US More Warlike Than Other Countries?

[timsgfdmo]

I generally come here for sexuallity topics but current events and Bush discussion has made me want to seek the opinions of others on this topic. I spent 2 weeks in the UK recently and got to observe their negative opinion of America.

My answer to the question is yes America for some reason is more warlike and I would love to know why? Some people might say that the US gets in wars because it is the only superpower. However, the US has been in one war after another since its founding. This started long before the US was a world power. Partial list follows: War of 1812, continual battles with native Americans, War with Mexico, Civil War, Spanish-American War, World War I, wars in Central America and Philippines in the 30s, World War II, Korean War, Vietnam War, Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Balkans, Gulf War I, Invasion of Iraq, Invasion of Afghanistan.

If you look at many wealthy countries, in Europe in particular, they dont fight wars. In many cases they are more prosperous than the US without fighting wars. Dishonorable methods of entry into wars or avoidable wars could be cited for most of the wars the US has been involved in in my opinion.

So if you agree why do you think that is? Is there some component of the American psyche that makes us disregard the opinions or feelings of others or makes us more aggressive? Are Americans basically intollerant, dishonest and aggressive? If not tell me why you think the US is not warlike.

[orpheus_lost]

That's a hell of a question to ask on a site about bisexuality. In fact, you could write several books on the subject before answering the question with any real degree of accuracy. Of course then there would be several more books written to refute everything in the first set of books, then a rebuttal, etc......

But my very simplistice, one dimensional answer would be the fact that as a country the US is still quite young. Much like young people, young countries tend to be more aggressive than those that have been around longer. I'm not sure whether there's a collective need to prove oneself or if its residual anger and adrenaline from the act of revolution but there does seem to be truth to the concept that most countries born in war tend to live in war.

That being said, Europe has only seemed to lose it's taste for blood over the last 30 years or so, itself. In the last century WWI and WWII were to a great extent European wars. Then if you count the rampant imperialism of Great Britain, France, Germany, and Italy they have very little room to cast aspersions on the warlike mentality of America. Our troubles in Iraq and Afghanistan today can easily be tied to British occupancy and meddling in the early 20th century and Vietnam can in many ways be put on the shoulders of the French.

I am glad that most of western civilization seems to be losing it's bloodthirst lately and I hope the US eventually looks to its older allies as an example. However, I think it serves us poorly to forget that the same countries that are admonishing us now for our unacceptable behavior were not so long ago doing the same thing.

[smokey]

I don't think we are more warlike...I think that we are more self-righteous and arrogant.

[BI BOYTOY]

I don't think we are more warlike...I think that we are more self-righteous and arrogant.
this is very true. but after all we are not talking about the american people,we are talking about our gov.and they in deed are very arrogant and self-righteous.they tend to stick their nose in to where it dont belong. thats my 2 :2cents: what ever it is worth.he he he he :bigrin: :bigrin:

[JohnnyV]

Hmmm..... WARNING: This post may ramble, but I think I have some good thoughts to share. :)

Yes and no.

The US is a big country with lots of different kinds of people. If you go to a banquet at the American Legion in Cheektowaga, New York, you may come out thinking the US is very warlike, more warlike than other places. If you go to a conference of lesbian vegetarians in Santa Cruz, California, you will probably leave with the impression that we are exceptionally peacelike.

On the other hand, every powerful country is like that. Every war is usually initiated by people who claim that they are a peaceful, freedom-loving culture that is only fighting because they've been pushed to it. Every war is usually initiated by people who say that they are fighting in the cause of a greater peace that will take hold in a misty faraway future (always too far away for anybody to actually feel, let alone see, the proverbial light at the end of the tunnel). Most cultures like to romanticize themselves and entertain fantasies about their moral stature, while rationalizing or sugarcoating their aggression.

When the Nazis annexed the Sudetenland, Austria, Denmark, and Belgium, for instance, they claimed they were going to improve all these places and that the people in the occupied lands would one day thank them. As they drove in their jeeps through Paris, many of them truly thought the French would thank them for saving France from Communists, Jewish conspiracies, and backwardness. When the Japanese overran the Philippines, they said they were going to restore an Oriental pride to the Filipinos after 400 years of Western imperialism. In a similar way, many Americans fully anticipated that the Iraqis and Afghanis would adore them for having saved them from a dictator and a fundamentalist junta, respectively. And in a similar way, Israel told Lebanon's ambassador to the United Nations last week that the Lebanese people would be the greatest beneficiaries of the new war against Hezbollah that's laying waste to so much of Beirut. When confronted with Israel's actions, many Jews whom I know struggle to keep alive an image of the suffering, warm, and charming Jew, with a tender sense of humor and endearing slang in Yiddish. Their attitude, much like American attitudes about American soldiers, has been, "Jews aren't mean. They only do harsh things when they absolutely have to."

Maybe the problem isn't being warlike. Everyone's warlike. The problem is when you've convinced yourself that you're making war for more noble reasons, when really it's just a war like every other brutal, violent catastrophe that kills people and plants the seed for more hatred. I have a hard time thinking the US is any worse; we may simply bear the difficult burden of having won too many wars for our own good. And being the only ones with lots of expensive bombs.

I think that the US does have a slightly different attitude about war right now, because our sense of history has predisposed us to think that war is a medicine. In school, we don't talk as much about Vietnam as we do about the Revolutionary War, the Civil War and World War II. And in those three latter wars, we take away the lesson that war, while tragic, nonetheless saved us from monarchy, slavery, and fascism, and made it possible for democracy, civil rights, and the survival of the Jews. Because this is the way we have learned our own history, and because most wars since the Civil War have not brought destruction to our own doorstep (we're always fighting the worst stuff somewhere else, on other people's land), we Americans are conditioned (maybe brainwashed) to believe war is a cure.

Everyone else in the world sees war as a disease.

But in the last week, I have come to feel much less critical of the US, because I am so disgusted with Israel and the people who justify what Israel does, as well as with the radical Muslim groups and the people who justify them. At least Americans *try*, even if their efforts are artificial or ineffective, to win over other people's hearts and minds. At least we pay lip service to respecting the humanity of countries we invade or embattle.

And in the US, now over 50% of the country regrets the invasion of Iraq. A president will not be able to rush into any new wars, any time soon. (Which might be bad news for Israel, but good news for us -- I think it's finally time to cut off the Israeli lobby from Washington and stop making ourselves the targets for Muslims and Arabs who are rightfully angry at the nation of Israel). In so much of the Middle East, all parties involved have embraced martyrdom and contempt so much that they don't even pay lip service to the other side's humanity. They call for total war and get what they ask for. I feel good that the US is at least a few stops above that level of brutality.

For what it's worth


:2cents: :2cents:

J

[12voltman59]

This is an interesting question---one I don't know if it could ever be answered satisfactorily--but I do think we are a rather war and violence loving culture--violence was part and parcel to the founding of this nation--first when it was "discovered" and pretty much ever since.

"We"--being white, European settlers first set out to "tame the land" and to do something about those "heathen savages" --we pretty well distroyed the way of life for millions of native peoples

The next big violent thing we did---we brought a whole race of people over here in chains to do the dirty work...

Once we had pretty well gotten the country going on an even keel--we set out to dominate the "new world" and that brought us into conflict with many of the European powers.

Need I go on about the history of this country---many here like to boast via T-Shirts, bumper stickers and from their own mouths: "God, Guts and Guns are what made America great..."

What really got me to thinking about our love of violence and war took place after a visit to EPCOT/Disney World in Orlando some years back.

For those who have not had the opportunity to visit EPCOT---that part of Disney is made up of areas that reflect many of the countries of the world. Each country was allowed to do its own pavillion where they present what they wish about their respective countries.

China has a film that highlights many of its natural features and man made ones such as the Great Wall. Canada and others do the same.

For the good ol' US of A--we had an animatronic history lesson detailing all of our wars....

My mom noted that she thought that rather sad and that it also says a great deal about us a country.

Earlier this year I had the opportunity to serve on my county's grand jury---there were so many cases involving (mostly young black men) shootings and murders.

We had a number of cases where the accused in said crimes were juveniles ranging from 16 to 18 who the prosecutor's office were going to try as adults.

It was amazing to hear the testimony--I think most of these guys have watched too many gansta rap videos and full length movies--the one guy was quoted by many witnesses as saying "dog, I am glad I popped that nigger.."

I recently watched this one show about crime and punishment in the state of Ohio--this is a sad commentary--in this state alone we spend almost $15 billion per year on our state's prison system with 3 out of 4 state employees working in that system and we only spend about $400 million on our state college and university system and the percentage amount and actual amount of the state budget for prisons is going up while what is spent for the state college and education system are both going down.

The state director of prisons was quoted as saying: "That is sad, really sad.."

We do love war me thinks and we do love our guns (did you see Michael Moore's flick "Farenheit 9/11?--if you did you will recall the folks who create "South Park" did a bit with animated characters "We loves our guns, we loves our guns...")

Yes--this is a war loving place---

"Praise the Lord and pass the bullets", "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out", "Gun control is hitting your target..."--just a few sayings made popular by the folks in the National Rifle Association--great patriots defending the second amendment--the most important right in their book....(pffffffffffftttttttt!!!!!!) :mad: :mad: :mad

But the US is not alone in loving war and violence--the Mideast is the oldest part of the world and they really seem to relish in it--orgiastically so it almost seems----

[holybane]

There is no peace without war just as there is no good without evil. Without one, we would not know the other. That's all I have to say. Please no angry attacks on my person.

[holybane]

Oh, and I don't think we're more warlike, most countries had a lot more civil wars than we did, and if you count up all the wars China had, wow, or England (they wanted to conquer the world by the way for a long time), we're just young like they said up there and we're strong. Kind of like school if you think about it, we're the jock! lol!

[huckingforny]

Oh, and I don't think we're more warlike, most countries had a lot more civil wars than we did, and if you count up all the wars China had, wow, or England (they wanted to conquer the world by the way for a long time), we're just young like they said up there and we're strong. Kind of like school if you think about it, we're the jock! lol!

Being a Canadian who's lived in the US for a few years, and studied a little US history at university, I've come to think of the US as a strong, eager, stubborn young adolescent who is surrounded by weaker, but wiser adults. It's like America wants to throw its muscle around to make a difference in the world, but isn't patient enough to study up on the consequences of such actions.

oh, I guess I should clarify, all my references to "America" and "the US" should probably replaced by the "the US government", since almost all of the people I've met while living here are wonderful people who aren't really concerned with killing OTHER people

[timsgfdmo]

That being said, Europe has only seemed to lose it's taste for blood over the last 30 years or so, itself. In the last century WWI and WWII were to a great extent European wars. Then if you count the rampant imperialism of Great Britain, France, Germany, and Italy they have very little room to cast aspersions on the warlike mentality of America. Our troubles in Iraq and Afghanistan today can easily be tied to British occupancy and meddling in the early 20th century and Vietnam can in many ways be put on the shoulders of the French.

How do you explain Switzerland? With WWII raging in thir midst they stayed neutral and were not invaded. What was the last war the Swiss fought? Did they save themselves from the Nazis by being their bankers? I think also generaly the nordic countries dont fight wars of invasion. Most were occupied by the Germans but have not fought wars of aggression. Do they have their hands full with those hot nordic women so they dont want to fight.

Off topic as for Israel they are like the employee who is always in trouble. It may or may not be their fault but I think it is time for the US to cut them lose. That is what employers do with the troublesome employee. Israel is of no strategic interest to the US. Whereas the Arabs have something we want. We need to mind our strategic interests. In the 50s the Arabs opinion of the US was that we were liberators throwing off British and French attempts to recolonize them. (i.e UK and France attempt to take the Suez Canal) That opinion changed when the US became a completely uncritical supporter of Israel that aquised to any Israeli behavior. We need to be seen as neutral in regards to Israel and the Arabs or better yet favoring the Arabs. It is in our best interest. Being friends with Israel is nothing but trouble.

Thanks for the responses and tolerating my off topic rant.

[julie]

I generally come here for sexuallity topics but current events and Bush discussion has made me want to seek the opinions of others on this topic. I spent 2 weeks in the UK recently and got to observe their negative opinion of America.

My answer to the question is yes America for some reason is more warlike and I would love to know why? Some people might say that the US gets in wars because it is the only superpower. However, the US has been in one war after another since its founding. This started long before the US was a world power. Partial list follows: War of 1812, continual battles with native Americans, War with Mexico, Civil War, Spanish-American War, World War I, wars in Central America and Philippines in the 30s, World War II, Korean War, Vietnam War, Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Balkans, Gulf War I, Invasion of Iraq, Invasion of Afghanistan.

If you look at many wealthy countries, in Europe in particular, they dont fight wars. In many cases they are more prosperous than the US without fighting wars. Dishonorable methods of entry into wars or avoidable wars could be cited for most of the wars the US has been involved in in my opinion.

So if you agree why do you think that is? Is there some component of the American psyche that makes us disregard the opinions or feelings of others or makes us more aggressive? Are Americans basically intollerant, dishonest and aggressive? If not tell me why you think the US is not warlike.

Hi Tim

I'm from the UK and i agree with your observation that there is a lot of negative opinion regards America over here... and i guess much of this has been exacerbated from despair that our countrys alliance with the USA has drawn us into this latest war with Iraq. This being despite our whole country protesting in the streets against our involvement and highly respected politicians resigning from government rather than be associated with this allegably illegal war...

..The most thought-provoking and in my humble opinion fitting description of Americas standpoint regards war.. is when the BBC news refer to America as

'yet again assuming their role as the worlds policemen'

..and i wonder who appointed them...? on what authority do they believe they can assume the right to decide where to attack...and where to turn a blind eye.......?

...and yes, from where i'm sitting i do believe America abuses their power regards their involvement in war..... and as for what they profess to do in the name of God, well may God be my judge as i pray thay they may take a long hard look at the plank of wood in their own (collective) eye before attempting to remove splinters from their neighbours eye..

...none of my passion here, of course, has any bearing on individual Americans, many of whom, i imagine, feel as impotent and dismayed at their collective stance as we Brits do...

...kind regards to All of our international community here on bisexual.com

Julie :female: :flag3:

[timsgfdmo]

In regards to American political culture and embrace of war. Doesnt it seem the media and politicans use militarsitic terms to describe politics. To me that seems war like. I wonder if the same type terms are used in other countries.

Example: 1. When one politican criticizies another it is called an attack. Why isnt it called criticism?

2. Bush says "Freedom is on the March". To me freedom does not march. It is armies that march.

3. The terms campaign manager and war room for political parties. Both those are military terms.

4. One candidate strikes back at another or strikes out.

I am sure there are many others that can be pointed out. It just seems to me our culture embraces violence and war and is repulsed by sex and nudity. Look at reaction to Janet Jackson breast or amount of violence in movies. Back in the 80s movies always had the gratuitous nude scene whter it was needed or not. Now there are movies where a nude scene appears logical and it is not there. You see people making love still dressed. It is similar to the 50s double beds for married couples. Does the apparent American unease with sex contribute to our aggressiveness?

[furrycritter]

First let me start out by saying that I am the husband of furrycritter and not her, and then let me say that I have read many od the articles printed and threads posted, and never before this one did I realy have anything to say, but this one I was going to put in my 2 cents.
First of all I have been involved in two of the U.S. wars (Viet Nam and Iraq) and have been there and done that. I think most of you all have gotten your information from the main stream press and the such. I have talked to the real people and heard there stories and seen these things with my own eyes. They are very glade we came to Iraq and stayed. There lives are 110% better and Sadum had WMD's he used them on his own people The Kerds. He had training facilities for the thugs and punks we fight today and on 911 (where 3000 people died). How fast we forget we were attacked first over and over again. To me this is not war like. If these thugs have there way we on this site would be killed. The declared this Holly Jihad on the western world over 20 years ago and it wasn't till 911 that any president had the balls to take it to them. We tried 19 (count them) resolutions through the UN to keep this fro happening. We the United States of America spends more money on things to help other countries than any other :2cents: in the world even when were slaped in the face by them. I have my disagrements with our government, but go around the world and have the oppertunity to experience other governments and you won't be so fast to bitch at ours, and we are the ones that vote them in. I think you should listen as to why Isereal went on this rampage. They were attacked and 8 people were killed and 2 taken. All they asked was that they be returned and when they were not they went after them, but you know what they know they will be found like our tow soldires were beating to death with their eyes poked out and their private parts (balss and dick) stuffed in their mouths. So answer me this where was the ACLU and the main stream press and Michle Moore when this is going on. Why don't we just team up with Isreal and get this thing over with. I could go on and on but I think you are probley tired of listening from a combat vet.

[timsgfdmo]

I will give you two more military terms used in politics

chief of staff and lieutenant

Furry I am a veteran of Gulf War I and was mobilized for two years after 9/11 and I cant disagree with you more.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. As a military man you must know that you have to identify your target before you shoot. Spraying random shots at any Arab wont achieve desired results. Iraq posed no military threat to the US.

Al-Quaida is an enemy that uses unconventional warfare. You cant beat them by using conventional tactics of seizing territory. Look at the failure of the USSR in Afghanistan. They went in with too small a force thinking they would not be attacked. Sound familar? They then used the tactics they were expecting to use in western Europe. Truely the best army in the world for combined arms tactics got its ass kicked.

The threat of al-quaida is way overblown. More people died last year in the US from car wrecks or heart attacks then they did from terrorist attacks. All fighting conventional wars in the middle east does is to drive up oil prices. Al-Quaida are criminals. They do not have the power to overthrow the US govt or any western European govt. The way you stop these guys is economic aid that creates jobs for Arabs. The unemployment rate for Arabs in Arab countries in very high. These young men are despondent and turn to radical religion as an answer for their despondency People who benefit from a system dont attack it. The goal should be to give these people economic choices. Current economic aid doe snot get to the people it needs to get to. Some smart bureacrats will figure out how to make that happen. The goal should be to turn them into little consumer Americans like the Chinese and the Russians etc. When was the last time you saw kids at the mall blow something up?

Besides a new Marshall plan the US should also use special forces, intelligence and diplomacy to stop al-Quaida. If the US fights al-Quaida like it is WWII much as it is doing now it will continue to lose. This is not a situation where an eye for an eye or in other words where you can kill your way out of. Look at the success of Israel with that approach.

[orpheus_lost]

How do you explain Switzerland? With WWII raging in thir midst they stayed neutral and were not invaded. What was the last war the Swiss fought? Did they save themselves from the Nazis by being their bankers? I think also generaly the nordic countries dont fight wars of invasion. Most were occupied by the Germans but have not fought wars of aggression. Do they have their hands full with those hot nordic women so they dont want to fight.

Switzerland is the exception that proved the rule, maybe? Seriously though, Switzerland has its own unique passive aggressive thing going and has managed through diplomacy and "neutrality" to maintain its sovreignity where more militarized countries have failed. I don't think I could explain them any better than that without living there at least a few years first.


Off topic as for Israel they are like the employee who is always in trouble. It may or may not be their fault but I think it is time for the US to cut them lose. That is what employers do with the troublesome employee. Israel is of no strategic interest to the US. Whereas the Arabs have something we want. We need to mind our strategic interests. In the 50s the Arabs opinion of the US was that we were liberators throwing off British and French attempts to recolonize them. (i.e UK and France attempt to take the Suez Canal) That opinion changed when the US became a completely uncritical supporter of Israel that aquised to any Israeli behavior. We need to be seen as neutral in regards to Israel and the Arabs or better yet favoring the Arabs. It is in our best interest. Being friends with Israel is nothing but trouble.

Thanks for the responses and tolerating my off topic rant.

I believe Isreal was a mistake from the beginning. Instead of coming to terms with the the rampant racism toward Jewish people and working to reduce it, the Allies instead came up with a plan to move them to another part of the world so they didn't have to deal with them. It was a move made out of bigotry and guilt which are not good motives. In order to create Isreal, they broke their promises of a homeland for the Palastinians which to a great extent has caused the tension in the Middle East since then. I'm not saying this is the only reason for tensions but it is definitely a factor.

Anyway, you're right. We should cut Isreal loose, not because of self interest, but because of Isreal's aggression toward other countries and its oppression of arabs in their own.

By the way, good topic.

[12voltman59]

Well funnycritter--I have talked to some who have been deployed in Iraq and they say things are SNAFU and FUBAR over in Iraq--they are not at all good..

One guy works in Army intell and he says things are worse than the media makes it out to be--he has been there twice and goes back again in March 07--in spite of the deterorating situation--he does want to return--he was there when the US rolled in and went into Baghdad--he says it is a far worse situation now than it was back in '03.

The problem with the coverage of Iraq by the American media is not that it is too critical---it is that it doesn't show enough--if they showed videos of the coffins coming back into (I think its Vandenburg AFB) the states instead of rolling over to the Pentagon and embargoing that information--and we had coverage of what goes on like we did in the days of Vietnam--we would be out of Iraq in a heartbeat.....

(those terms I used above date back to WWII, look them up if you don't know what they mean)

[orpheus_lost]

First let me start out by saying that I am the husband of furrycritter and not her, and then let me say that I have read many od the articles printed and threads posted, and never before this one did I realy have anything to say, but this one I was going to put in my 2 cents.
First of all I have been involved in two of the U.S. wars (Viet Nam and Iraq) and have been there and done that. I think most of you all have gotten your information from the main stream press and the such. I have talked to the real people and heard there stories and seen these things with my own eyes. They are very glade we came to Iraq and stayed. There lives are 110% better and Sadum had WMD's he used them on his own people The Kerds. He had training facilities for the thugs and punks we fight today and on 911 (where 3000 people died). How fast we forget we were attacked first over and over again. To me this is not war like. If these thugs have there way we on this site would be killed. The declared this Holly Jihad on the western world over 20 years ago and it wasn't till 911 that any president had the balls to take it to them. We tried 19 (count them) resolutions through the UN to keep this fro happening. We the United States of America spends more money on things to help other countries than any other :2cents: in the world even when were slaped in the face by them. I have my disagrements with our government, but go around the world and have the oppertunity to experience other governments and you won't be so fast to bitch at ours, and we are the ones that vote them in. I think you should listen as to why Isereal went on this rampage. They were attacked and 8 people were killed and 2 taken. All they asked was that they be returned and when they were not they went after them, but you know what they know they will be found like our tow soldires were beating to death with their eyes poked out and their private parts (balss and dick) stuffed in their mouths. So answer me this where was the ACLU and the main stream press and Michle Moore when this is going on. Why don't we just team up with Isreal and get this thing over with. I could go on and on but I think you are probley tired of listening from a combat vet.

To Furrycritter's husband,

You make a lot of points in your statement, but unfortunately, not a single one of them is correct. I don't know where you got the information you did, but let me make this very clear: IRAQ DID NOT ATTACK THE WORLD TRADE CENTER! Sorry to yell but it seems to be necessary with some people to make them actually see the words. Every feeble attempt to link Saddam Hussein with Al Qaeda had been debunked in no uncertain terms. If you want to attack the country the highjackers were from, then go after Saudi Arabia, you know, bush's friends.

When you mention that Hussein killed his own people why don't you mention that he got the chemical weapons to do so from the US under reagan's watch. In fact it was good old donald rumsfield himself who went to Iraq to cinch the deal.

You also ask where the ACLU, the main stream media and Micheal Moore were when Hezbollah kidnapped Isreali solders. As a member of the ACLU I want to make sure you know how very insulting it is for someone to insinuate that an organization dedicated to upholding the Constitution of the United States should for some reason be involved in the Middle East conflict. That is not only ignorant but remedially so. As for where the MSM was, they were reporting it with relish. As you know, if it bleeds, it leads. Where was Micheal Moore? Who the fuck cares? He's a film maker. A better question would be where was bush? Oh yeah, he was in Germany obsessing on getting his greedy little hands on a roast pig.

Lastly, please try to understand that just because you hold a viewpoint is no excuse to insult others who hold a different one. Other than that, welcome. :)

[timsgfdmo]

Orpheus,

How about Singapore as an example to follow? Since its independence this tiny city state has not been involved in wars that I am aware of. This tiny country has maintained its independence without force. Maybe the UK has a protection treaty. Still the UK would be a paper tiger in the far east. I would think Indonesia would really covet the port and banking facilities of Singapore so would be at risk.

[orpheus_lost]

Orpheus,

How about Singapore as an example to follow? Since its independence this tiny city state has not been involved in wars that I am aware of. This tiny country has maintained its independence without force. Maybe the UK has a protection treaty. Still the UK would be a paper tiger in the far east. I would think Indonesia would really covet the port and banking facilities of Singapore so would be at risk.

I'm afraid you have me on that one. I've never studied the history of Singapore so I can't make an intelligent comment on it.

I can promise you that I'll know quite a bit about it soon, though. :)

[huckingforny]

First let me start out by saying that I am the husband of furrycritter and not her, and then let me say that I have read many od the articles printed and threads posted, and never before this one did I realy have anything to say, but this one I was going to put in my 2 cents.
First of all I have been involved in two of the U.S. wars (Viet Nam and Iraq) and have been there and done that. I think most of you all have gotten your information from the main stream press and the such. I have talked to the real people and heard there stories and seen these things with my own eyes. They are very glade we came to Iraq and stayed. There lives are 110% better and Sadum had WMD's he used them on his own people The Kerds. He had training facilities for the thugs and punks we fight today and on 911 (where 3000 people died). How fast we forget we were attacked first over and over again. To me this is not war like. If these thugs have there way we on this site would be killed. The declared this Holly Jihad on the western world over 20 years ago and it wasn't till 911 that any president had the balls to take it to them. We tried 19 (count them) resolutions through the UN to keep this fro happening. We the United States of America spends more money on things to help other countries than any other :2cents: in the world even when were slaped in the face by them. I have my disagrements with our government, but go around the world and have the oppertunity to experience other governments and you won't be so fast to bitch at ours, and we are the ones that vote them in. I think you should listen as to why Isereal went on this rampage. They were attacked and 8 people were killed and 2 taken. All they asked was that they be returned and when they were not they went after them, but you know what they know they will be found like our tow soldires were beating to death with their eyes poked out and their private parts (balss and dick) stuffed in their mouths. So answer me this where was the ACLU and the main stream press and Michle Moore when this is going on. Why don't we just team up with Isreal and get this thing over with. I could go on and on but I think you are probley tired of listening from a combat vet.

Let me start by saying that even though I'm generally against war, I do have the utmost respect for the sacrifices made by those men and women who are willing to risk their lives for what they believe to be a greater good. I hope no one here is "tired of listening to a combat vet". I think most of us are so detached from war, it's important to hear what real soldiers have to say.

.......I'm sure there ARE people in Iraq who are happy that Saddam is gone. The problem is, there are also enough people who are MORE angry with the current US occupation to keep a brutal insurgency alive over there. In some ways, it's similar to American's own revolution in that the will of a relatively small number people determined the outcome of the entire nation. (most people weren't that unhappy with British rule). I guess my point is, the US government gave THESE people more reason to hate the US when they invaded Iraq. As a foreigner, I guess I'm continually baffled at the American government's apparent notion that only Americans can be patriotic. I like using this analogy: Let's say a lot of people were unhappy with Clinton at the beginning of his second term. So unhappy, they wished they didn't have to wait 4 more years for another election and they were protesting for him to resign. Do you think those people would be happy if Russia sent in their forces to "remove" the Clinton government? Probably not. Anything unpleasant that happened to the US after that would be blamed on Russia's interference......By removing Saddam without planning for the future, the US government made America a scapegoat for all the problems in Iraq that surfaced after his removal. That's the present. As for the past, Saddam did NOT have the WMD that the Bush Administration claimed he had, nor was he connected to Al-Queda. The US government has even admitted their intelligence was faulty since the 2004 election. Even if the intelligence was accurate, the point is, after talking so much about "democracy", Bush ignored the UN and invaded Iraq anyway. Yes, the resolutions were proving ineffective, but by ignoring the the UN, the Bush administration set a horrible example for the rest of the world. Why SHOULDN'T North Korea and Iran arm themselves if more military power means a country doesn't have to comply with the wishes of the rest of the world? For those who say the world is better off having a dictator like Saddam out of power, I ask why this administration has sat back and done nothing in Sudan after even American officials have gone as far as calling the situation genocide. (Let's not forget that Reagan administration sold chemical weapons to Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war). This government seems rather obsessed with amassing more power while sacrificing the lives of brave men and women who join the armed forces with a trust in their government that has been horribly abused over the last 3 years.
.......The Israel-Lebanon situation also angers me because yes, Hizbollah DID attack an IDF base and kidnap 2 soldiers, but they attacked a MILITARY installation. Israel's response has been disgustingly aggressive. They've bombed a civilian airport, bridges, power plants and killed many civilians in the process. Israel definitely has a right to protect itself and it's citizens, but destroying another country's electric and transportation infrastructure and killing civilians to respond to an attack on a military target goes far beyond that.

just MY 2 cents

[12voltman59]

SNAFU= Situation Normal, All Fucked Up

FUBAR= Fucked Up Beyond All Recognition

[biandu]

SNAFU= Situation Normal, All Fucked Up

FUBAR= Fucked Up Beyond All Recognition


thank you for that.. was wondering what the fuck those two acronyms stood for..lol.

[APMountianMan]

I guess I take exception to my country being called warlike. We are a caring country that often finds itself in the situation of being the defender of lesser countries that are subject to bullying from countries, or individuals within countries, that if left unchecked would cause greater evil than the resistance to such bullying that the US demonstrates.

It's easy to call the US warlike in a negative sense until the gun is pointed at your head. Europe benefited from years of US sacrifice when they felt threatened by the iron curtain. It wasn't Europe standing up to that threat that caused it to fall, it was the US standing between the threat and Europe.

So before you start a down with the US party, remember the world could be a lot worse off if not for the US. You think Hitler would have allowed the kind of freedom we see in the world today?

Yes, there are some things that I don't like about the US, but our stemming the tide of tyranny isn't one of them. In my view, as a super power we have done a pretty decent job in using that power for the forces of good.

:2cents: :cool:

[timsgfdmo]

AP,

You are ignoring that the US ALWAYS makes war to further its own agenda.

US made war on native Americans to steal their land.

US went to war against Britain in 1812 over impressment of sailors but also with eye on taking Canada.

US created incident for war with Mexico to take land that Mexico would not agree to sell to US

Civil War was failure of US political system to control fanatics(much like today with neocons). Political problem that democracy should solve was solved by 600,000 dead. Failure of Democracy.

Spanish-American War- US wanted to buy Cuba from Spain. Spain refused. US battleship goes to Cuba and explodes. Yellow press in America says it was a mine and stoke cause for war much like Bush and Iraq. Turns out it was coal dust explosion and an accident. US takes Cuba, Guam and Philippines as colonies.

WW1 US aids Britain in the war instead of maintaining neutrality. Germany warns US not to let Americans sail into the war zone becuase it is engaged in unrestricted submarine warfare. US ignores the warning Lusitania gets torpedoed while illegally carrying munitions and US joins the war.

30s Banana Republic Wars - US fights in Central America, Hawaii and Phillipines for commercal interests.

WWII- Japan had been engaged in a war in China and northern Indo-China for 10 years. Japan invades southern Indo-China and the US gives an ultimatum to get out of all the territory it had occupied for 10 years. This was an ultimatum Japan's govt could not meet and stay in power. A request to leave southern Indo-China immediately with talks about the rest might have got results. The ultimatum issued gave Japan's govt no choice but war. Impossible ultimatums without attempting to understand who your issuing ultimatums to is also a Bush and Israeli trademark. Germany was stupid and declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor. The Tripartite Pact was defensive and did not obligate Germany to declare war on the US. Huge blunder by Hitler only exceeded by attacking the USSR. Once again the US is in war because of failure of diplomacy. US feared that one European power would dominate Europe. It was in US strategic interest to defeat Germany or at least see that UK survived.

Vietnam Gulf of Tonkin. No more need be said about the lies that resulted in US fighting in Vietnam.

USSR invades Afghanistan after terrorist atacks on its advisors in Afghanistan. Some of these terrorists are the predecessors to current al-Quaida. USA who was determined to hurt the USSR aids the militant muslims ultimately resulting in 9/11. If we had left the Russians alone they might have stabilized their ancient allie and there might have been no 9/11.

AP I beg to differ on your theory. Since the beginning of time ALL countries go to war to protect their interests. These countries typically wrap that war in a blanket of a noble cause so as to get support from the people. The US never fights primarily for noble and selfless purposes. There were many in the Republican party who in the 30's favored Hitler and Mussolini because he brought order. People like Ford and Lindbergh and companies like IBM. The Republicans than as now favor order and hierarchy over freedom. Even so called humitarian wars are fought because The US at least untill Bush wanted stability in the world. Stability was thought to be good for business. Instability is good for the oil and war manufacturing businesses.

[taz67156]

I don't really think the US is warlike but the people we have put in office are the ones that think about getting us into wars where as other countries don't feel they want to be in a war unless they have to be but also third world countries have to get set straight with what they are doing. so everyone can think what they want about the US but don't hate the people instead hate our leaders cause they are the cause for our wars.

taz67156

[timsgfdmo]

Karl Von Clauswitz said "War is the continuation of politics by other means". What is occurring in Lebanon is proof of that. The US is letting the killing go on to further Bush's and Israel's goals of destroying Hezbollah regardless of the unintended consequences. Much like Iraq. I have heard Bush is going to give Israel a week before they send Rice. Bolton says there is no reason for a cease fire even thought the oldest reason in the world exists. Namely that of evacuating non-combatants and foreign nationals. Bolton and Bush care more about furthering their political agenda then protecting American life. Yet another failure of Bush to carry out his Constitutional duties and yet another reason added to the list for reasons to impeach.

[Avocado]

I don't really think the US is anymore aggressive than any other country. Let me give you an analogy - in football (the one where you use your foot to kick a ball) the big clubs in England are Chav$ki, Liverhoof, Manure and Arsenal. Whenever a player from one of these teams dives in the opposition's penalty area to get a penalty kick, the country is up in arms at the typical cheating of the big club. Now then, a couple of seasons ago, Matt Holland dives for Charlton against us to get a penalty - nothing is said. See the analogy? No-one says anything when a none Super Power goes to war. The US is also seen as capitalist - go to Japan, it's all about money there. Fair trials? Forget it - the judges there have 99.9% conviction rates. It's all about money, failure is not an option. Also don't post on here if you live under Saddam, and burn those rainbows and triangles before anyone sees them.

Which brings me to another point. You cannot look at the world simply as war or not war. What if Jerry (by this I mean Hitler, I hope I haven't misunderstood the term) didn't invade Poland? Would that make him peace-loving? Granted he gassed a load of Jews etc but what the hell! We have to respect other governments murdering cultures don't we, who are we to criticise them if we're not Muslim! War can result in good things such as getting rid of Hitler and the even worse Hirohito. For the record I oppose the bombings of Dresden, Tokyo and Hamburg and the dropping of the atomic bombs.

Am I in favour of the war on terror? I was in favour of the war in Afghanistan and against the war in Iraq. When that shi'ite festival was attacked by the insurgants and the anti-war movement blamed the Coalition I started to wonder what a movement I had been part of was really all about. I thought that leaving Iraq to the insurgents would leave its people in the shit, but then life under Saddam wasn't Rosie either. Between the invasion and the London bombings I learnt of honour killings in Britain.

July the 7th came. That was the final straw. I was now in favour of the war on terror.I had marched against that war in Iraq and to Al-Qaeda that counted for fuck all. Well fuck 'em. They mentioned the election when they had never lived under the Tories in England or the Lib Dems in Islington in their lives.

But then the Afghanistan government the US had installed tried to execute a man for converting to Christianity. Now I'm all for a war to remove dictators who butcher their own people but replacing like for like? I'm not so sure. I also don't like what various rogues have been doing (Haditha etc) although at least we punish them rather than praise them for it. I also think it's time to cut loose from supporting Israel - you don't target a civilian airport like that. I also want to see Guantanamo shut down, the British government stop blindly trusting the US (eg torture flights) and an equalising of extradition laws between the 2 countries.

As for the war on terror if it's to go on it should be done to replace Tyrranous regimes, not swap like for like. Otherwise I feel it should stop.

[timsgfdmo]

Avocado,

The problem is that any country that wants to go to war can find a "good" cause to wrap it in to inspire there citizens to fight. to paraphrase Herman Goerring on his death bed, Any govt whether it is a democracy, monarchy or dictatorship can get their citizens to go to war by saying they are under attack or at risk. The poor sap that goes to fight the best he can hope for is to return alive to his farm. Meanwhile the wealthy stay behind and reap the benefits of the real cause for the war. The oly hope humanity has is to end all war. Slavery was recognized as an evil and for the most part eliminated. At one time the idea of eliminating slavery was seen as inmoral and impossible. The world is better now that it is most gone.

Wars are the results of the failure of government and diplomacy. Yet govt never pays the price because they are the elite and never go fight. The PEOPLE of the world need to unite against the elites and say no to poverty, no to war and no to environmental destruction. PEOPLE need to see their loyalty to other common people and not flags and govt. Unquestioned loyalty to govt and flags is right out of the middle ages. Govt works for the elites and the corporations they dont give a damn about me or you except as to what they can get out of us. Why go fight for an entity that has no regard for you?

Lastly I dont think war should be compared to a game.

[Avocado]

Avocado,

The problem is that any country that wants to go to war can find a "good" cause to wrap it in to inspire there citizens to fight. to paraphrase Herman Goerring on his death bed, Any govt whether it is a democracy, monarchy or dictatorship can get their citizens to go to war by saying they are under attack or at risk. The poor sap that goes to fight the best he can hope for is to return alive to his farm. Meanwhile the wealthy stay behind and reap the benefits of the real cause for the war. The oly hope humanity has is to end all war. Slavery was recognized as an evil and for the most part eliminated. At one time the idea of eliminating slavery was seen as inmoral and impossible. The world is better now that it is most gone.

Wars are the results of the failure of government and diplomacy. Yet govt never pays the price because they are the elite and never go fight. The PEOPLE of the world need to unite against the elites and say no to poverty, no to war and no to environmental destruction. PEOPLE need to see their loyalty to other common people and not flags and govt. Unquestioned loyalty to govt and flags is right out of the middle ages. Govt works for the elites and the corporations they dont give a damn about me or you except as to what they can get out of us. Why go fight for an entity that has no regard for you?

Lastly I dont think war should be compared to a game.

I wasn't comparing it to a game I was using an analogy to pinpoint how people see things, they see the big man doing things and when the little man does it, or worse, they don't see it. Please don't put words in my mouth.

In an ideal world I agree that it would be good if there was no war. However war is not the only criterior to measure things by. Perhaps if you lived in a country where you got tortured then killed because of your skin colour, gender, or - yes, your sexuality - you wouldn't feel allowing this to happen was worth it just for the sake of there not being war.

Lastly, you have a point when you say that every government tries to justify going to war. The problem with that point is, however, is that while alot of the time these governments are wrong to think going to war is justified, a little bit of the time, a few of these governments, are right to think so.

[aliasalias]

I really do not want to get in to what I think about the USA's foreign policy (not being American), but would recommend that anyone interested in learning more should definitely watch this:

"Robert Newman's History of Oil".

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7374585792978336967

Don't worry, it is not as boring as it sounds. It is very funny and well worth watching.

Although if it is accurate, than we should all be very concerned.

[timsgfdmo]

Avocado,

Sorry did not mean to misconstrue your thoughts. I just get so pissed off with what is going on in the USA and world. It is like the majority of the population refuses to learn the lessons from unlimited war (WWII). It seems the majority is also ok with unequal treatment of people. I just will never understand it. It seems the world is in a cycle of war untill the world is destroyed. Human beings just cant learn the important lessons.

I just think that war will be a thing of history and never to be conducted again if there can never be any justification for using it to solve problems. It should be the same as nuclear weapons. Except for nut jobs like Bush no country seriously advocates using nukes to solve problems no matter how bad the problem.

You mention that war to stop Hitler was good. The war to stop him was very costly in human life and money. How about this scenario to stop a modern Hitler. The International Criminal Court should have jurisdiction over the entire world. It is shameful that the US will not sign on. The ICC should be staffed by legally trained bureacrats who uniformly apply clear laws to all nations. Hitler was known to be dangerous to segments of his own population prior to him having a powerful military. So a modern Hitler would be caught early. He would be indicted by the ICC. He would be told to present himself for trial. If he refused teams of agents would work to arrest him or kill him. I could justify killing him by saying that he was given a chance to present himself for trial. If I still could not get him there would be an international embargo of all nonessential goods including weapons. Use of military force could only be used if authorized by the UN Security Council. No country could veto a resolution of there would be provision for overriding vetos. Use of force by a nation to respond to attacks would be legal as is currently trues under article 51.

Lastly international sales of weapons would not be allowed. It should be abolished like the international slave trade was abolished. A country could only arm itself with weapons it could produce on its own. US is biggest international arms seller in the world and contributes ot the problem of instability. We sell F-16s to Pakistan. India gripes so we sell F-16s to them. Do we really want to arm the nuke powers of India and Pakistan? Israel wouldnt be able to use F-16s to drop 1000 lb bombs on apt complexes or use US made helicopter gunships to strafe streets. In that situation Israel and its neighbors might be more inclined to find a peaceful way to live together.

[mrplayfuluk]

are Republican governments more warlike than Democrat governments? there must be historical track records of irrefutable evidence... or Do the Democrats inherit Republicans wars? this could prove interesting.....

[pecker]

Is this your first day in the USA?Every conflict that we have been in has made you the free person that you are!You're able to ask these questions that that you ask because of our involvement in these conflicts or wars.This site that your enjoying is called Freedom!Did you wear millitary cloths and protest Vietnam,Gulf War,Or are you going to protest the middle east problem?Thank God you wasn't with me in Vietnam.You need to research the country that you live in.Love it or leave it!!!!!!!!!!

[orpheus_lost]

Is this your first day in the USA?Every conflict that we have been in has made you the free person that you are!You're able to ask these questions that that you ask because of our involvement in these conflicts or wars.This site that your enjoying is called Freedom!Did you wear millitary cloths and protest Vietnam,Gulf War,Or are you going to protest the middle east problem?Thank God you wasn't with me in Vietnam.You need to research the country that you live in.Love it or leave it!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry Pecker just not true at all. While some wars have been necessary to protect our freedoms(WWII come to mind), others such as Spanish-American, Vietnam, and certainly this illbegotten Iraq War have not. The Iraq War has actually cost us many freedoms with bush violating the Constitution's guarantees of privacy and search/siezure.

I'd also like to point out the asinine way you've told the majority of this country who do not support the illegal war in Iraq to either shut up or leave the US. We have every right and responsibility to voice our objections and if you don't like it you have the right and responsibility to do the same. To suggest we leave, however, is not only arrogant but rediculously stupid. If you don't like United States citizens exercising their Constitutional rights of Freedom of Expression and the Right to Assembly, then maybe it's you who has found himself in the wrong country. I usually respect other people's opinions, but when I read garbage like you've just posted I really can't say I do.

[timsgfdmo]

Is this your first day in the USA?Every conflict that we have been in has made you the free person that you are!You're able to ask these questions that that you ask because of our involvement in these conflicts or wars.This site that your enjoying is called Freedom!Did you wear millitary cloths and protest Vietnam,Gulf War,Or are you going to protest the middle east problem?Thank God you wasn't with me in Vietnam.You need to research the country that you live in.Love it or leave it!!!!!!!!!!

LOL, Vietnam? Yeah history proved that was a war that had no effect on US security or freedom. Three milion Vietnamese and 58,000 American dead. How many hundreds of thousands paralyzed or missing limbs or psychologically wrecked? Most of the homeless in America are Vietnam vets. Wonder how many people in prison are Vietnam vets. All the Vietnamese with birth defects form agent orange. I guess you like to fight any war neccessary or not? Do always believe everything govt tells you or do you think critically too?

Blindly following orders or unthinkingly accepting explanations is not patriotic or democratic. A dictatorship loves to have uninformed and unthinking followers. A democracy has to have citizens who stay informed and think for themselves. With all the facts available about Vietnam to assert today that it was essential for freedom is to not assess the facts and reach a logical conclusion.

[pecker]

It's pretty obvious to me that you have never seen suffering of other people,weather or not they are of our origin or from a country that everyone could care less about!When men. women and children are killed because they don't agree with a dominant group and ask for help from us[USA] to go to there aide,you can call me stupid all day long.I'll be there.I think I'll stay here to keep you free,or maybe I shouldn't care about you either!

[Azrael]

It's pretty obvious to me that you have never seen suffering of other people,weather or not they are of our origin or from a country that everyone could care less about!When men. women and children are killed because they don't agree with a dominant group and ask for help from us[USA] to go to there aide,you can call me stupid all day long.I'll be there.I think I'll stay here to keep you free,or maybe I shouldn't care about you either!
It's noble that you want to help others. That said, chillax yourself. The America you so prize is founded on the right to dissent. Freedom of speech means EVERYONE, even criminals and the "insane".
Here's something for you to chew on, from the mouth of a highly intelligent nazi shithead:
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

[12voltman59]

Got to add my :2cents: to this discussion--

no matter how one spins it--the "war" in Iraq has been an abject failure by nearly every objective standard--it has not brought more peace or prosperity to the people of Iraq--albeit--Saddam is gone but what now--a civil war between and amongst the Shiites, the Sunnis and the Kurds--with the bulk of Iraq coming under the sphere of influence of Iran---the Iraqi people now have less security than they did under Saddam, less electricity and other basic infrastructure systems than they did prior to our deposing Saddam....they now have terrorist groups operating in and from the country that Saddam had kept out---Oh yeah--great fucking thing we did..

We have mounting casualties, most of the casualities in this "war" have taken place since old Georgie boy donned his flight suit and pulled that Karl Rove photo op stunt of flying out to that carrier and announcing "Mission Accomplished" and what a great line to the terrorist elements Bush uttered back in those days: "Bring it On" ---they sure as hell did bring it on....

The worst thing other than the deaths of our young men and women--so many have lost limbs and worse, like having first degree burns over 90 percent of their bodies--most of these severe injuries that will haunt these folks for the rest of their days are thanks to the IED's (improvised explosive devices) that the insurgents so cunningly have made use.

As far as the fact that we have not had any further attacks here in the US--well all that means is that the other shoe has yet to fall--as far as Al Queda is concerned--they want big, wrenching events to take place--they are most likely planning the next attack as we speak and we are threatened by Hezzbollah cells here in the US now that our Israeli friends are undertaking their actions in the mideast.

We are also creating a whole new breed of those who hate us over in that part of the world----something that future generations will be paying for dearly, for one of the dictums many of those in that part of the world follow is: "Revenge is a dish best served cold..."

The Sunnis and Shiites are still fighting over the disputes their respective leaders had 800 years ago as if it were yesterday--these folks never forget a slight---we will pay and pay and pay for this "war."

Your grandkids and their grandkids will be paying the piper for this ill advised misadventure--one person who said it would unwise to get really deep into Iraq militarily--George Herbert Walker Bush--old #41 himself--the son should have listened to daddy instead of being suckered by the neo-Cons--Clinton resisted them...

[timsgfdmo]

It's pretty obvious to me that you have never seen suffering of other people,weather or not they are of our origin or from a country that everyone could care less about!When men. women and children are killed because they don't agree with a dominant group and ask for help from us[USA] to go to there aide,you can call me stupid all day long.I'll be there.I think I'll stay here to keep you free,or maybe I shouldn't care about you either!

I have been all over the world and seen countries more prosperous than the US and many less prosperous. So you want to bankrupt the govt by it being Superman to the world? Even the UK at the height of its empire with resources from India, Canada, Australia, Egypt etc could not save the world from despots or poverty. Why do you think the US can do that? Poverty is rising in the US. How about the US focusing on our own poor? The US is going to spend 500 billion dollars in Iraq if it ends next year. I am willing to bet you are one of the guys who want lower taxes. Are you willing to pay for worldwide Superman operations? So far the cost of Iraq has been deferred to our children. How much debt do you want to give them?

Lastly the US does not invade coutries to save people. It does so because of its own economic and commercial interests. Ask the Iraqis how great US brand freedom is? If your dead freedom doesnt matter. I believe Bush offered Russia Iraqi style freedom. Him and the entire audience broke out in laughter at the ridiculous Bush.

[Avocado]

Got to add my :2cents: to this discussion--

no matter how one spins it--the "war" in Iraq has been an abject failure by nearly every objective standard--it has not brought more peace or prosperity to the people of Iraq--albeit--Saddam is gone but what now--a civil war between and amongst the Shiites, the Sunnis and the Kurds--with the bulk of Iraq coming under the sphere of influence of Iran---the Iraqi people now have less security than they did under Saddam, less electricity and other basic infrastructure systems than they did prior to our deposing Saddam....they now have terrorist groups operating in and from the country that Saddam had kept out---Oh yeah--great fucking thing we did..

We have mounting casualties, most of the casualities in this "war" have taken place since old Georgie boy donned his flight suit and pulled that Karl Rove photo op stunt of flying out to that carrier and announcing "Mission Accomplished" and what a great line to the terrorist elements Bush uttered back in those days: "Bring it On" ---they sure as hell did bring it on....

The worst thing other than the deaths of our young men and women--so many have lost limbs and worse, like having first degree burns over 90 percent of their bodies--most of these severe injuries that will haunt these folks for the rest of their days are thanks to the IED's (improvised explosive devices) that the insurgents so cunningly have made use.

As far as the fact that we have not had any further attacks here in the US--well all that means is that the other shoe has yet to fall--as far as Al Queda is concerned--they want big, wrenching events to take place--they are most likely planning the next attack as we speak and we are threatened by Hezzbollah cells here in the US now that our Israeli friends are undertaking their actions in the mideast.

We are also creating a whole new breed of those who hate us over in that part of the world----something that future generations will be paying for dearly, for one of the dictums many of those in that part of the world follow is: "Revenge is a dish best served cold..."

The Sunnis and Shiites are still fighting over the disputes their respective leaders had 800 years ago as if it were yesterday--these folks never forget a slight---we will pay and pay and pay for this "war."

Your grandkids and their grandkids will be paying the piper for this ill advised misadventure--one person who said it would unwise to get really deep into Iraq militarily--George Herbert Walker Bush--old #41 himself--the son should have listened to daddy instead of being suckered by the neo-Cons--Clinton resisted them...

I'm not saying any of this makes the war justified, but there have been plenty of neo-Nazi incidents since the 2nd World War - one of these "insurgencies" killed people in a pub in Soho not so long ago. Does that mean we "lost" World War 2? Obviously one-off incidents and the insurgency in Iraq are completely different kettles of fish, but perhaps you're thinking what the insurgency wants you to think? Saddam was a vile leader, and the insurgants give no shits about freedom, arabs, Iraqis, Kurds, Sunnis or Shi'ites.

As for the terrorist threat, you said it yourself they don't forget. They haven't forgot the crusades (although forgetting it was the Ottomans who started it seems to come easier to them). If you think all the terrorists want is for these wars and even the world's economic system to stop you're wrong. I don't have any resources about the quotes of Al-Qaeda to hand, but put it this way: do the IRA bomb Dublin because Ahern's too moderate? Someone was quoted last year as saying "if there's a contradiction between British law and Sharia law British law can go to hell". There's also someone from Tottenham (talk about walking round Tottenham!) who wants to turn Britain into a Sharia state. And don't get me started on honour killings. Also countries which take part in the war on terror are the ones that are being targeted - those which don't will be next if they fall though. Lastly what's been caused has happened, what's been prevented has not. I'd far rather a few bombs went off here than be invaded.

[orpheus_lost]

As for the terrorist threat, you said it yourself they don't forget. They haven't forgot the crusades (although forgetting it was the Ottomans who started it seems to come easier to them).

Maybe it's we who should be remembering the crusades and their eventual outcome. It was Pope Urban II who called for the crusades in response to an appeal from emporer Micheal of the Byzantine Empire in 1192. The Ottomans, who you claim started the crusades did not come into formation as a military entity until circa 1300. The Muslims who were encroaching on Byzantine territory were not doing so for religious reasons but for economic ones, the same reason the earlier Romans had taken the land from them to begin with.

During Muslim rule, before the crusades, Muslims, Jews, and Christians were free to worship as the liked in Arab owned lands. It was only after the Europeans, in the name of Christianity, came to the Middle East, slaughtered countless Arabs, and imposed their religion on everyone within their newly established realms that things changed. By the time the crusades were abandoned in the late 1300's the Europeans had created such hatred in that region that tolerance was forever abandoned.

I agree that we should learn lessons from history. To me, the first lesson from the crusades should be that you don't invade other countries and impose your version of a better life upon them. Cultures throughout the world are different and we must let them come to their own decisions on how to run their governments and lives. If Iraq or Afghanistan wish to impose Sharia law in their countries they have that right. It's a repulsive law to me, but its not our place to change it, at least not through war.

[Avocado]

Maybe it's we who should be remembering the crusades and their eventual outcome. It was Pope Urban II who called for the crusades in response to an appeal from emporer Micheal of the Byzantine Empire in 1192. The Ottomans, who you claim started the crusades did not come into formation as a military entity until circa 1300. The Muslims who were encroaching on Byzantine territory were not doing so for religious reasons but for economic ones, the same reason the earlier Romans had taken the land from them to begin with.

During Muslim rule, before the crusades, Muslims, Jews, and Christians were free to worship as the liked in Arab owned lands. It was only after the Europeans, in the name of Christianity, came to the Middle East, slaughtered countless Arabs, and imposed their religion on everyone within their newly established realms that things changed. By the time the crusades were abandoned in the late 1300's the Europeans had created such hatred in that region that tolerance was forever abandoned.

I agree that we should learn lessons from history. To me, the first lesson from the crusades should be that you don't invade other countries and impose your version of a better life upon them. Cultures throughout the world are different and we must let them come to their own decisions on how to run their governments and lives. If Iraq or Afghanistan wish to impose Sharia law in their countries they have that right. It's a repulsive law to me, but its not our place to change it, at least not through war.

I didn't know that about the crusades. Even if it had been the Ottomans who started it, I believe the actions of the West during the crusades were unjustified either way. However the point I'm making is that we are still blamed for the crusades. I don't agree with you that anyone has the right to infringe on someone else's human rights in the name of sovereignty or respecting cultures. The Klu Klux Klan have a culture, the Nazis had a culture - and I respect neither culture. The right to not be intefered with comes with the responsibility to not interfere yourself. If you want other countries to respect your sovereignty, you must earn that right by respecting the sovereignty of your citizens.

[whichway06]

The biggest problem for the U.S. is this world economy, how can you expect the U.S. to not be involved in so many conflicts when we are so dependent on other countries? Most U.S. wars are about our ecomony, every time you hear a president say we must protect our interests they are talking about oil and many other goods that the U.S. depends on.
Due to our passion for freedom we have been involved in other counties civil wars to help protect people from brutal governments which this world is full of. The U.S. has been attacked many times and we fought for our freedom from brutal governments. Warlike, in what sense are you speaking? War sucks plain and simple but man cannot live without conflicts. If every country on earth could live and mind their own business then we could live in a world without war, not going to happen.
In the U.S. we have the right to control our government but the people have failed to do so since the end of WWII. The U.S. is about split in half, those that have a great passion for freedom and those that could careless if the government enslaves them. But you know what? this is getting off in another direction so I will stop. In the futuer lets stick to what we are here for, bisexual life ok.

[DÆMØN]

Personally I think its past time the US and other countries put the culture of the gun to rest once and for all. BAN BULLETS ! There allready is too much death in the world as it is without creating more. Didn't anyone learn a single thing from the last World War?

[timsgfdmo]

The biggest problem for the U.S. is this world economy, how can you expect the U.S. to not be involved in so many conflicts when we are so dependent on other countries? Most U.S. wars are about our ecomony, every time you hear a president say we must protect our interests they are talking about oil and many other goods that the U.S. depends on.
Due to our passion for freedom we have been involved in other counties civil wars to help protect people from brutal governments which this world is full of. The U.S. has been attacked many times and we fought for our freedom from brutal governments. Warlike, in what sense are you speaking? War sucks plain and simple but man cannot live without conflicts. If every country on earth could live and mind their own business then we could live in a world without war, not going to happen.
In the U.S. we have the right to control our government but the people have failed to do so since the end of WWII. The U.S. is about split in half, those that have a great passion for freedom and those that could careless if the government enslaves them. But you know what? this is getting off in another direction so I will stop. In the futuer lets stick to what we are here for, bisexual life ok.

There are many countries who are major players in international trade that dont fight wars: Sweden, Switzerland, Singapore, Finland, Demark, Netherlands, South Korea, Japan, Thailand countries of South America. A country does not have to invade other countries to do international trade.

[whichway06]

Thank you for making my point, all those countries you listed rely on U.S. presance around the world for their security in world trade. We have just stepped up our protecting for Japan. The U.S. is in the security business to protect world trade, mostly for ourselves. If you cannot understand how this is going to keep us in war after war then I do not know what else can be said.

[timsgfdmo]

Thank you for making my point, all those countries you listed rely on U.S. presance around the world for their security in world trade. We have just stepped up our protecting for Japan. The U.S. is in the security business to protect world trade, mostly for ourselves. If you cannot understand how this is going to keep us in war after war then I do not know what else can be said.

So you think the US would take military acts to favor Japanese, Swiss, or other national business interests over American? Is the US protecting Chinese interests? If you look at how Iraqi oil fields are being allocated US companies are the ones benefitting from the Iraq war. When Hussein was in power he dealt only with Russia and France. Now the US oil companies get a piece.

Smart countries protect their own interests without bankrupting their people. They do not rely on the US policeman. They do buisness and get along with their neighbors. From 1945 to 1990 the US protected its oil interests in the Persian Gulf with a small force of naval assets. The Persian Gulf was largely free of conflict and oil prices remained low as compared to today. So considering how expensive oil is due to the conflict in the Persian Gulf tell me exactly how that conflict facilitates trade? . Since the US took the provocative act of permanently stationing land forces in the Persian Gulf al-Quaida became our enemy. Prior to 1991 there were no al-Quaida attacks on the US. Since 1991 there have been many. Bin-Ladin told the Saudi King in 1990 that once American troops arrived they would never leave. It pissed him off to have infidel troops in the Moslem holy land of Saudia Arabia. Ground forces in the Persian Gulf creates the problems. Hezbollah first attacked the US after we put ground troops in Lebanon. The time for stationing troops in other countries is over. Didnt we tell Syria to take its troops out of Lebanon. What would the US do if China stained troops in Central or South America?

Also if the rest of the world wants the US as the world's policeman why dont they subsidize us? I have traveled over seas and the hugely majority opinion from even traditional US allies is for the US to but out of other peoples business. As an American it should piss you off that we should spend $500 billion and lose over 2,000 lives to benefit other countries. Britain tried to be the world's policeman and bankrupted its empire in the process. How many American lives and billions of dollars do you want to spend on this policeman role? Meanwhile while we spend ourselves dry China, Russia and the EU grow. The USSR bankrupted itself trying to occupy Afganistan. The US is on that same road to bankruptcy in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is money and human life pit with no bottom. Remember the interest rates of the 70s? They were largely a part of trying to pay off Vietnam war debt. Are you willing to die or send your children to die to protect Chinese, Japanese or other nations business interests? War is a choice. Pro-war people always make it seem like in every war there is no choice.

Most importantly your post does nothing to explain all the US wars before we were a world power. Please use your theory to explain those wars.

[JohnnyV]

Pro-war people always make it seem like in every war there is no choice.

Tim,

That's part of the rhetoric of war, and I've come to live with it. I've learned how to tune out CNN when they interview "experts" who always come up with the same conclusion, with the same superficial air of solemn regret --

"We don't want to kill people, but it is our only option."

People love hearing that sentence and will do anything they can -- even rearrange reality or contrive situations -- in order to get to the point where they get to say it. Nine times out of ten, they wanted to kill people all along but killing wasn't an option until just now, after they've succeeded in a major propaganda campaign.

In the last week, we've been able to feast on this hypocrisy listening to Hezbollah and Israel's leaders go back and forth with the same crap they've been saying for 60 years. The Israeli military has wanted to eliminate the threat of poor, angry Arabs at their borders ever since they got to the region in 1948; the fact that splinter groups of extremists and pockets of terrorists happen to be crazy enough to give Israel their justification is really just a red herring. Once again a pro-Israeli "expert" from a right-wing think tank said, "if Israel stops now, then Israel will cease to exist." Which is completely historionic bull doo-doo; what really means to say is, "if Israel keeps on going, Lebanon will cease to exist (which is what we wanted all along)."

Eventually the only thing you can do, as a citizen of the world, is try to excavate as many images as you can to set the balances of information right, so at least we can get a good handle on what the truth is beneath the layers of falsehood.

Since the US news has completely overloaded us with the images of Israelis being attacked, you have to go to the Internet to see the devastation to Arabs all over Lebanon. It's very gruesome, and their death toll, over 10 times that of Israel, is almost all civilian. Maybe if we can get the images out there, then the lame rationale we hear "we had no other choice" will lose its strength. In a sense, as much as the Arab press bothers us, al-Jazeera did wonders to keep the US accountable; the same needs to happen in conflicts everywhere.

Alas, though, I am not on the anti-US bandwagon right now. There are far more aggressive countries, like Israel and what was Iraq, that constantly antagonize their neighbors in an immature cycle of "no, you started it" "no, you did." Any country that can commit aggression to get what it wants probably will. Israel and the US are prime cases. I think it's not a reflection of any people's character; just circumstance. And that makes me feel better about the USA.

God bless America!
J

[timsgfdmo]

If the US is the world policeman then why is it not intervening in Lebanon?

Is this a police officer who subjectively enforces the law? So what determines that subjectivity? Is it that it enforces the law only if it is in the US interest? If the later is the case than the US has learned nothing from WWI and WWII and the world is condemed to repeat those diasters but with much more destructive weapons. Also if that is the case then the US is not a policeman. It is more like a mafia thug. I would like to think the world could have learned the lessons from WWI and II without having to repeat the mistakes. Obviously the US did not learn the lesson of Vietnam.

[orpheus_lost]

I didn't know that about the crusades. Even if it had been the Ottomans who started it, I believe the actions of the West during the crusades were unjustified either way. However the point I'm making is that we are still blamed for the crusades. I don't agree with you that anyone has the right to infringe on someone else's human rights in the name of sovereignty or respecting cultures. The Klu Klux Klan have a culture, the Nazis had a culture - and I respect neither culture. The right to not be intefered with comes with the responsibility to not interfere yourself. If you want other countries to respect your sovereignty, you must earn that right by respecting the sovereignty of your citizens.

But who gets to decide which countries are respecting it's people and which one's aren't? The United States is always listed as a human rights violator by Amnesty International just as Iran is. We have countless cases arise each year of false imprisonment, police brutality, harrassment by our government, religious intolerance, discriminatory laws, and so on. This doesn't even include the abuses at Gitanamo or the torture, rape, and murder at Abu Ghraib.

I don't respect cultures that harm people for their race, religion, or sexual orientation either, but charging in and trying to change a cultural trait has been proven impossible. The only thing it accomplishes is getting a lot of people killed. We attacked Afghanistan (rightly so) but their culture didn't change. We attacked Iraq (wrongly) and they got even worse. Our interventions in Somalia didn't help any more than our meddling with Chile, Haiti, Cuba, Uganda, Liberia, etc....

As for your examples of cultures that we should have stopped, I don't find them very useful for this discussion. The Nazis were a political operation, not a cultural one. We didn't declare war on Germany because of their treatment of Jews and homosexuals, they declared war on us after Japan initiated an Act of War by bombing US territory. The Klan is definitely a cultural purity organization, but we allow them to form freely and they have a Constitutional right to assemble and speak freely so long as they do not break any of the laws of their state or the US government. The same goes for fundamentalist Christians and ultra right wingers of all stripes who generally believe the same things as the KKK. While we can rein in the KKK because they do have to abide by our laws, other countries are under no such obligation.

We can't be the policeman to the world. It just doesn't work. In order to move against another country for purely internal operations, there has to be an overwhelming cause, such as genocide. Anything else smacks of imperialism even if the countries in question aren't co-opted.

[LouiseBrookslover]

Not necessarily my opinion, but I've read a few articles that have a theory on this. The regions of this country now refered to as "red state" in attitude are often heavily populated with descendents of the Scots-Irish, cultures that tended to be willful, quarrelsome, militaristic, fiercely independent, provincial, distrustful of outsider culture, and intolerant of outsiders. These pockets have been very, very influential in the formation of America's political culture, and their attitudes have often been profoundly mystifying to the elites of the East, and certainly the inhabitants of Europe. Think Andrew Jackson and Ronald Reagan, both descendents of these cultures.

Of course, I am of the firm belief that people are people. But cultures do have an influence, particularly when a person is born into such a culture and never sees anything else.

[timsgfdmo]

Thank you Louise for a different and interesting approach to this question. I had heard that somewhere before as well. At the time I did not put much stock in it. I am reconsidering that idea now that nothing else really makes sense in explaining it other than greed.

You may be on to something. Amercan culture glorifies the ethic that force or power is always good enough by itself to justify action. It is acceptable because I say it is acceptable and I have the power to back it up. That use of force and power is used daily in the workplace. What American hasnt heard I dont care if there is a better way to do this I am the boss and what I say goes? Hopefully not many in here have said that phrase. Who has had a new boss come in and change procedures without first seeing if the current way works more efficiently? I have heard bosses say well this is what I am used to so this is how it will be done. It seems arrogant to make everyone else change if the new way is not more efficent just to make the new boss comfortable but it does fit the idea of American use of power or force.

I had a cousin who worked as an accountant for over 15 years for the city. She got a new boss who did not like her for personal reasons and chased her off. I mean 15 years she must have knew her job. I had same thing happen to me once. Me and 60% of the professional staff was chased off by a new boss in 18 months. Prior to his arrival our district had lowest turnover in the state. After he got there with his "my way or the highway approach" he could not keep employees. Is this managment style common in other countries?

[Avocado]

What the fuck is wrong with Israel?! A few of their military get attacked and they bomb a civilian airport. What the fuck is Blair doing justifying it as well? If a few Al-Qaeda fighters got attacked would Blair say that justified the London bombings? Now, I'm against plenty of wars and I'm in favour of a few. In wars civilians will die, but you cannot justify TARGETING innocent civilians the way Israel has. To fight a war against terrorism, you've got to first not be a terrorist yourself. By all means fight a war you think is justified, but if you TARGET innocent civilians you're just as bad as Al-Qaeda.

[joe2171]

Wow I can't believe you actually end your "statement" saying that because you have a viewpoint is no excuse to insult others who have a different one, and your entire point is nothing other than than the usual vitriolic diatribe that does nothing other than bash Bush and everything happening militarily in the world today. I am an Independent who mostly votes Democrat, but it is the screaming liberals and their culture of intolerance(toward the other, larger half of the country), which made me cut all my official ties with the mainstream democratic party, and go independent. I don't like Bush, I don't like our foreign policy, but I at least have the sense and the realism to see that increasingly leftist and marginalized organizations like the ACLU will not be the cures to our ills. And just for the record I am a combat vet, who just returned from Iraq and any talk that "some" of the people there want us there and need us there is ridiculous, its only in those certain small towns where "they" operate out of for a short time then move on that they don't want us to be there. It is the syrians and the Iranians who are there to fight us(both countries directly involved with 911), that are causing all the problems and killing all the Iraqi civilians, the rest of the country welcomed us with open arms, something else not shown in the MSM, as you said if it bleeds it leads. I guess when we build schools and waterways and sewersystems and electrical power stations and all the other things we build there it isnt important enough to get in the news. And my last point is that at least some people are not just speaking their opinions based on what they read in the paper and heard on the news, some people can actually speak from experience as well as knowledge when they talk of certain things like the war in Iraq, and those peoples opinions are of course worth no more than anyone elses but they worked a lot harder and risked a lot more to have the basis for those opinions.
To Furrycritter's husband,

You make a lot of points in your statement, but unfortunately, not a single one of them is correct. I don't know where you got the information you did, but let me make this very clear: IRAQ DID NOT ATTACK THE WORLD TRADE CENTER! Sorry to yell but it seems to be necessary with some people to make them actually see the words. Every feeble attempt to link Saddam Hussein with Al Qaeda had been debunked in no uncertain terms. If you want to attack the country the highjackers were from, then go after Saudi Arabia, you know, bush's friends.

When you mention that Hussein killed his own people why don't you mention that he got the chemical weapons to do so from the US under reagan's watch. In fact it was good old donald rumsfield himself who went to Iraq to cinch the deal.

You also ask where the ACLU, the main stream media and Micheal Moore were when Hezbollah kidnapped Isreali solders. As a member of the ACLU I want to make sure you know how very insulting it is for someone to insinuate that an organization dedicated to upholding the Constitution of the United States should for some reason be involved in the Middle East conflict. That is not only ignorant but remedially so. As for where the MSM was, they were reporting it with relish. As you know, if it bleeds, it leads. Where was Micheal Moore? Who the fuck cares? He's a film maker. A better question would be where was bush? Oh yeah, he was in Germany obsessing on getting his greedy little hands on a roast pig.

Lastly, please try to understand that just because you hold a viewpoint is no excuse to insult others who hold a different one. Other than that, welcome. :)

[orpheus_lost]

Wow I can't believe you actually end your "statement" saying that because you have a viewpoint is no excuse to insult others who have a different one, and your entire point is nothing other than than the usual vitriolic diatribe that does nothing other than bash Bush and everything happening militarily in the world today. I am an Independent who mostly votes Democrat, but it is the screaming liberals and their culture of intolerance(toward the other, larger half of the country), which made me cut all my official ties with the mainstream democratic party, and go independent. I don't like Bush, I don't like our foreign policy, but I at least have the sense and the realism to see that increasingly leftist and marginalized organizations like the ACLU will not be the cures to our ills. And just for the record I am a combat vet, who just returned from Iraq and any talk that "some" of the people there want us there and need us there is ridiculous, its only in those certain small towns where "they" operate out of for a short time then move on that they don't want us to be there. It is the syrians and the Iranians who are there to fight us(both countries directly involved with 911), that are causing all the problems and killing all the Iraqi civilians, the rest of the country welcomed us with open arms, something else not shown in the MSM, as you said if it bleeds it leads. I guess when we build schools and waterways and sewersystems and electrical power stations and all the other things we build there it isnt important enough to get in the news. And my last point is that at least some people are not just speaking their opinions based on what they read in the paper and heard on the news, some people can actually speak from experience as well as knowledge when they talk of certain things like the war in Iraq, and those peoples opinions are of course worth no more than anyone elses but they worked a lot harder and risked a lot more to have the basis for those opinions.

My invective was reserved for the government that is pushing us into these illegal wars and stripping us of our freedoms. Unlike your comments, they weren't directed at the preceding post.

I want to start by saying I always find it amazing that "combat vets" somehow think their political opinions are more valid than that of other people. If you went to Iraq or another war and made it back in one piece then I congratulate you for your good fortune. I'm also glad that we have people willing to sacrifice their all in order to defend this country. But your service does not make you any more informed than my friends who have come back and told me about the misery over there. It doesn't stop the nightmares one friend has about seeing children killed for no reason. It doesn't stop the fact that the only reason for this war was to fill the coffers of the oil and weapons companies. You had an experience in Iraq that varies wildly from that of most of the service men and women over there today. That makes your insights interesting, but not indicative of an entire group of people. And your observations based on the small number of Iraqis you may have spoken while serving as a representative of an occupying force should not be mistaken as honest, unbiased information. It just doesn't work that way. And yes, I have friends who have come back from actual battle in Iraq. They do not paint your rosy picture.

Lastly, you can vote for whom you like and you can believe whatever you want, but when you call the MSM "liberal" and and claim the ACLU isn't going to solve our problems, one can pretty much see in what direction you really lean. Those are right wing talking points that seek to obsure facts. It's been proven that the MSM is owned and operated by five companies who nearly unanimously support republicans. Whether you want to believe it or not all those "liberal" reporters do not get to choose the stories they report on or even the slant the eventual newscast takes. That is decided at executive level and any reporter who doesn't fall in line will eventually find himself working at an alternative weekly. As for the ACLU being the cure for your ills, if you had ever bothered to look into what they do, instead of letting the "liberal" MSM misinform you, you'd find that they aren't there to fix your problems, they exist solely to protect the Constitution of the United States. The ACLU defends all of us against government policies that infringe on the basis of what this country was built on. It amazes me that some people will scream and bitch, or even fight to the death for a piece of cloth because it has the "right" colors on it, but then forget to give a damn about the real meaning of being an American. That Constitution is the only thing that makes this country great and when you attack a group dedicated to keeping it intact, you are hurting this country.

[timsgfdmo]

There is less electricity, less oil pumped, less drinking water in Iraq then under Hussein. It is a fact presented by the US govt. Attacks are uo 40% this month. Being on the ground in Iraq gives uou a good view of he trees. But can you see the forrest? If in your town where you lived if 50 people were getting blown up each day in single car bomb incidents would you care if you had your school painted? US has cut development aid to Iraq and ended large projects for simpler small ones. First job of an occupying army is to provid security to the public so that you have a chance of winning their hearts. US has failed at that. Parents cant let their kids go to school or play outside. Famillies are becoming refugees because they can no longer live in their home because they are the "wrong" religion. Common sense told Georgie's dad not to invade Iraq because of Syria and Iran being there to supply the opposition. Do you suggest widening the war to invade those countries? It sounds like Nixon talking about Cambodia and Laos. So if you invade Syria and Iran what about Saudia Arabia, Egypt and other Arab countries? You dont think they will feel threatened by the US? Where does the US get the troops for this wider war?

It is arrogant to say that opinions of people dont matter unless they have been to Iraq. How about your opinion about Iraq does not matter unless you were old enough to be alive during Vietnam or had a class on the Vietnam war? It seems many people have never learned the lessons. Lets use that arguement with abortion and only women get an opinion. By the way attempting to be exclusionary of others is a sympton of right wing authoratarianism as defined in John Dean's new book. They dont believe in everybody having an equal political voice.

Lastly it is a joke to say the MSM is leftist or the US is leftist. Go look at media in other countries to find leftist media. Are there any members of the communist or socialist parties in Congress? This country as said by John Dean is real close to being on the road to fascism.

[timsgfdmo]

Joe,

What is your evidence that Iran and Syria were involved in 9/11? So far this sounds similar to the attempt to link Iraq to 9/11. Allegations with no evidence. How come I have not heard this allegation anywhere else?

Also you say you are an veteran of Iraq. You do realize that homosexual acts are in violation of the UCMJ? Do you also realize that the NSA is tracking all internet traffic? Do you also realize that there are religious right groups who would like to kill or indoctrinate homosexuals and bisexuals or to cure them? In other countries any sort of indoctrination like this has taken place at concentration camps.

As this country continues to shift far to the religious right and become less tolerant of different beliefs these facts dont concern you? Remember the govt intervention in Schiavo based on what the religious right wanted? You dont think those groups would want bisexuals and gays out of the military or out of the country, dead or "cured"?

As to widening the war to Iran. What will the world use for oil if Iranian oil is taken off the market by a war? What happens to the world economy if in countries like Saudia Arabia their citizens get tired of Americans and Israelis armed with American weapons killing other Arabs and turn off the oil pumps or just reduce production? This may be a time where there is going to be a global shift in power towards the Arabs. They truely are in the drivers seat if they desire it.

[BiGuyinTX]

Our mistake was not invacing Iraq, it was failing to obliterate muslims from the face of the Earth on 09/12/01. We should have used nuclear weapons on Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and every other nation that supports terrorism, and by extension Al Qaeda (and every other terrorist organzation) which attacked us. It doesn't matter if they are supporting one terror group or another.

Islam is a clear and present danger to humanity and needs to be eradicated and all Muslims exterminated from the face of the Earth.

[Kerwie]

I lived in the Pac NW for 12yrs. Australian Born Male Here. I have met many wonderful americans, and some NOT so wonderful.

There are Moronic Dickheads in ANY country you look at......

Dont perscute the Population for Choices that a Fucked up Religious NUT of a government has made to go to war.

All i see is young americans/arabs dying because some religious nutcase Texas Pig thinks he knows best for the world.....

what about the families that are watching their sons die because of W & His So called allies ( Fucked UP Australian Gov ) have done in the name of Peace. No matter what your race or nationality is, No one should have the right to kill another because some dumb fuck politician thinks he knows best when he cant even grasp the english language......

Until the Powers in the USA pull their self rightous heads out of their tight asses, and leave the world alone, nothing will change. More will die for NO Logical reason.

[12voltman59]

"BiGuy in Pa" I have no idea whether you are serious in your post or not--perhaps you just wish to stir up a hornets nest...the whole notion of what you suggest is so ludicruous it doesn't really deserve a response--but hell--I am going to have put my :2cents: in anyway, so what the fuck... :tongue:

First point about Islam---just like we have our radical fringe in Christianity ---the extreme fringe element of Islam that is considered the "true Islam" is a perverted form of that religion just as is the extremist, fundamentalist, evangelical Christianity that is so prevelant here in America and elsewhere today.

Second--do know how many Muslims there are in the world? A quick Google search cites there being from 1.2 to 1.5 billion Muslims on the planet today...there are according to another Google search, somewhere in the order of between 3 and 4 billion Christians but the growth rate of Christianity is flat-roughly equaling that of world population growth---Islam is expanding at a faster rate and it is estimated that at some point in the mid-21st Century to the early 22nd century--the number of Muslims will exceed that of Christianity both in actual numbers and in percentage of the world's population.

Third--Muslims are found in large numbers in most countries of the world so "irradication" would be problematic at best--and in countries where they are the majority religion--there still live a number of Jews and Christians. If you would not want the collateral damage of their destruction along with the hated Muslims, these people would have to leave their homeland, but we probably would not want them as neighbors either.

While much of the world is Muslim--we could probably take them out with our nukes with relative ease, the result would be that much of the world's landmass would be irradiated for a very long time since Muslims occupied so much land, the fallout from all those nukes would soon fall over the entire planet--contaminating the oceans and the rest of the world's landmass--so the rest of us would eventually die a much more painful and dreadful death than those who were incinerated in the nuclear pyres...

Hell-I have the answer--lets just enter the coordinates of every major fucking city in every fucking country in the world into the computers that control our nukes, launch the missiles that carry them and just take out the bulk of the human race in one fell swoop--in a million years or so (a geological drop in the bucket)--the planet would have recovered from the extinction of the human race and most of the creatures that live on the planet now--hell in the long run that would probably be the best damned thing that could happen to good old planet earth anyway---we will go the way of the dinosaurs and many other species that have dominated but eventually passed from the earth...

:yikes2: :yikes2: :yikes2: :devil: :devil: :devil: :tongue: :tongue:

[JohnnyV]

12 volt,

I have a strong feeling that BiGuyinPA was kidding around. If he was serious, there would be no point trying to reason with the arguments he made.

About the issue of Bush's responsibility for our current quagmire, the only thing I'll throw out there is that Clinton was also very warlike. Clinton, though, was better at it; he bombed countries without a lot of fanfare and lost few American lives, even though he did kill a lot of people in other countries. I have heard some people argue -- though I do not know how much I agree -- that Bush's stupidity has been good for America's soul, because it forced us to see more vividly what war does to people in other countries. Under Clinton, we had proxies who did our dirty work, and we didn't have to worry about Haiti, the Sudan, the Balkans, Afghanistan, or any other hotspot if we didn't want to. Now that Bush has alienated or antagonized our proxies, and he's too bumbling to sugarcoat things, we have no choice but to confront the ugly reality of foreign wars. Maybe that's a good thing. I have no doubt Gore would have dealt out a few blows to people, but he would have been slicker and we wouldn't have had a national debate about it.

J



"BiGuy in Pa" I have no idea whether you are serious in your post or not--perhaps you just wish to stir up a hornets nest...the whole notion of what you suggest is so ludicruous it doesn't really deserve a response--but hell--I am going to have put my :2cents: in anyway, so what the fuck... :tongue:

First point about Islam---just like we have our radical fringe in Christianity ---the extreme fringe element of Islam that is considered the "true Islam" is a perverted form of that religion just as is the extremist, fundamentalist, evangelical Christianity that is so prevelant here in America and elsewhere today.

Second--do know how many Muslims there are in the world? A quick Google search cites there being from 1.2 to 1.5 billion Muslims on the planet today...there are according to another Google search, somewhere in the order of between 3 and 4 billion Christians but the growth rate of Christianity is flat-roughly equaling that of world population growth---Islam is expanding at a faster rate and it is estimated that at some point in the mid-21st Century to the early 22nd century--the number of Muslims will exceed that of Christianity both in actual numbers and in percentage of the world's population.

Third--Muslims are found in large numbers in most countries of the world so "irradication" would be problematic at best--and in countries where they are the majority religion--there still live a number of Jews and Christians. If you would not want the collateral damage of their destruction along with the hated Muslims, these people would have to leave their homeland, but we probably would not want them as neighbors either.

While much of the world is Muslim--we could probably take them out with our nukes with relative ease, the result would be that much of the world's landmass would be irradiated for a very long time since Muslims occupied so much land, the fallout from all those nukes would soon fall over the entire planet--contaminating the oceans and the rest of the world's landmass--so the rest of us would eventually die a much more painful and dreadful death than those who were incinerated in the nuclear pyres...

Hell-I have the answer--lets just enter the coordinates of every major fucking city in every fucking country in the world into the computers that control our nukes, launch the missiles that carry them and just take out the bulk of the human race in one fell swoop--in a million years or so (a geological drop in the bucket)--the planet would have recovered from the extinction of the human race and most of the creatures that live on the planet now--hell in the long run that would probably be the best damned thing that could happen to good old planet earth anyway---we will go the way of the dinosaurs and many other species that have dominated but eventually passed from the earth...

:yikes2: :yikes2: :yikes2: :devil: :devil: :devil: :tongue: :tongue:

[12voltman59]

12 volt,

I have a strong feeling that BiGuyinPA was kidding around. If he was serious, there would be no point trying to reason with the arguments he made.

About the issue of Bush's responsibility for our current quagmire, the only thing I'll throw out there is that Clinton was also very warlike. Clinton, though, was better at it; he bombed countries without a lot of fanfare and lost few American lives, even though he did kill a lot of people in other countries. I have heard some people argue -- though I do not know how much I agree -- that Bush's stupidity has been good for America's soul, because it forced us to see more vividly what war does to people in other countries. Under Clinton, we had proxies who did our dirty work, and we didn't have to worry about Haiti, the Sudan, the Balkans, Afghanistan, or any other hotspot if we didn't want to. Now that Bush has alienated or antagonized our proxies, and he's too bumbling to sugarcoat things, we have no choice but to confront the ugly reality of foreign wars. Maybe that's a good thing. I have no doubt Gore would have dealt out a few blows to people, but he would have been slicker and we wouldn't have had a national debate about it.

J

Johnny I do figure that BiBuyin Pa was only BSing--I sure as hell hope so--Hopefully you could tell that I had my tongue in cheek when I made some of my comments-- :) ---since what he did say was rather ridiculous and outrageous--I figured I might as well be too...

To get serious though---it really amazes me how for so long the Bush administration was able to bamboozle so many that they were so skilled at foreign policy--it was said when the Clinton team left back in 2001 and the Bush team took over that "the adults were going to run things now.."

My god, was that such BS spin?---USDA prime grade bull hockey pucks--this administration has an horrofic foreign policy--it kind of makes one wish we could resurrect Nixon and de-age Kissinger about 20 years--they may have been practicioners of "real politiik" but they would never have antagonized the bulk of the other countries in the world to the point that almost renders us ineffective....

I have been hearing Joe Biden speaking on the Sunday talk shows and happened to catch him addressing a gathering in New Hampshire that was broadcast on C-SPAN--that is the man who should be President next time--he has a clear picture of the way things are and offers some good ideas in dealing with the mess that is American foreign policy along with most everything else thanks to BushCo....

Someone in one of the threads said he has a problem with discussion of politics in the forumns--I disagree with that statement----I know of no more important a topic than politics and world affairs--with the way things are going--people need to be informed, discuss the issues and take action when necessary---one cannot "bury your head in the sand"--

These things are going to affect each and everyone of us whether we pay attention to them or not--at least you had better know the truck is out of control and is about to make you go sssppplllatttt!!!!!! :)

If you don't like to think about these issues--as was said in another thread-just don't read these posts....

[timsgfdmo]

I prefer Russ Feingold for president. Biden is a smart guy but Feingold is smarter. He, like me, was against the war from the beginning. Biden, like Nixon with Vietnam, is a fixer and thinks he can make it work if he is president.

I am not so sure biguy is kidding. Have you heard what comes out of the mouths of right wing talk radio? Have you heard the rascist and anti-semetic remarks that Michael Savage spouts? He sounds like he should have lived in the south during Reconstruction or in the 50s.

I wonder if the right wingers who spout that and believe it realize how much it sounds like what Hitler said about the jews.

[slocum5]

Orphues Lost,

Lost you may be. Please spare us your pedantry. Thanks.:bigrin:

[orpheus_lost]

It took you over a year to come up with that? :tongue:


Orphues Lost,

Lost you may be. Please spare us your pedantry. Thanks.:bigrin:

[Dagni]

hmm, intresting subject. And from European point of view, i don't see any reason why America entered in any war anywhere on world if it wasn't serious threat to American theritory. I have nothing against Americans, but how can some small country 30 000 milles from America to be threat? I don't get it.
But the fact is, no matter who is president of USA, America was always been involved in any conflict everywhere on world.

And opposite to this thread: Finland attacked Soviets during WWII and one year before that because Soviets was real threat for us and we needed to fight it back very very hard together with German troops. And that's only cause we've bordering on east. That kind of war have "some sense" if may say so, cause neighboor country was a threat, but i don't see any point why should America, UK or anyone else should attack some countries far away from their teritories.

[darkeyes]

Me has lots 2 say bout this asya mite expect..but since time is short will bide me time.. in essence me agrees wiv Dagni.. but the world is a complex place an wy biggies like the US an the British (in historical terms) attack lil place "bout wich we know nuthin" for woteva reason is an arrogance of the power they hold or hav held.. Rome, Egypt.Spain an the ole Mongul Empire wer the same.., the moghuls in India..., The Greeks ofAlexanderan the ancient persians. Cos they can simlisticly, cos they wan more an will hav it..they wan vassals who will cow down to em an by doin so will help make life easier for em at home. Dom always work out of course.. but thats not bad thing.

But ya wanna the mos warlike nation on earth? Aint the US can tellya that.. mite surprise ya the Fran view... patiemce me luffs, patience..wen me has more time...:tong:

[vices2habits]

From war comes bigger profits even -- by several orders of magnitude -- than from trafficking illegal drugs, weapons, slaves, you name it. Some thirty-seven to forty-five percent of the U.S. economy is the warfare industry... 41% of every U.S. tax dollar is spent on its military machine (that's only the above-board, on-budget figure)... and the United States spends more on its military machine than all other nations of the world combined.

As ought to be crystal clear by now to anybody paying attention, the citizenry of the United States has absolutely zero control over whether the government of the United States wages war anywhere, at any time, for any reason... or for no reason at all (other than obscene profits). The American citizenry has zero input into the decision beforehand, and zero ability to stop the U.S. War Machine once it is deployed... even if the war in question is/was clearly unjustified and illegal, contrary to and harmful of actual U.S. national security and its vital interests, objected to by the world at large, and deemed plainly unacceptable by an overwhelming majority of those American citizens.

All it takes to block rational, responsible adults from stopping the War Machine is a reliable 25% minority... and when you consider that 1.) by definition, 49.99% of all people are "dumber than average," 2.) that just over 17% of American citizens desperately want a nuclear Armageddon anyway, and 3.) that the mega-wealthy corporate supporters of this war -- the same cabal which put this administration into office in the first place (no coincidence there) -- are clearing over 5 billion dollars net cash-in-pocket per week and also just happen to control all of the major media/information outlets -- TV, radio, newspapers, magazines, book publishing, internet -- as well.... it then becomes easy to understand how such a solid, 25% blocking minority is created and maintained. And let's not forget who actually does the selecting and appointing/annointing of most members of Congress.

No... Americans, as a collective whole, are not any more warlike than any other societies in the world today or down through history. That being said... the criminal cabal running the show today and steering the American ship of state want those now-so-conveniently untaxed billions in profits, and they will lie, cheat, steal, torture and kill anyone -- without mercy or remorse -- to get them.

That's just the way I see it.

:cool:

[phaedrus]

I am very interested to know what others think of U.S. policy. I have heard some say that we shouldn't care what others think of us, and that we should just do what we want, but I think that's the wrong attitude. Good neighbors have mutual trust and respect, but once that respect is breached then bad-feelings and violence often will break out. That is bad for everyone.

Richard Dawkins uses the term "moral Zeitgeist", which he explains as the current way of moral thinking. He says that societies are slowly shifting, or evolving toward a more tolerant and compassionate way of thinking. For example, there was a time when stoning was considered a common form of punishment, but today stoning is considered by most modern societies to be not only unjust, but barbaric. Some societies have banned capital punishment in any form. Societies are moving away from primitive, reflexive judgments and actions, toward less brutal and more intellectual methods of justice and persuasion. I think the countries of Europe understand these concepts better than the U.S. The failed exploits of imperialism and the destruction from two world wars are still somewhat fresh in European minds, and European cultures are older, wiser, and more mature cultures in general.

In this respect, I think Bush and his people got it exactly backwards and wrong when they called Europe the "Old Europe" in the days leading up to the Iraq invasion. Actually, Europe's resistance to war was a more modern, more evolved way of thinking, and the American policy represented a more primitive and barbaric paradigm.

Warfare is ingrained in our genes. It probably goes back in time before the split with our closest animal cousin, the chimpanzee, because humans and chimps are the only high level animals to use warfare against their own kind. Warfare is a technique used to secure territory and resources for the survival of the group at the expense of another group. That is one reason why warriors are so esteemed by almost all cultures. They are the protectors of the group, and they help insure group survival.

As humans, though, we should consider, and make allowances for the dignity and respect of other cultures that we might war against. That is the only way to gain the mutual respect and cooperation from other cultural groups. We must use our intelligence to learn to live together on this tiny planet or ours. Warfare should be used only when the very survival of the group or culture is at stake. We must learn to differentiate whether our very survival is at stake, or if we are fighting for economic greed, or because of ignorance of cultural differences. If we don't do that, then we are really no better than the animals which we claim to have risen above.

[darkeyes]

Me been sayin stuff like u in ere an everywer else all me life Phaedrus...ther r a few jus like ya in ere...but ther r lots who still think that warfare is the natural state of man an can neva b changed... so in .com we hav a fair spread of human opinion... ther not enuff of us an 2 many of them but slowly but surely me reckons in time we will cum up trumps...

Them that "think" like dinosaurs shall surely perish jus as they did in a long cold winta..diff is that the poor ole dinosaurs didn hav much choice... if modern day dinosaurs perish in ther long winta it'll b cos they brot it on themselves...but even worse..is the sods will hav brot it on us 2...

[biwords]

Off topic as for Israel they are like the employee who is always in trouble. It may or may not be their fault but I think it is time for the US to cut them lose...Israel is of no strategic interest to the US. Whereas the Arabs have something we want...We need to be seen as neutral in regards to Israel and the Arabs or better yet favoring the Arabs.

Certainly America's behaviour should be governed by America's strategic interest and no one else's. But going over to the Arabs poses two problems. (1) it increases the odds of eventual nuclear war in the Middle East, which is probably in no one's interest, and (2) the jihadists' ambitions go far beyond destroying Israel, they also want to overthrow all the governments that you suggest the US should ally itself with and establish a radically Islamic empire. The abandonment of Israel would be a tremendous boost to the jihadists' morale. It would reinforce that they're winning and only need to keep up what they've been doing. And millions of Arabs who don't know which way to jump would be that much more open to jihadist persuasion -- as bin Laden wisely said, everyone wants to back a winner.

Some days I think the best solution would be to transfer the entire Israeli population to the US and Canada, and let the Arabs have the sandpit....

[biwords]

yes America for some reason is more warlike and I would love to know why?

Hmmm....my own country, Canada, entered World War I in 1914, and World War II in 1939. The US stayed out of WWI until 1917 and WW2 until December 1941, when the attack on Pearl Harbor forced her hand. I think if you consider history rather than current events you'll see that the US is no more warlike than other nations, and is less so than many.

[biwords]

I believe Isreal was a mistake from the beginning. Instead of coming to terms with the the rampant racism toward Jewish people and working to reduce it, the Allies instead came up with a plan to move them to another part of the world so they didn't have to deal with them. It was a move made out of bigotry and guilt which are not good motives. In order to create Isreal, they broke their promises of a homeland for the Palastinians which to a great extent has caused the tension in the Middle East since then".

- You speak as if most Israelis were moved from Europe to Israel after 1945. In fact there was continuous Jewish settlement from 1880-1939, and by 1936-1937 the Jewish and Arab communities were already at each others' throats. From 1880-1914 it was the Turks, not the Allies, who encouraged Jewish settlement (the Turks, who are Muslim but not Arab, had governed Palestine for 300-400 years). You mention broken Allied promises to the Arabs; in fact, the British made promises to both sides (there's a reason for the term "perfidious Albion"). Finally, the population of Israel virtually doubled in its first three or four years, not because the Allies moved in European Jews, but because Arab Jews fled their homes in Morocco, Yemen, etc. in the face of Arab hostility and discrimination. Incidentally, these Jews have larger families than the European Jews do, so that the majority of Israelis today are of Middle Eastern origin.
- None of this obliges the US to do Israel's bidding, of course. I just think it's important to take stock of as many of the relevant facts as possible.

[biwords]

Personally I think its past time the US and other countries put the culture of the gun to rest once and for all. BAN BULLETS !

And the ban will be enforced........how?

[macman885]

Personally I think its past time the US and other countries put the culture of the gun to rest once and for all. BAN BULLETS ! There allready is too much death in the world as it is without creating more. Didn't anyone learn a single thing from the last World War?

"An armed population is the best defence against a government out of control"

I don't know where that quote came from but I have heard it many times.
The people need to be armed in the event the government needs to be overthrown.

[vittoria]

yes.

nuff said.

[slocum5]

Orpheus Lost,

Had to check wilth O'Rielly to see if it was adequately pithy. As a conservative in control of the media, I considered firing him, but consicering the pain he inflicts on Liberals/Progressives, decided otherwise.

Bye the bye, I think it is Eurydice who is lost.:)

[darkeyes]

"An armed population is the best defence against a government out of control"

I don't know where that quote came from but I have heard it many times.
The people need to be armed in the event the government needs to be overthrown.

An wotta rite loada bollox that is 2....

[orpheus_lost]

Then you don't know the entire story of Orpheus, Slocum, or perhaps just a lack of understanding as to the different ways of being lost. Neither do you know why I chose to call myself what I have which makes your comment moot at best. Of course what I don't know is why you'd bother to drag up a year old thread just to make juvenile comments towards me.

I understand you don't agree with my politics, that's your right. Sadly, you seem to want to do what so many intolerant people do which is to try to bully me away. Once again, I can't stop you but that really isn't what any of us are here for. That kind of thing is more suited for the Yahoo forums or Freerepublic.com.


Orpheus Lost,

Had to check wilth O'Rielly to see if it was adequately pithy. As a conservative in control of the media, I considered firing him, but consicering the pain he inflicts on Liberals/Progressives, decided otherwise.

Bye the bye, I think it is Eurydice who is lost.:)

[FalconAngel]

I generally come here for sexuallity topics but current events and Bush discussion has made me want to seek the opinions of others on this topic. I spent 2 weeks in the UK recently and got to observe their negative opinion of America.

My answer to the question is yes America for some reason is more warlike and I would love to know why? Some people might say that the US gets in wars because it is the only superpower. However, the US has been in one war after another since its founding. This started long before the US was a world power. Partial list follows: War of 1812, continual battles with native Americans, War with Mexico, Civil War, Spanish-American War, World War I, wars in Central America and Philippines in the 30s, World War II, Korean War, Vietnam War, Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Balkans, Gulf War I, Invasion of Iraq, Invasion of Afghanistan.

If you look at many wealthy countries, in Europe in particular, they dont fight wars. In many cases they are more prosperous than the US without fighting wars. Dishonorable methods of entry into wars or avoidable wars could be cited for most of the wars the US has been involved in in my opinion.

So if you agree why do you think that is? Is there some component of the American psyche that makes us disregard the opinions or feelings of others or makes us more aggressive? Are Americans basically intollerant, dishonest and aggressive? If not tell me why you think the US is not warlike.


Well, in our defense, the war of 1812 was started by the British, trying to re-aquire their former colonies in the Americas.

The War of the Rebellion (American Civil War). Contrary to popular propaganda, it was not fought over the issue of slavery. It was over states' rights. The South knew that slavery was on it's way out, but still wanted to have the right to decide for themselves rather than let the federal government decide for them. While slavery was ONE issue, it was not the entire or majority issue. The war had been in progress long before Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation.

The Spanish-American war was started over a boiler explosion on the battleship Maine, which they thought at the time to have been sabotage.

WWI started because tensions were high amongst the European and Baltic states. The Arch Duke Ferdinand was assassinated. The US stayed out of the war til a large number of rich and influencial Americans died on the Lusitania (sister ship to the Titanic), and it still took us 2 more years before we entered the war.

WWII, we tried to stay out of as long as we could, but the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor put that idea to rest and got us into the war.

In Korea, we were asked to help South Korea because the Soviet Union and the Chinese were supporting North Korea. Other nations were in Korea as well as the US on the side of South Korea.

All of the bush wars throughout our history have been due to political maneuvering, supporting one regime or another.

Grenada was a case of not wanting Cuba to get a foothold there, also we had Americans there that were in danger of being harmed by the Cuban military presence (Civilian engineers DO NOT know how to operate anti-aircraft weapons that were used against our forces). And Grenada wasn't a war. It was a strike operation.

Vietnam was a clusterfuckage to the nth degree. There were both political and military considerations all having to do with the cold war and situations similar to Korea.

Panama was a case of having to clean up the mess made by our very own CIA, who for all intents and purposes place Noriega in power, after which he turned on us. You think they would have learned about that with Saddam Hussein, but no.

Gulf War I. We were asked by our allies in the Middle East to remove Iraq's army from a sovereign nation. We did just that. No more; no less. Many of us wanted to push all the way to Baghdad, but we didn't do that.

Somalia and the Balkans......How soon we all forget that Our troops were in these places as part of a UNITED NATIONS peacekeeping effort. We didn't decide to enter these countries and start a war; the wars were in progress and the UN decided that we should help to provide peacekeeping troops there. We were not the first on the ground, nor the last to leave. France, Britain, and others were there as well. So you can't pin that one on us. Blame the UN.

The invasion of Afghanistan. This one is because of 911, unquestionably. We had to remove the terrorist government from them. As it turns out, our presence in Afghanistan is mostly limited to the supposed hunt for Bin Laden. we have fewer military personnel there than in Iraq. And the Afghani people seem to like us there, since we are not imposing our will on them, like the Russians did back in the early eighties.

Iraq. No excuse there. We have a corrupt, war-mongering, war-profiteering administration. The only reasonable reason that I can see us being there is for the same reason that we hit Panama. the CIA placed Hussein in power and we had a responsibility to clean up the mess. Unfortunately, no one realized the mess that had been made would be as big as it is and now our idiot President has us involved in a "Vietnam part II".

Since the American population base is predominantly Anglo-European descent, we get our aggressive expansionist streak from that. Look at how arrogant the English were throughout history. We are 'cousins', after all and the apple don't fall far from the tree.

[darkeyes]

Well, in our defense, the war of 1812 was started by the British, trying to re-aquire their former colonies in the Americas.

The War of the Rebellion (American Civil War). Contrary to popular propaganda, it was not fought over the issue of slavery. It was over states' rights. The South knew that slavery was on it's way out, but still wanted to have the right to decide for themselves rather than let the federal government decide for them. While slavery was ONE issue, it was not the entire or majority issue. The war had been in progress long before Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation.

The Spanish-American war was started over a boiler explosion on the battleship Maine, which they thought at the time to have been sabotage.

WWI started because tensions were high amongst the European and Baltic states. The Arch Duke Ferdinand was assassinated. The US stayed out of the war til a large number of rich and influencial Americans died on the Lusitania (sister ship to the Titanic), and it still took us 2 more years before we entered the war.

WWII, we tried to stay out of as long as we could, but the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor put that idea to rest and got us into the war.

In Korea, we were asked to help South Korea because the Soviet Union and the Chinese were supporting North Korea. Other nations were in Korea as well as the US on the side of South Korea.

All of the bush wars throughout our history have been due to political maneuvering, supporting one regime or another.

Grenada was a case of not wanting Cuba to get a foothold there, also we had Americans there that were in danger of being harmed by the Cuban military presence (Civilian engineers DO NOT know how to operate anti-aircraft weapons that were used against our forces). And Grenada wasn't a war. It was a strike operation.

Vietnam was a clusterfuckage to the nth degree. There were both political and military considerations all having to do with the cold war and situations similar to Korea.

Panama was a case of having to clean up the mess made by our very own CIA, who for all intents and purposes place Noriega in power, after which he turned on us. You think they would have learned about that with Saddam Hussein, but no.

Gulf War I. We were asked by our allies in the Middle East to remove Iraq's army from a sovereign nation. We did just that. No more; no less. Many of us wanted to push all the way to Baghdad, but we didn't do that.

Somalia and the Balkans......How soon we all forget that Our troops were in these places as part of a UNITED NATIONS peacekeeping effort. We didn't decide to enter these countries and start a war; the wars were in progress and the UN decided that we should help to provide peacekeeping troops there. We were not the first on the ground, nor the last to leave. France, Britain, and others were there as well. So you can't pin that one on us. Blame the UN.

The invasion of Afghanistan. This one is because of 911, unquestionably. We had to remove the terrorist government from them. As it turns out, our presence in Afghanistan is mostly limited to the supposed hunt for Bin Laden. we have fewer military personnel there than in Iraq. And the Afghani people seem to like us there, since we are not imposing our will on them, like the Russians did back in the early eighties.

Iraq. No excuse there. We have a corrupt, war-mongering, war-profiteering administration. The only reasonable reason that I can see us being there is for the same reason that we hit Panama. the CIA placed Hussein in power and we had a responsibility to clean up the mess. Unfortunately, no one realized the mess that had been made would be as big as it is and now our idiot President has us involved in a "Vietnam part II".

Since the American population base is predominantly Anglo-European descent, we get our aggressive expansionist streak from that. Look at how arrogant the English were throughout history. We are 'cousins', after all and the apple don't fall far from the tree.

Not gonna gerrin 2 a huge barney wivya bout this jus bout the war of 1812 wich like everythin is a lil more complex, as is every war, than Britain tryin 2 regain its former colonies..in fact it wos neva on the agnda tho had they won, hav no doubt that the british govt of the day wudda gladly grabbed at it... wetha they cudda held on 2 them is anotha matta...

For 20 years or so before the war Britain had been fitin gainst revolutionary France an then Napoleonic France. Throughout that time, probably cos the French supported the Americans durin their revolutionary war (for ther own reasons)., the young American state and successive administration gave limited support 2 the French.

As part of the overall war strategy wich involved a blockade of continental Europe by the British Navy, US shipping wos itself blockaded, an the Britsh boarded an searched american ships because of the possibility they may hav been trading with France. At times durin that blockade, due to the fact that they often had salor shortages badly needed 2 fite the war at sea, the British pressed American sailors into the Royal Navy. It shud b remembered that many of these sailors wer British born, an still British Crown subjects. Not all by any means.

In the end, the Americans, thoroughly pissed of with alla this declared war on Great Britain... take note... the US started the war.. not the British, sure with a fair bitta provocation but the British also had their provocation by the tacit an logistical support given by the US to France ova 20 years. The last thing that Britain wanted was war wiv the US..it wos fully stretched elsewer...

In fact it wasnt the Brits who wanted to take back the colonies as such, but the Americans who invaded Canada 2 finish the job as they saw it of removing the British from North America altogetha...

In the end it was kinda an honourable draw..if ther is such a thing in warfare... am not claimin that Americans r ne more warlike than ne 1 else.. jus tryin 2 explain that wen it cums 2 talkin bout ne war... things r a lil more complex than bland statements bout who started em...

[slocum5]

What president suspended the writ of habeus corpus and uttered a warrant for the arrest of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court? (The federal marshals did not serve the warrant.)

[ambi53mm]

What president suspended the writ of habeus corpus and uttered a warrant for the arrest of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court? (The federal marshals did not serve the warrant.)

Lincoln!......did I win anything?

Ambi:)

[vices2habits]

... What was the last war the Swiss fought? The Stockholm Cheese Seizure... you didn't see the newsreel footage? Really, really nasty... the Cheese lost big time.


... sorry. Couldn't help myself.

:cool:

[Audioslave]

Im British,and for a long time now we've stood with America in war situations. Im not in any way anti American, but I do find Bush and Rumsfeld scary. Im a writer and am currently working on a project based in Iraq, so have been doing a lot of reading up so I dont look completely stupid!! During the course of this investigative reading Ive uncovered a lot of stuff about those two people which worries me, and some of its by patriotic Americans. I dont think youre warlike, but sometimes you need to open your eyes and takein the bigger picture.
Hope our American friends will have constructive comments to add to this.

[slocum5]

Hi Audio Slave

Appreciate you commemts. I did not favor the attack on Sadam Hussein, ergo Iraq. Bush lost more favor with me with his proposals as to how to handle the the illegal immigrant mess. Those who favor doing whatever it takes to close our borders have my support. Then we can hopefully find a humane solution as to what to do with the 12-20 million people who are here illegally. The precipitous withdrawal of all forces, American and others from Iraq would, I fear, send the wrong message to the radical Islamists, not only in the Middle East but also to those in Malaysia and the Phillipines. Obviously the terrorists in Europe would be emboldened. Even London could become like Israel where citizens live in constant fear of attack. The British leaders seem to understand that it is not simply an American problem. New leadership in France and Germany also seems to recognize that fact. I use the word "facr" intentionally. If America simply withdraws to "Fortress America" it leaves Great Britain and Europe with the problem in the middle east, plus the emboldenment of terrorists who live within their borders. I don't know how you negotiate with people who forfeit the lives of their children in strap on bomb attacks. Seems to me the old fart who fathered the children should set the example and leave the children the option to follow if they wish. Any parent who would strap bombs on an innocent child, promise him 29 virgins in heaven, shake his hand and send him to die, is an animal no more fit to live than a rabid dog. Those who would decapitate a reporter and rejoice in his cries of agony deserve no sympathy. The Crusades may prove to be the most ill advised adventure in the history of mankind. You may detect that I am a Libertarian and an agnostic. I vote Republican as the lesser of two evils. Sorry to take so much of your time.

[darkeyes]

A libertarian who closes borders..hmmmm interestin..diff kinda libertarian from me me glad 2 say.. tho dus agree that the crusades wer hardly the wisest move by the papacy... left us wiv lotsa shite 2 clear up ova 900 years from the 1st one.

[slocum5]

Dear AMBI53MM

Your prize for identifying Lincoln is your horoscope, which reads:

"You will meet three couples who exactly satisfy the requierments of your posting. All three couples will live within a 30 minute drive. You will enjoy watching many sunsets with these couples knowing that even greater delights will fill the evening."

Lincoln also imprisoned the Maryland legislature to prevent a vote on secession. We don't know what the mindset of those legislators might may been before, but it's a pretty sure bet their vote would have been unanimous when they got out

[Schumi]

I don't think that US are more warlike the thing is that they have more weapons and since they have to sell that product they have to do wars in order to advertise them.And also the main reason of the wars that US have been involved is cause of the petrol.So since they have money to spend and weapons to sell they will still doing wars.Plus that they have to show they have great power in order to frighten the other countries and so they would be able to manipulate the other countries!

[ambi53mm]

Dear AMBI53MM

Your prize for identifying Lincoln is your horoscope, which reads:

"You will meet three couples who exactly satisfy the requierments of your posting. All three couples will live within a 30 minute drive. You will enjoy watching many sunsets with these couples knowing that even greater delights will fill the evening."

Lincoln also imprisoned the Maryland legislature to prevent a vote on secession. We don't know what the mindset of those legislators might may been before, but it's a pretty sure bet their vote would have been unanimous when they got out

LOL Nice Prize.. a saggitarian utopia to be sure.

As to the mindset of those legislators and, as a displaced Marylander with roots that date back to pre-revoultionary days...you can rest assure that the mindset prior would be no different than the mindset after....and unfortunately..that mindset still persists in some areas of Maryland to this day.

Ambi:)

[FalconAngel]

In fact it wasnt the Brits who wanted to take back the colonies as such, but the Americans who invaded Canada 2 finish the job as they saw it of removing the British from North America altogetha...

I stand corrected on that point. Thank you.

[FalconAngel]

Im British,and for a long time now we've stood with America in war situations. Im not in any way anti American, but I do find Bush and Rumsfeld scary. Im a writer and am currently working on a project based in Iraq, so have been doing a lot of reading up so I dont look completely stupid!! During the course of this investigative reading Ive uncovered a lot of stuff about those two people which worries me, and some of its by patriotic Americans. I dont think youre warlike, but sometimes you need to open your eyes and takein the bigger picture.
Hope our American friends will have constructive comments to add to this.

Believe me; plenty of Americans find Emperor Bush and almost his entire administration to be frighteningly corrupt. look up www.votetoimpeach.org and read what we already have, but can't find a politician with the courage to do anything about.

And I know that I am one American that is glad that the UK has been one of the few unwavering allies that we have had.

[biwords]

Believe me; plenty of Americans find Emperor Bush and almost his entire administration to be frighteningly corrupt. look up www.votetoimpeach.org and read what we already have...

Canada too -- we didn't send troops to Iraq (and good for us!), but they're in Afghanistan -- not up north sitting on their rifles like the Germans, but in the Kandahar region, where they're actually killing Taliban.

Bush 'corrupt'? Not in the usual sense of acting in his own financial interest, certainly. Incompetent? Of course.

I went to the website you mention. Oddly, it allows Canadians to sign the pro-impeachment petition. Surely this is a question for Americans only to decide?

[qchamp]

I saw someone say the The United States is the worlds police. Ok, bring every single American Soldier home, and see what happens in those countries that they leave. They are there for more reasons than I know. A deterrant is one of them, our financial intrests are another. We give protection to other countries.

Someone mentioned Switzerland. They are neutral, because they play both side of the fence, sooner or later you will get your balls stuck on the top of the fence. I dont know about you,but having my balls impaled on the top of a fence doesnt sound pleasing ( i know there are some pain freaks in here so ).


Tim

[vittoria]

That's a hell of a question to ask on a site about bisexuality. In fact, you could write several books on the subject before answering the question with any real degree of accuracy. Of course then there would be several more books written to refute everything in the first set of books, then a rebuttal, etc......

But my very simplistice, one dimensional answer would be the fact that as a country the US is still quite young. Much like young people, young countries tend to be more aggressive than those that have been around longer. I'm not sure whether there's a collective need to prove oneself or if its residual anger and adrenaline from the act of revolution but there does seem to be truth to the concept that most countries born in war tend to live in war.

That being said, Europe has only seemed to lose it's taste for blood over the last 30 years or so, itself. In the last century WWI and WWII were to a great extent European wars. Then if you count the rampant imperialism of Great Britain, France, Germany, and Italy they have very little room to cast aspersions on the warlike mentality of America. Our troubles in Iraq and Afghanistan today can easily be tied to British occupancy and meddling in the early 20th century and Vietnam can in many ways be put on the shoulders of the French.

I am glad that most of western civilization seems to be losing it's bloodthirst lately and I hope the US eventually looks to its older allies as an example. However, I think it serves us poorly to forget that the same countries that are admonishing us now for our unacceptable behavior were not so long ago doing the same thing.

yup. what he said.

[vittoria]

Canada too -- we didn't send troops to Iraq (and good for us!), but they're in Afghanistan -- not up north sitting on their rifles like the Germans, but in the Kandahar region, where they're actually killing Taliban.

Bush 'corrupt'? Not in the usual sense of acting in his own financial interest, certainly. Incompetent? Of course.

I went to the website you mention. Oddly, it allows Canadians to sign the pro-impeachment petition. Surely this is a question for Americans only to decide?

as far as i'm concerned, any country that has "america" in it.. be it north, central (latin) or south america are americans--to an extent.

hell considering that "himself" is telling everyone what to do under penalty of sanction anyway, it would only be fair that others have a --how shall i say... bite to eat.

wouldnt it be an interesting switch if other countries were to "sanction" the US? hell considering how many companies that were once american have now moved over seas... and how many 'foreign" car companies there are over here... it would be a heck of a thing if someone was to do that.

is turn about really fair play after all?