kuait?

Hey, the USSR has used it Vetoes more than the US. Don't try to play number games when the facts point to itself. As I said, don't play number games with me and since we're on a country that no longer exists, all treaties that have been formed with said nation ALSO NO LONGER exists.


Hey, I was agreeing with you regarding the total - just pointing out that the US kicks ass in vetos for the past 50 years. That is not a "numbers game". It is called "a fact."

What NY&NJ said was correct! Why shouldn't I applaud him for being right? I have a right to agree with whomever I want and when the facts are there to prove something is right, I will applaud it. As for me being false, I've posted many things that were right Zeppistan but with technology they way it is, you can find ammunition to prove it wrong just like you can find information to prove it right. That is why I don't trust internet sources. There are very very few that I trust when it comes to history and even fewer when it comes to politics. Just because I don't post a link DOES NOT make what I say wrong.


It's the way you post Corneliu. Someone else says something, and you act all puffed up with importance and use someone ELSES material as a vahicle to then try and belittle someone else. It is a purile and childish tactic. Now then, the fact that you refuse to support your statements (which I have many times demonstrated to be false) because you "don't trust the internet" is hilarious. That being the case, cite a proper reference including page numbers since you claim to have such amazing access to "proofs".

Int he meantime, as long as people can post to credible links that contradict your "facts" and you have nothing to offer but your own words - your credibility will always suffer. You best accept that.


Whatever! I'm outta here for now. Got to go to lunch followed by my Intro to Global Politics Class.

Good. At elast it seems you are finally trying to learn on the subject. I hope, however, that you don't write your essays for school the same way you right here ("It's the truth - I just can't source any validation for the underpinnings for my argument") else I think you will have a dificult time acheiving a mark you can be proud of.

Good. At elast it seems you are finally trying to learn on the subject. I hope, however, that you don't write your essays for school the same way you right here ("It's the truth - I just can't source any validation for the underpinnings for my argument") else I think you will have a dificult time acheiving a mark you can be proud of.Be nice Zeppinstan... a STUDENT'S essay was used to support this thread.

and worse, it's an essay that leaves out alot of information as well as being totally slanted against the US.

and Worse still... its for distribution to other students too lazy to do their own work.

yet people toss it around like it was straight from God's Mouth. :rolleyes:

Hey, I was agreeing with you regarding the total - just pointing out that the US kicks ass in vetos for the past 50 years. That is not a "numbers game". It is called "a fact."

It is a numbers game because we were arguing numbers. Period.

It's the way you post Corneliu. Someone else says something, and you act all puffed up with importance and use someone ELSES material as a vahicle to then try and belittle someone else. It is a purile and childish tactic. Now then, the fact that you refuse to support your statements (which I have many times demonstrated to be false) because you "don't trust the internet" is hilarious. That being the case, cite a proper reference including page numbers since you claim to have such amazing access to "proofs".

I'll remember that for the future. I'll make sure I word my posts more carefully to make sure its more intuned to your way of thinking. NOT!! I will make sure though that my posts are more carefully writtin. As for a proper reference, would a text book count as a proper reference? An encyclopedia perhaps? There are VERY FEW Websites that I trust regarding history and politics. And no, I don't trust everything I see and read on Fox News so don't pull that arguement out either.

Int he meantime, as long as people can post to credible links that contradict your "facts" and you have nothing to offer but your own words - your credibility will always suffer. You best accept that.

And yet, people post to other credible links to prove me right. Its a who do you believe and what you believe to be a credible website game on here.

Good. At elast it seems you are finally trying to learn on the subject. I hope, however, that you don't write your essays for school the same way you right here ("It's the truth - I just can't source any validation for the underpinnings for my argument") else I think you will have a dificult time acheiving a mark you can be proud of.

So far I'm passing it. The teacher likes me too and since this website can be used for educational purposes, I gave him the information on it. Amazing how something so mundane as this could help in a classroom. As for my essays, I already had one and I have another one due at the end of this month. Before you say anything about me posting, I'm killing time before my class actually starts.

Be nice Zeppinstan... a STUDENT'S essay was used to support this thread.

and worse, it's an essay that leaves out alot of information as well as being totally slanted against the US.

and Worse still... its for distribution to other students too lazy to do their own work.

yet people toss it around like it was straight from God's Mouth. :rolleyes:

Correct and some of the errors were pointed out in this thread too.

And yet, people post to other credible links to prove me right. Its a who do you believe and what you believe to be a credible website game on here.

So far I'm passing it. The teacher likes me too and since this website can be used for educational purposes, I gave him the information on it. Amazing how something so mundane as this could help in a classroom. As for my essays, I already had one and I have another one due at the end of this month. Before you say anything about me posting, I'm killing time before my class actually starts.this game? Nationstates? gotta disagree with that one. the UN here is even more ineffective than the real one... and there are no consiquences for the votings.

I can vote to promote Democracy...and in the issues, take it away with very little results.

But that's my rant... back to the subject of this thread.

but that's me ranting... back to the purpose of the thread.
I can vote to end nuclear weapons (remember, UN resolutions only affect UN Nationstates) and not worry about the non members getting upity becuase of the I.G.N.O.R.E. cannons.

I can insult and piss people off. and when they declare war... Igonre...

now if there were consiquences... then you can have real diplomacy... and people will have to think about some of these resolutions and issues.

but that is my rant. Back to the subject of this thread.

To get back to the topic of the thread, indeed, the U.S. is a war nation. Additionally it is a warmongering nation. Seeing the amount of wars the US have started or participated in since the end of WW2 and the civilian casualties caused by the US since then, this is quite easy to understand (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=23ad0c9bfg2l4?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=History+of+United+States+imperialism&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc02b).

Ein Deutscher']To get back to the topic of the thread, indeed, the U.S. is a war nation. Additionally it is a warmongering nation. Seeing the amount of wars the US have started or participated in since the end of WW2 and the civilian casualties caused by the US since then, this is quite easy to understand (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=23ad0c9bfg2l4?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=History+of+United+States+imperialism&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc02b).

Hmm. I don't remember the US starting the Korean War. Wasn't that a UN Action mandated by UN Resolution?

Hmm. I don't remember the US starting the Korean War. Wasn't that a UN Action mandated by UN Resolution?ahh. but you see... he used the word Participated. just like that other list invovled any and all military depolyment (including security for ambassadors) that's why it looks so big. heck.. we participated in alot of actions because we were asked for help and ended up doing the brunt of the work. If we follow that line of thinking then all nations with a standing army are warmongers. :rolleyes:

ahh. but you see... he used the word Participated. just like that other list invovled any and all military depolyment (including security for ambassadors) that's why it looks so big. heck.. we participated in alot of actions because we were asked for help and ended up doing the brunt of the work. If we follow that line of thinking then all nations with a standing army are warmongers. :rolleyes:

Ah, I see. So if a nation attacks you, and you respond with military force, you're also a warmonger. I see.

So Poland in WW II was a warmongering nation.

The "warmongering" applies to the various wars the US has started without UN approval or coups etc. which were backed by the US and even removed democracies. The "participated" applies to the fact that the US is a "war nation", otherwise it could not "bear the brunt of the burden" - which is incorrect anyway.

Hmm. I don't remember the US starting the Korean War. Wasn't that a UN Action mandated by UN Resolution?

Yes it was!

Ein Deutscher']The "warmongering" applies to the various wars the US has started without UN approval or coups etc. which were backed by the US and even removed democracies. The "participated" applies to the fact that the US is a "war nation", otherwise it could not "bear the brunt of the burden" - which is incorrect anyway.

How is it incorrect? We bore the brunt in Vietnam (other nations were involved there)! We bore the brunt in Gulf War I and in Gulf War II. We bore the brunt in most conflicts why? Because we have the most powerful military in the world.

Ein Deutscher']The "warmongering" applies to the various wars the US has started without UN approval or coups etc. which were backed by the US and even removed democracies. The "participated" applies to the fact that the US is a "war nation", otherwise it could not "bear the brunt of the burden" - which is incorrect anyway.

So I guess Cuba is a warmongering nation. Or were its troops in Angola for the holidays?

Or the USSR was a warmongering nation. Or did they drive into Hungary for the good food? Afghanistan for a few rugs? Czechoslovakia for the beer?

I don't recall UN approval for any of those actions.

Did Egypt get UN approval before launching their attack on Israel in October 1973?

How is it incorrect? We bore the brunt in Vietnam (other nations were involved there)! We bore the brunt in Gulf War I and in Gulf War II. We bore the brunt in most conflicts why? Because we have the most powerful military in the world.
The Vietnam War and Gulf War 2 were not UN wars, but US wars with a "coalition of the willing" or a "coalition of the coerced" or a "coalition of the bought". You bear the brunt of the work in wars which directly serve your own imperialistic aims of i.e. securing resources or opening up markets for American products.

So I guess Cuba is a warmongering nation. Or were its troops in Angola for the holidays?

Or the USSR was a warmongering nation. Or did they drive into Hungary for the good food? Afghanistan for a few rugs? Czechoslovakia for the beer?

I don't recall UN approval for any of those actions.

Did Egypt get UN approval before launching their attack on Israel in October 1973?
Any of these nations, if they do it repeatedly, are warmongering.

I'd consider Russia/the USSR warmongering indeed.

Ein Deutscher']The Vietnam War and Gulf War 2 were not UN wars, but US wars with a "coalition of the willing" or a "coalition of the coerced" or a "coalition of the bought". You bear the brunt of the work in wars which directly serve your own imperialistic aims of i.e. securing resources or opening up markets for American products.
And as we all know, the US is the only nation that does this

So I guess Cuba is a warmongering nation. Or were its troops in Angola for the holidays?

Or the USSR was a warmongering nation. Or did they drive into Hungary for the good food? Afghanistan for a few rugs? Czechoslovakia for the beer?

I don't recall UN approval for any of those actions.

Did Egypt get UN approval before launching their attack on Israel in October 1973?
Don't forget Germany - which helped NATO bomb and control Yugoslavia without a UN resolution.

And as we all know, the US is the only nation that does this
No. The US is not the only one. But I have refuted the opinion of some Americans here, who claim that the US is not a warmongering nation.

Ein Deutscher']Any of these nations, if they do it repeatedly, are warmongering.

I'd consider Russia/the USSR warmongering indeed.

And not Cuba? Decades of violence by Cuban mercenaries (they were paid, you know).

And not Germany? That one about Yugoslavia is quite true. In fact, I remember Germany being quite adamant about the need for bombing Yugoslavia. Without UN permission.

Ein Deutscher']The Vietnam War and Gulf War 2 were not UN wars, but US wars with a "coalition of the willing" or a "coalition of the coerced" or a "coalition of the bought". You bear the brunt of the work in wars which directly serve your own imperialistic aims of i.e. securing resources or opening up markets for American products.and we were there at the request of the Vietnamese Gov. so replying to requests for aid makes us Warmongering?

and we were there at the request of the Vietnamese Gov. so replying to requests for aid makes us Warmongering?

Not to mention being attacked in international waters by North Vietnamese patrol boats. Or did that little fact escape your history class?

So, any nation that responds to being attacked by fighting is a warmongering nation.

So, in your eyes, Poland was a warmongering nation for resisting German invasion. They should have just rolled over like the Austrians and welcomed Hitler.

Not to mention being attacked in international waters by North Vietnamese patrol boats. Or did that little fact escape your history class? Nope... but again, the point is we were asked to help the Government and we (and several other nations) went in at their request.

lets not forget China and Russia supporting that war long before we became involved. but then again... lending military aid to Allies is warmongering to you. Restoring order and protecting US Citizens and property is Warmongering to you.

Edit: Lack of sleep makes me miss the sarcasm... sorry.

Yes Poland is a warmonger because they DEFENDED themselves.

So, when Hitler invaded Poland, and Poland defended itself (however meagerly), Poland was being a warmongering nation?

I just want to make sure that's what you're saying, because you may have no idea how ridiculous that sounds.

Dude, I'm pretty sure he was saying that by the guys reasoning that Poland was a warmongering nation, and not that he actually thought it was.

Ein Deutscher']No. The US is not the only one. But I have refuted the opinion of some Americans here, who claim that the US is not a warmongering nation.no you haven't all you did was define that to you, Warmongering is any nation willing to take military action. whether it be attack or defese.

Dude, I'm pretty sure he was saying that by the guys reasoning that Poland was a warmongering nation, and not that he actually thought it was.thank you Lemotia. that is correct. Edited that post cuz I missed the Sarcasm :headbang:

Ein Deutscher']The Vietnam War and Gulf War 2 were not UN wars, but US wars with a "coalition of the willing" or a "coalition of the coerced" or a "coalition of the bought". You bear the brunt of the work in wars which directly serve your own imperialistic aims of i.e. securing resources or opening up markets for American products.

And yet we didn't start WWI or WWII! We just joined in because of self-preservation. As for our "imperialistic aims", what countries do we control? We control only the USA !

This coming from the guy who researches nothing..lol


Perhaps those stats should be put into context. 80 of the 122 are prior to 1955...

Let's stay in the here and now people. I'm talking about in the last several decades. Not from 1946-55.

Try in recent times. Unless of course we are living in the past.

Oh well if we're putting it into context lets remove all the US vetoing the resolution of the bash Israel of the month club, and the US once again falls behind second. As for taking things into context..exactly what context where you refering to? Because throughout UN history you're kind of wrong..only if you narrow it down to a specific point and even then what the Russians did earlier on was rather detrimental to the UN and its operation.

But you tried to make a point and without any context whatsoever...It only suit you to put it in some form of context to help you prove a point. But it still doesnt because its only a half truth. From the 60s-90s did the US veto more? Sure. Overall in UN history though? Nope.

Ein Deutscher']No. The US is not the only one. But I have refuted the opinion of some Americans here, who claim that the US is not a warmongering nation.

This is so funny I don't know where to begin to refute it. You want imperialism buddy, look at Germany, France, Russia, Britain, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Japan, and even China to a degree.

Oh well if we're putting it into context lets remove all the US vetoing the resolution of the bash Israel of the month club, and the US once again falls behind second.

When you can prove Israel wasn't guilty of what they were accused of!

When you can prove Israel wasn't guilty of what they were accused of!

How are they guilty? Guilty of trying to defend themselves? Seems to me that the Palestinian terrorists do more damage than the Israelis do.

Now maybe you would care to look at the reasons for the Vetoes?

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/membship/veto/vetosubj.htm

You will notice that most of the Russian vetoes were from 1946 to 1958 and were related to Application for Membership by various countries.

And a lot of US vetos were related to the middle east Israel situation.

So whats the point? The fact wasnt what the veto was used for, but who has used the veto.

When you can prove Israel wasn't guilty of what they were accused of!


Well..Hamas is a recongized terrorist organization throughout the planet..so the veto on March 25th 2004, the condemnation of the killing of Hamas leader Ahmed Yassin immediately flies out the window...one down..the rest of your personal anti-Israel bias to go. (And no I dont think the Israelis are saints but you have to put things in context. Oops..there goes that word again..I like being able to fling that word around.)

How are they guilty? Guilty of trying to defend themselves? Seems to me that the Palestinian terrorists do more damage than the Israelis do.

You haven't a clue once again of what you're talking about right? Have you read the list of resolutions against Israel? I have, in fact I can post them if you like. Show me where one resolution was not some thing Israel didn't do!

If you don't know the list (the most broken resolutions in the UN's history) I'll be happy to post it.

Only the USA & Israel are allowed to throw UN resolutions out the window? Heaven forbid Iraq broke a few, I guess that was reason to invade. Please, the double standard is more than a little sickening.

I think it's hard to find a Canadian who even believes that Israel should be a state, much less approve of any action it has ever taken, much less defend itself.

Don't know the exact reasons for this. But it's been my experience so far.

I've gotten one person on this forum to say directly that Poland's defense of itself against Germany was "warmongering" in WW II.

I don't think it would take much to get Stephistan to say that Israel's defense of its borders, say, in October 1973, was warmongering.

You haven't a clue once again of what you're talking about right? Have you read the list of resolutions against Israel? I have, in fact I can post them if you like. Show me where one resolution was not some thing Israel didn't do!

If you don't know the list (the most broken resolutions in the UN's history) I'll be happy to post it.

Only the USA & Israel are allowed to throw UN resolutions out the window? Heaven forbid Iraq broke a few, I guess that was reason to invade. Please, the double standard is more than a little sickening.

Plenty of nations break UN regulations. No one says they dont. And no one says the US and Israel are the only one allowed to throw UN resolutions out of the window either.

For the love of God will both of you stick to the matter at hand. As far as facts go it remains undisputed that since the UN's inception the USSR is #1 when it comes to vetoing for whatever reason. If you want specific reasons then narrow it down to the past 20 years and bingo. You prove some sort of point, but you can never say the US has used the most vetos out of any other security council nation without some sort of stipulation at the end to narrow it to a timeframe that best suits your rhetoric.