Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Tobodai
Tsar
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Antarctica
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4310
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Your opinion about the USA Posted: 20-Jul-2005 at 21:26 |
I beleive you are completely right here. Iraq was a relatively stable secular nation, the US also created a strategic blunder by invading it and opening it up to religious fanatics and giving yet more reason for peopel to join terrorist groups. Iraq had nothing to do with terrorists in fact viewed them as much as a thread as we did. Saddam was evil but no worse than many other people, and he was a stabalizing figure. Most of the people he put in jail are the same types of people th eUS now puts in equally horrendous jails in Iraq now.
But on Afghanistan, even without a 9-11, hell even if America was friends with everyone I would have supoprted taking them out. Religious fantics and their governments deserve to be hunted down and exterminated, no matter their faith of origin. If the US ever slides into Christian Taliban mode I hope we are only so lucky to have a foreign power topple our goverment for all our sakes!
|
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton
|
|
Ironheart
Immortal Guard
Joined: 31-Jul-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Aug-2005 at 18:30 |
Originally posted by eaglecap
GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!! I wonder how many who chose to hate America would immigrate here in a heartbeat.
A friend was in Russia and a Russian expressed to him how much he hated America. So, my friend asked him if he was allowed to immigrate here would he do it. The Russians response was yes!! he would love to immigrate to America. hmmm wait a second I thought he hated us!!! or is it jealousy. Do you hate us or are you jealous of us and our prosperity and freedoms?
It is good to see the majority on AE do not hate us!! |
I don't understand what the world would want us to do. I agree that America's past foreign policy was extremely flawed by supporting dictatorships in the Mid East and other parts of the world. Now that we are forcing democracy on some of these countries we are wrong again.
It is a blatant reality that most people are in pursuit of a better economic life and safety for themselves and their families. Most of the corrupt goverments in the Mid East do not provide such things for their inhabitants. That is why every underpriveledged person would give an arm to come to the States.
Having said that, the same person that would love to come to America blames us for their lot in life. They have a huge problem with the way the US government supported these supressive regimes in the past and still does in countries like Saudi Arabia ( a country that still practices beheadings for Friday night entertainement), Egypt and Iraq in the past.
The bottom line is that we Americans must NOT allow our government to just look at the bottom line. We have to stop running this country like a corporation and be a bit more sensitive to the rest of the world.
As far as the EU is concerned I have this to say:
There is not a set or more diluted and racist set of diplomats and politicians anywhere in the world but Europe.
The Brits, the French, the Germans and the Italians are the biggest posers for human rights, and democracy. You people have the audacity to cite human rights violations in the MId East when all the way up to WW2 you were the most expansionistic, imperial powers that ever walked the face of the world. You used Asia, the Mid East, and Africa until you bled them dry and left them in poverty and oppressed them until they fullfilled your greed. Then you pulled out and left those places in shambles. The reason that the EU is a wealthy union is because you USED and STOLE from ather nations.
Who carved up the Ottoman Empire and created Arab states with puppet kings and dictators after WW!? It sure as hell wasn't the USA.
Up until WW1 the USA was a country that liked to keep to its' part of the world. Until Winston Churchill got so far up Woodrow Wilson butt that he could see daylight through his mouth. You got us involved in WW1. Your ingratitute is simply amazing.
Now you cite countries in those parts of the world for human rights violations and terrorism. You created that monster and handed the bag to the US to clean up behind a backdrop of hypocracy.
You also managed to drive a wedge between the Turks and the Americans (staunch traditional allies). By dangling your EU membership carrot in front of the Turks if they refused Americans access to US bases in Turkey.
While America may not be perfect you Europeans need to think about your history and your deeds of the past and acknowledge your part in the whole scheme of things or you'll be staring at a simple hypocrite in the mirror.
PS: I havn't seen any other country besides the US do more to combat communism. Check out Korea and Viet Nam. We lost 58000 men in Viet Nam. We didn't go in there for Oil and it sure as hell wasn't for the rice. So it's not far fetched to say if it weren't for the US you would all be speaking either German or Russian.
|
Pax Ottomanica
|
|
Komnenos
Tsar
Retired AE Administrator
Joined: 20-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4361
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Aug-2005 at 19:21 |
Originally posted by Ironheart
The Brits, the French, the Germans and the Italians are the biggest posers for human rights, and democracy. You people have the audacity to cite human rights violations in the MId East when all the way up to WW2 you were the most expansionistic, imperial powers that ever walked the face of the world. You used Asia, the Mid East, and Africa until you bled them dry and left them in poverty and oppressed them until they fullfilledyour greed. Then you pulled out and left those places in shambles. The reason that the EU is a wealthy union is because you USED and STOLE from ather nations. |
That's strong stuff from somebody whose nation was only made possible through some of the worst genocides in history, that of the indigenous Native-American population to clear the space, and that of the West-African to create its wealth.
Nobody denies that the Europeans have skeletons in their colonial cupboards, but who sits in the glass-house shouldn't throw with stones.
PS: I havn't seen any other country besides the US do more to combat communism. |
PS: Don't get it! Is that a good or bad thing in your opinion?
Edited by Komnenos
|
[IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg">
|
|
pikeshot1600
Tsar
Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 01-Aug-2005 at 22:31 |
Komnenos:
You all have many skeletons at home as well.
|
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended
Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Aug-2005 at 10:58 |
Originally posted by Ironheart
I don't understand what the world would want us to do. I agree that America's past foreign policy was extremely flawed by supporting dictatorships in the Mid East and other parts of the world. Now that we are forcing democracy on some of these countries we are wrong again.
|
Maybe the problem is that little word 'forcing'?
Moreover the US still supports dictatorships in the Muslim world - and where has it actually forced democracy on anyone, as opposed to have gone through some of the motions?
It is a blatant reality that most people are in pursuit of a better economic life and safety for themselves and their families. Most of the corrupt goverments in the Mid East do not provide such things for their inhabitants. That is why every underpriveledged person would give an arm to come to the States.
|
Assuming they can't get into Europe or Britain (or Australia or Canada or New Zealand or South Africa or Japan...) as they would prefer.
What happened in the past with the European powers is no more relevant to now than slavery in the US is relevant now.
As a matter of fact, none of the previous British colonies and dominions currently have any great quarrel with Britain (with the possible exception of Zimbabwe), any more than the former French colonies have with France. They've made their peace with one another.
While it's true that the British and French broke up the Ottoman empire and split it between the Arabs, overwhelmingly that was seen as liberation from the Turks rather than colonisation by the British (with the exception of Egypt where the timescale and the history were very different).
Things changed somewhat after 1956 and Suez, but that was nothing to do with colonisation, but with British and French support of Israel. Places like Kuwait and Oman and Bahrein and the UAE have continued to have close ties with Britain.
The headquarters of the International Cricket Confederation is now moving to Dubai - how Anglophile can you get?
Edited by gcle2003
|
|
Kalevipoeg
Chieftain
Joined: 06-Aug-2004
Location: Estonia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1458
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Aug-2005 at 13:08 |
"Now that we are forcing democracy on some of these countries we are wrong again."
Well you are forcing it, which you have no right to do.
"That is why every underpriveledged person would give an arm to come to the States."
I would rather swim to Sweden than emigrate to the US by plane or boat and i think the time of picturing America as the most free place on Earth, is over. There is a dozen other countries, most would migrate to.
"There is not a set or more diluted and racist set of diplomats and politicians anywhere in the world but Europe."
Who exactly is racist, in what way?
"The reason that the EU is a wealthy union is because you USED and STOLE from ather nations."
Very true to some extent. But it is more true that the US got its wealth by massacring entire nations in their own homes and using their homeland as a haven of capitalistic greed and white supremacy principals. Then, after that comes the happy tale of hardworking Americans building the worlds most liberal country under harsh conditions. Wow, harsh conditions really when the locals are nearly extinct and the rest of them caged in reservations and Americanized.
"I havn't seen any other country besides the US do more to combat communism. Check out Korea and Viet Nam. We lost 58000 men in Viet Nam. We didn't go in there for Oil and it sure as hell wasn't for the rice. So it's not far fetched to say if it weren't for the US you would all be speaking either German or Russian."
The sixtys were filled with heavy-ass propaganda of millions of Red soldiers flowing across the Western hemisphere. I think that pretty baseless fear among Americans was more the reason for the war then other things. It wasn't like you saved the world from communism.
|
There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible than a man in the depths of an ether binge...
|
|
Tobodai
Tsar
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Antarctica
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4310
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Aug-2005 at 23:30 |
The world was saved from communism because communism itself was flawed. It would have collapsed on its own anyway. Whenever Americans say that our nation brought about the end of the Soviet Union I wonder where they got their education from....The Soviet Union destroyed itself through its own stupidity and failed policies.
And all nations, powerful or not have crimes in their past. To argue who has more "crimes" makes about as much sense as arguing over which serial killer is better or worse fromo a lineup.
|
"the people are nothing but a great beast...
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value."
-Alexander Hamilton
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 03-Aug-2005 at 06:32 |
Originally posted by Tobodai
The world was saved from communism because
communism itself was flawed. It would have collapsed on its own
anyway. Whenever Americans say that our nation brought about the
end of the Soviet Union I wonder where they got their education
from....The Soviet Union destroyed itself through its own stupidity and
failed policies.
And all nations, powerful or not have crimes in their past. To
argue who has more "crimes" makes about as much sense as arguing over
which serial killer is better or worse fromo a lineup. |
Indeed, I have always wondered how it was that Americans link the
administration of Reagan and Bush Sr to the breakup of the Soviet
Union. How can anyone really think that the gas bagging of an
intellectual light weight like Reagan could have made the USSR suddenly
implode? A 3 year old could have been president and the USSR would have
collapsed anyway, they had dug their own grave.
|
|
Jhangora
Chieftain
Joined: 02-Oct-2005
Location: Korea, South
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1070
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Oct-2005 at 07:57 |
I voted for other.USA is the only superpower in the world today though it's going downhill n would be replaced by China in a few decades.
Still US economy is largest in the whole world n there r people of all nations living in the USA.I would love to live n work in the US becoz of the freedom n opportunities available there.
|
Jai Badri Vishal
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Oct-2005 at 17:36 |
well i wanna immigrate to Estonia next year.
I feel the U.S is over developed and like all over developed civilisations you have to be careful not to fall.sort out the storms first then go plunder other peoples oil. maybe a trip back in time would work.
apparently this poll was to find others views on the U.S......
well it seems its all U.S or Canadian residents arguing????
ask a question....listen to the answer.
then if you really are worth your salt......take actions to do something to make it better.
if your not part of the solution,your part of the problem.so roll up those sleeves and get your hands dirty.
and as for you Kalevpoeg.... stop starting wars andget back to that book and translate for me!lol
do you think varbola would take be safe from terror?
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Oct-2005 at 21:03 |
The problem is that people, especially Americans, want simple answers
to complex problems. We mouth clichs like Tax the Rich without
understanding the economics of taxation and Exit Strategy without
understanding the intricacies of Middle Eastern politics while
pretending these and similar catch phrases have some sort of mystical
power to change reality. They dont.
The fact is this is not the time to ask if we belong in Iraq regardless
of if you agree with our presence there or not. Im not saying this for
jingoistic reasons as Im not prone to spouting platitudes like
America: Love it or leave it. In fact I loathe that kind of
unthinking commitment to any cause. However due to the overwhelmingly
complex nature of the Middle East and its history the time to have
asked this question was before we went in. At the time both sides
of the aisle said, yes but now were starting to second-guess
ourselves. This is not a good idea in any situation but this is
especially true in dealing with the Middle East. Not only that but it
completely screws our global reputation. We dont want the rest of the
world to say, The US will start something but when it gets tough
theyll scomper off. Vietnam did enough damage to our credibility we
dont need to compound it by following it up with half-measures in
Iraq. It is entirely inconceivable how bad it would be to leave at this
point. Essentially weve committed ourselves to open heart surgery and
half way through the procedure were getting cold feet and want to
quit. This is bad for the doctor, bad for the patient, and bad for
everyone involved. As much as I hate loosing soldiers the effects of
leaving would result in far more deaths in a far shorter period of
time. Remember weve lost around 2,000 men in the years since we
invaded Iraq while we lost over 3,000 people in a single day on
September 11, 2001. If loosing a couple hundred people a year trying to
rehabilitate the Middle East saves thousands, hundreds-of-thousands, or
even millions of lives in the long run then I think it is a cause that
warrants our support.
The thing I love about this Iraq situation is that people in the US,
much less around the world, are silly enough to think we had a choice
once we got the intelligence that they were trying to build a nuke. Now
I'm not a big fan of Baby Bush but you try playing president under the
following circumstance:
1. 9/11/01 just happened
2. You get intelligence that Iraq is trying to purchase fissionable
material that can be used in the construction of a nuclear device.
(This turned out to be false but Bush didnt know this until after we
invaded he didnt lie we were duped - to be honest Im not sure
which is worse).
3. You know that Uncle Ronny and Daddy Bush (idiots) sold technology to
make chemical and biological weapons to Iraq back in the 80s and
Saddam used them in the Iran / Iraq war (we know they had WOMDs
because were - the ones that gave them to them in the first place).
4. Iraqi reports to the UN demonstrate that even by their own estimates
thousands of gallons of chemical and biological agents are unaccounted
for (these likely ended up being accidentally / intentionally dumped
into the local water supply via the Tigris / Euphrates rivers which
explains elevated levels of birth defects found down stream from these
depots).
5. Saddam is putting out speeches about (paraphrase) the "heroes of
9/11" that this is "Only the beginning" and other inflammatory rhetoric
designed to stoke Islamic hatred.
6. UN weapons inspectors found hundreds of shells filled with mustard
gas that Iraq denied having. Tests on these shells indicated the
weapons were still over 90% effective even though they were vintage
shells stockpiled since World War II.
7. How any of you can want such an evil man like Saddam in power to stop
"anarchy" is beyond me. Saddam is the worst type of person, he killed
close to a million people. He didn't just rule with an iron fist, he
killed people who were innocent. His all-time favorite idol was Joseph
Stalin, as if that is anything of a suprise.
Some of you say that there is a high amount of Iraq casuality in Iraq,
but the truth is it doesn't come near to the amount of people Saddam
killed and the many more people he would have killed if he was still in
power.
He has been killing ever since he was a kid. He killed if first man
when he 10 years old believe it or not. The more you study Saddam the
more you see this guy was as worse as Hitler and Stalin! Yes he did not
kill as much people, but that is because he did not have the area of
land that the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany have. If he did he would
have had as much killing IMHO. And unlike Stalin and Hitler, he
actually witnessed many of the crimes he committed and almost enjoyed
watching the death, sorrow, and destruction.
Right now the US is facing vile evil that is trying to threaten the
peace of the Iraqis but when it is all set and done Iraq will live in
peace as a democracy. It will take time but if we give up now or never
tried at all many more people would have been killed under the radicals
threatening or even worse, Saddam!
This is only a fraction of the situation but it will suffice. So with
all this in mind and even more than Ive outlined Bush is faced with
two options:
1. Invade and make sure the WOMDs are secured and if they dont exist he gets egg on his face.
2. Not invade but if Baby Bush ignores all of this and Iraq walks a
nuke across our exceedingly porous (essentially unpatrolled) Southern
boarder and turns LA, Chicago, or some other city or cities into
radioactive craters it would be what we in science call bad.
So he didnt have a choice. I would have made the same call, as would
anyone with a measurable IQ, so it didnt matter who was in the White
House it had to happen. Bush, Gore, Kerry, Hilary Clinton or even
Teddy Fing Kennedy would have had to do the exact same thing and
gotten the exact same egg on their face. If were going to kick Bush
for something lets kick him for something he actually has some control
over like his Fd up domestic policies or that fact that he ignores the illegal immigration problem. Iraq is a nonsequitur.
In the scheme of things freeing the Iraqi people from Saddam is really
unimportant. Operation Iraqi Freedom is nothing but an excuse after
the fact in an attempt to reduce the size of the omelet cooking on Baby
Bushs face due to the lack of WOMDs. Now heres the kicker. If Bush
had advisors with two brain cells in their heads they would tell him to
quit squirming around trying to minimize the blame and take a page out
of Trumans book by stepping up and saying, The Buck Stops Here.
Every time he opens his mouth about Iraq he sound like a kid making
excuses for getting bad grades on his report card. He needs to get that
stupid smirk off of his face and talk clearly, plainly, and sincerely
about the Middle East as a whole and our future in that region. We
cant get out of Iraq, much less the Middle East because they wont
let us. Until someone points out this incredibly salient fact then the
debate about getting out will continue as if it has some importance
while in reality it is entirely pointless. We went in and now were
stuck. In fact, weve been stuck with this since the Britts promised
the Jews their own homeland in the Middle East after World War I and
our debt has only grown since then because weve kept putting off the
inevitable but no one has either the intelligence or intestinal
fortitude to point this out so people think the superficial issues the
talking heads keep yammering about are important when theyre simply a
canard.
Before someone brings up US greed for Oil it has nothing to do with
US greed for Oil. We get around 10% of our oil from the Middle East
and we could easily cover this loss using domestic sources (around 50%
of US oil consumption) or with imports from Canada and Latin America
(around 30% of US oil consumption). On the other hand Europe gets
around 35% of its oil from the Middle East while Japan gets around 75%
(maybe more) of its oil from the Middle East. Now for those not
keeping up on current events Japan and Germany make up the second and
third largest economies on Earth. What happens if these economies loose
access to oil on such a grand scale? Heres a clue: Global Economic
Disaster. So it isnt just the US that benefits from stability in the
Middle East. Is it altruism that leads the US to take a stand? Nope.
Just a healthy dose of self-interest since were the ones that are
going to have to pull everyones fat out of the fire after the fact if
we allow things to fall into the crapper. It appears that World War II
finally taught the US that it is better to take a proactive approach
than a reactive one. Thank the Supreme Being, whoever he (she?) is. If
Europe doesnt like it, screw them. The last intelligent idea that came
out of Europe predates Constantine (with the notable exception of
England electing Churchill Prime Minster see they can make a good
decision). This isnt a case of Manifest Destiny. The US doesnt want
Iraq we just want to send a message to the Islamic nutters that every
time you F with us were going to invade a Muslim nation and turn the
Mosques into McDonalds. If they want to fight a cultural war were
going to win because our culture is more appealing and they know it,
which is why they hate us so much. Give a kid the choice between a pair
of loose fit Blue Jeans and a Burqua the answer is guaranteed 99.99% of
the time with the other .01% representing the suicide bomber
demographic. The war on terror isnt going to be won with weapons; it
is going to be won by indoctrinating them into the global socioeconomic
culture that is currently run by Europe and the US. Why do you think
Osama chose the World Trade Center? Do you think hes is an idiot? He
may be a fanatic but hes a damned smart fanatic. Never underestimate
the enemy.
For those that want to pull out of Iraq the fact is that we cant
without making the situation worse. All it will do is embolden the
terrorist fringe by giving them a victory. The only way we can win in
Iraq is to turn it into a paradise that other countries in the region
aspire to duplicate while also sending a clear message to the region
that when you kick the US well cut off your head and maybe someone
elses while were at it. Two Islamic centers of power were crushed
after 9/11. What do you think Osamas opinions are on the matter? Do
you think he feels better or worse? Sure he dealt a blow to the Great
Satan but the Great Satan evicted the Taliban from control of
Afghanistan and installed a friendly government as well as getting rid
of Saddam and enforcing our influence on Iraq while just about every
other nation in the region is doing Olympic level political gymnastics
to make us happy. He did far more to damage fundamentalist Islamic
control in the Middle East by initiating 9/11 than he did to the US by
blowing up a couple of buildings. Did anyone see Yasser Arafat on 9/12?
He looked like someone had kicked him in the nads. Hes also one of the
few Islamic leaders that admonished his people not to celebrate the
attack. Guess why? Because he knew what was coming. He spent his entire
life kicking the crap out of Israel while tying the hands of the US in
a Gordian knot in the UN and Osama showed up and cut through all his
work in a single stroke. The Israelis should build a shrine to him. As
long as the Muslims were blowing up inside of Israel the US and the
rest of the world really didnt care but once 9/11 happened it gave the
US Carte Blanch to do whatever we damn well pleased. Yasser didnt want
the Palestinians to be part of the collateral damage but it was too
late. By removing US pressure on Israel not to retaliate in force when
some Palestinian suicide bomber blew up it gave the Israelis an excuse
to invade Palestine (which is why Yasser spent the last months of his
life hiding under a desk with Israeli tanks surrounding his compound),
build the Great Wall of Judea, and pretty much justify anything they
want to do in the name of security against terrorist action. The
funny thing will be if these Islamic nutters actually do manage to do
something substantive such as setting off a nuke somewhere. At that
point it will galvanize the world to such a point that just about any
counter atrocity will be justified. What happens after that? Im
thinking pretty much every flavor of bad there is.
As to World War II, Churchill was worried about the Germans until the
US got into the war which is why he spent a great deal of time from
1939 to 1941 pestering Roosevelt to come up with an excuse any excuse
to get into the war. As it was even Churchill said it was a near
thing and he was happy to see Hitler attack Russia rather than crossing
the channel. While you can point to many lucky breaks we got over the
course of the war, one of the biggest was Hitler abandoning Sea Lion
and initiating Barbarosa. If you dont agree all you need to do is come
up with a source that would be considered better informed about the
British situation than Winston Churchill. Strangely, I cant think of
anyone that I would consider more authoritative in regard to that
particular topic.
If the Russians had decided to put an end to the Allies in Western
Europe things would have been bad. In the short term Russia likely
could have overwhelmed Allied forces in Continental Europe but I dont
think they could have taken out England since they didnt have a navy
worth discussing and the allied air force was far superior to anything
Russia could have mustered. Meanwhile the US was out producing the rest
of the world combined and only had a fraction of the number of men
under arms that we could have put on the field. I think we had
something like 16 million men under arms by the end of the war (most of
which never saw action) but under duress I see no reason that the US
couldnt have conscripted multiples of this number if they were needed.
By the time Russia became a problem we were already mopping up the
Japanese so they wouldnt have been a concern. However the US supplying
China with weapons would certainly have been very bad news for the
Russians (Im also wondering what it would have done to the internal
struggle against Maos communists? Who knows what the world would look
like if that had happened?). It seems likely to me that if the Russians
had proven to be a serious threat rather than testing Little Boy on
Hiroshima, Moscow would have been the preferred target. I leave it to
you to decide what this would have done to Russian morale but Im
thinking the loss of the capital along with Joey Stalin in addition to
their inability to defend against such an attack while lacking such a
devastating weapon in their own arsenal would have put an end to any
expansionistic aspirations the Red Army might have held. It is quite
possible that if Stalin had made this decision that it would have
resulted in the defeat of Communism in the Soviet Union and / or the
strengthening of the Democratic government in China thus preventing Mao
from taking control. I wonder what the world would look like in such an
alternate reality? One can only wonder.
Edited by Silverbackman
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Oct-2005 at 21:16 |
The bottom line, America has done some bad things in the past but
overall it is a great country. And let us be honest here, 20th centuary
onwards America has never went to war for their selfish aims. I admit
during the 19th centuary America did some horrible things to the Native
Americans and stole land from Mexico but that was more than 100 years
ago! When the 1900s came America went to war only for helping the
world. Let's be honest, if it wasn't for the USA the world would have
been controlled by Nazi Germans, Imperial Japanese, Fascist Italy, and
Radical Arabs. If the US did not go to war against the communists in
Korea all of Korea would be under the current dictatorship. Vietnam
would have probably been much worse today too, even if the US did not
succed there. If the US did not go to war with Iraq, many more innocent
Iraqis would have died under that Stalin-like dictator named Saddam.
Edited by Silverbackman
|
|
El Cid
Knight
Joined: 07-Oct-2005
Location: Nicaragua
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 66
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-Oct-2005 at 11:23 |
I don't hate United States, and I think is a good country. But Us is still looking at other countries, like centralamerica, muslim asia and others, as potential colonies in strategic positions. Imperialism is not done. It's alive.
|
The spanish are coming!
|
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended
Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-Oct-2005 at 15:18 |
Originally posted by Silverbackman
The bottom line, America has done some bad things in the past but overall it is a great country. And let us be honest here, 20th centuary onwards America has never went to war for their selfish aims. |
I think you need to look a little more closely at all the places where the US went to war in the 20th century, from the Philippines to Mexico and Cuba and the rest of Latin America.
I admit during the 19th centuary America did some horrible things to the Native Americans and stole land from Mexico but that was more than 100 years ago! When the 1900s came America went to war only for helping the world.
|
Nope. It went to war because (WWII) it was attacked by Japan and Germany declared war on the US in support of Japan, and because (WWI) it was led to believe Japan (despite being allied with Britain and France) was preparing to attack with the help of Mexico.
Let's be honest, if it wasn't for the USA the world would have been controlled by Nazi Germans, Imperial Japanese, Fascist Italy, and Radical Arabs.
|
No, let's be honest. That's balderdash, silly propaganda that unfortunately seems to be fed to Americans in their cradles (not that they all succumb to it). Hitler was doomed to lose the (otherwise at the time stalemated) war the moment he invaded Russia. When he declared war on the US that just made his situation worse (though it was balanced a bit by the distraction to Britain resulting from the attack by Japan).
In the overall European picture, the central powers always lose eventually, because they get cut off from the outside world.
(They have a better chance in the Diplomacy setup because France, Britain, and Russia get no advantage from their empires.
If the US did not go to war against the communists in Korea all of Korea would be under the current dictatorship.
|
You have a point there. But the US didn't fight the war alone, despite what you may learn from the movies. (Actually I was in the British army at the time, but didn't get sent there: a lot of people I knew were.)
Vietnam would have probably been much worse today too, even if the US did not succed there.
|
That doesn't seem to make sense. The US lost in Vietnam. If you now say it would have been better if the US had never fought there, what can you do except blame the US for the problem? That doesn't seem to square with your earlier sentiments.
If the US did not go to war with Iraq, many more innocent Iraqis would have died under that Stalin-like dictator named Saddam.
|
More than got killed anyway (and are still being killed)?
|
|