• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

A Brief History of U.S. Interventions: 1945-present

Pretty interesting. It's not all deplorable. We have been very busy dominating the world the last 50 years .:evil:

Wow, just got to the 1990's Iraq Part:

Iraq, 1990s:
Relentless bombing for more than 40 days and nights, against one of the most advanced nations in the Middle East, devastating its ancient and modern capital city; 177 million pounds of bombs falling on the people of Iraq, the most concentrated aerial onslaught in the history of the world; depleted uranium weapons incinerating people, causing cancer; blasting chemical and biological weapon storage and oil facilities; poisoning the atmosphere to a degree perhaps never matched anywhere; burying soldiers alive, deliberately; the infrastructure destroyed, with a terrible effect on health; sanctions continued to this day multiplying the health problems; perhaps a million children dead by now from all of these things, even more adults.
Iraq was the strongest military power among the Arab states. This may have been their crime. Noam Chomsky has written: "It's been a leading, driving doctrine of U.S. foreign policy since the 1940s that the vast and unparalleled energy resources of the Gulf region will be effectively dominated by the United States and its clients, and, crucially, that no independent, indigenous force will be permitted to have a substantial influence on the administration of oil production and price. "

They try to make it out that defending Kuwait was wrong. I guess invading Kuwait isn't considered a "crime." I knew this article was slanted, but not this slanted.
 
Afghanistan, 1979-92:
Everyone knows of the unbelievable repression of women in Afghanistan, carried out by Islamic fundamentalists, even before the Taliban. But how many people know that during the late 1970s and most of the 1980s, Afghanistan had a government committed to bringing the incredibly backward nation into the 20th century, including giving women equal rights? What happened, however, is that the United States poured billions of dollars into waging a terrible war against this government, simply because it was supported by the Soviet Union. Prior to this, CIA operations had knowingly increased the probability of a Soviet intervention, which is what occurred. In the end, the United States won, and the women, and the rest of Afghanistan, lost. More than a million dead, three million disabled, five million refugees, in total about half the population.

Damn Americans. Damn Afghanis. Shoulda just rolled over and meekly accepted the Russian invaders rather than, like, fight for one's freedom. Interestingly the USSR's invasion isn't even mentioned. 😛 Not that the training given the mujahideen hasn't bit us rather hard on our collective asses since, but I like how this site pretends that the U.S. did all they did 'just because'. Communism? What's that?

Yugoslavia, 1999:
The United States is bombing the country back to a pre-industrial era. It would like the world to believe that its intervention is motivated only by "humanitarian" impulses. Perhaps the above history of U.S. interventions can help one decide how much weight to place on this claim.

*raises eyebrows*
 
Brief is right 😛

Regarding Kuwait. We gave Saddam the green light to invade behind closed doors because we knew that international pressure to remove him unilaterally wouldn't work back then. So he was given a green light to invade Kuwait so that a resistance was mounted to topple him or contain him as was the case.
 
Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Regarding Kuwait. We gave Saddam the green light to invade behind closed doors because we knew that international pressure to remove him unilaterally wouldn't work back then. So he was given a green light to invade Kuwait so that a resistance was mounted to topple him or contain him as was the case.
Click to expand...
PBS interview with General Samarrai, Head of Iraqi Military Intelligence:

Q: A U.S. green light.....?

Samarrai: I am not convinced that the USA was the party that gave Saddam the green light to go ahead in his plans but, on the other hand, I am convinced that the USA did not take a decisive and tough line to deter Saddam from doing this invasion.

The indications were very clear. They had the ability to deter Saddam. For instance, there was no ultimatum or warning issued in public or in secret that could deter Saddam.

The US reaction was very weak, cold. Because, despite the fact that American satellites were monitoring the movements of the Iraqi forces, and it was clear to them that there was massive army build-up, the USA did not issue a warning to Saddam Hussein. This really raised a big question mark.


PBS interview with Said Aburish, weapons dealer and go-between for Saddam:

Did he expect the U.S. to respond?

No, he did not expect the United States to respond to his invasion of Kuwait the way it did. He personally analyzed the situation, had that famous meeting with American Ambassador April Glaspie in Baghdad. And he believed the United States gave him a green light to occupy Kuwait. Well, that shows Saddam's lack of education because there was no way the United States was going to allow Saddam Hussein to control the flow and price of oil in the Middle East. Impossible. And there is evidence that people within his inner circle told him not to do it and he did it. He thought he would bargain.

Notable people would seem to disagree.
 
Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Brief is right 😛

Regarding Kuwait. We gave Saddam the green light to invade behind closed doors because we knew that international pressure to remove him unilaterally wouldn't work back then. So he was given a green light to invade Kuwait so that a resistance was mounted to topple him or contain him as was the case.
Click to expand...

Wow, just wow. That is the biggest bunch of bullsh!t I've ever read, besides John Kerry's "Plan for America." Where do you liberals get these ludacris conspiracy theories? I guess we gave Japan the green light to attack Pearl Harbor because we wanted in on WW2. Maybe we gave Bin Laden the green light for 9/11. Gimme a break, your whole logic is fubar.
 
Originally posted by: yllus
Afghanistan, 1979-92:
Everyone knows of the unbelievable repression of women in Afghanistan, carried out by Islamic fundamentalists, even before the Taliban. But how many people know that during the late 1970s and most of the 1980s, Afghanistan had a government committed to bringing the incredibly backward nation into the 20th century, including giving women equal rights? What happened, however, is that the United States poured billions of dollars into waging a terrible war against this government, simply because it was supported by the Soviet Union. Prior to this, CIA operations had knowingly increased the probability of a Soviet intervention, which is what occurred. In the end, the United States won, and the women, and the rest of Afghanistan, lost. More than a million dead, three million disabled, five million refugees, in total about half the population.

Damn Americans. Damn Afghanis. Shoulda just rolled over and meekly accepted the Russian invaders rather than, like, fight for one's freedom. Interestingly the USSR's invasion isn't even mentioned. 😛 Not that the training given the mujahideen hasn't bit us rather hard on our collective asses since, but I like how this site pretends that the U.S. did all they did 'just because'. Communism? What's that?
Click to expand...

Strangely enough, they may have been a budding modern nation now if they had been conquered by the Soviets. As the USSR fell, and most of the former soviet republics were able to pick themselves up fairly well, despite wide range poverty, and the ravages of Stalinism. Admitedly, some of them still have a long way to go.
 
what about America supporting both Saddam and Osama in the 80's even though they were doing the exact same thing they are doing now. its ok to support right wing fascist dictators to counter the growing evils of communism?

terrorism = the new communism

boogey boogey boogey man
 
Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
what about America supporting both Saddam and Osama in the 80's even though they were doing the exact same thing they are doing now. its ok to support right wing fascist dictators to counter the growing evils of communism?

terrorism = the new communism

boogey boogey boogey man
Click to expand...



History repeats itself 🙁
 
You can see whatever you want to see in history. This is a classic example. The lens is a bit clouded and the overall judgement is off. Actually, it is bordering in conspiracy theory crap.


Does anyone here recall that in this world it is kill or be killed. To be on top, requires work to stay on top. If America was to just sit back and watch the world go by, America would have been dead 100 years ago.
 
Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
what about America supporting both Saddam and Osama in the 80's even though they were doing the exact same thing they are doing now. its ok to support right wing fascist dictators to counter the growing evils of communism?

terrorism = the new communism

boogey boogey boogey man
Click to expand...
This is kind of a silly statement since most political maneuvering both then and now manifests itself in the form of realpolitik.

Let's not pretend that morals or ideology are often driving factors in political decisions.
 
Originally posted by: irwincur
You can see whatever you want to see in history. This is a classic example. The lens is a bit clouded and the overall judgement is off. Actually, it is bordering in conspiracy theory crap.


Does anyone here recall that in this world it is kill or be killed. To be on top, requires work to stay on top. If America was to just sit back and watch the world go by, America would have been dead 100 years ago.
Click to expand...

LOL! Kill or be killed. We're not fvckin savages anymore
 
the whole site linked above is trash, or, to put it more fairly, a sugar drink to help liberals grow
up to be brave pigeon chested warriors ! ! here the liberals roar ...er. . . hiccup . ..

at least, it appears, that the author is feeding you the kind of 'information' that any traveler to
third world domains would need to ingratiate himself to the local militants. i suppose it might
serve a purpose as survival lingo when confronted by marxist yokels sporting ak-47s.
 
Originally posted by: syzygy
the whole site linked above is trash, or, to put it more fairly, a sugar drink to help liberals grow
up to be brave pigeon chested warriors ! ! here the liberals roar ...er. . . hiccup . ..

at least, it appears, that the author is feeding you the kind of 'information' that any traveler to
third world domains would need to ingratiate himself to the local militants. i suppose it might
serve a purpose as survival lingo when confronted by marxist yokels sporting ak-47s.
Click to expand...

So then, debunk the claims made by the author instead of contributing nothing but your own convoluted ideals.
 
Originally posted by: Francodman
Originally posted by: irwincur
You can see whatever you want to see in history. This is a classic example. The lens is a bit clouded and the overall judgement is off. Actually, it is bordering in conspiracy theory crap.


Does anyone here recall that in this world it is kill or be killed. To be on top, requires work to stay on top. If America was to just sit back and watch the world go by, America would have been dead 100 years ago.
Click to expand...

LOL! Kill or be killed. We're not fvckin savages anymore
Click to expand...
It's a metaphorical statement. However, it's correct in that Darwin's "Survival of the fittest" applies to political and cultural relationships as well and to this day. Like it or not there's going to be a self-appointed top dog in the world. I'd much rather it be the US than any of the other viable choices.

 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Francodman
Originally posted by: irwincur
You can see whatever you want to see in history. This is a classic example. The lens is a bit clouded and the overall judgement is off. Actually, it is bordering in conspiracy theory crap.


Does anyone here recall that in this world it is kill or be killed. To be on top, requires work to stay on top. If America was to just sit back and watch the world go by, America would have been dead 100 years ago.
Click to expand...

LOL! Kill or be killed. We're not fvckin savages anymore
Click to expand...
It's a metaphorical statement. However, it's correct in that Darwin's "Survival of the fittest" applies to political and cultural relationships as well and to this day. Like it or not there's going to be a self-appointed top dog in the world. I'd much rather it be the US than any of the other viable choices.
Click to expand...

Yes, I have no problem with America being the top-dog, I relish the benefits. But if it comes at the cost of some of these events, events taking places in countries that bear no harm to the US, then we must rethink our methods. It's unfortunate tho, too many countries rely so heavily on the US that I believe there will continually be third world countries..

I just want the betterment of mankind.
 
Sorry, the only other method for retaining a power position is not nearly as nice as we have been. Overall for being a super power the US has proven to have great restraint. Look at history and name me another super power that has held back as much as we have, also name one that has been a larger benfactor to the world.

I am guessing that it will be hard to find.
 
Here is another site that I like better. Nothing to be proud of, though. Kill or be killed, exploit or be exploited. Let's give up the charade that there is anything Godly or humanitarian about it, we are the bullies of the world and have been for some time.
 
Originally posted by: Francodman
Originally posted by: syzygy
the whole site linked above is trash, or, to put it more fairly, a sugar drink to help liberals grow
up to be brave pigeon chested warriors ! ! here the liberals roar ...er. . . hiccup . ..

at least, it appears, that the author is feeding you the kind of 'information' that any traveler to
third world domains would need to ingratiate himself to the local militants. i suppose it might
serve a purpose as survival lingo when confronted by marxist yokels sporting ak-47s.
Click to expand...

So then, debunk the claims made by the author instead of contributing nothing but your own convoluted ideals.
Click to expand...

i wasn't expressing any ideals.

but speaking of 'convoluted ideals', the article itself was written for Z magazine, one of the more
notorious far-left-of-center yellow rags in the known universe. debunking them is almost cruel,
and usually a waste of precious seconds. but you appear to be a mere neophyte - or one 'convoluted
ideal' yourself.

but without referencing any sources, i'll take a stab at the author's first mention . ... china.

he faults us for siding with chang kai-shek, the pro-republic man, against the communists,
the anti-democracy side. hmmm, i dunno, but something reeks in Z country. chang's forces
fled to taiwan and made something of a minor economic miracle of that small patch of earth.
the chinese communists were blessed with a man named mao. why don't you ask the editors
of Z magazine what the good chairman mao brought to his land and people.



 
Actually, we are not really bullies. Look at history, also look at some other powers today. How does China maintain control? How about France and their destruction of Africa? Same with Portugal. Russia, the Arab powers and their abuse of the Palastinian situation, etc... Is America really that bad?

If you believe so, what the hell are you doing here. Find a country that is doing as much GOOD as America, and move there. Looks like you will be looking for a new home for quite some time.

It pisses me off when peple bitch and moan, never offer an alternative to anything, and then continue to carry on. If you don't like it, leave. Is that really that difficult. For example... You don't like your job. What do you do? You get a new job. So LEAVE. Go move to Europe where they love everyone (yeah right) and enjoy one of the most hateful and racist societies in the world. Or just go to Canada, eh - and act like doing nothing about everything is actually helping anyone.
 
Originally posted by: syzygy
Originally posted by: Francodman
Originally posted by: syzygy
the whole site linked above is trash, or, to put it more fairly, a sugar drink to help liberals grow
up to be brave pigeon chested warriors ! ! here the liberals roar ...er. . . hiccup . ..

at least, it appears, that the author is feeding you the kind of 'information' that any traveler to
third world domains would need to ingratiate himself to the local militants. i suppose it might
serve a purpose as survival lingo when confronted by marxist yokels sporting ak-47s.
Click to expand...

So then, debunk the claims made by the author instead of contributing nothing but your own convoluted ideals.
Click to expand...

i wasn't expressing any ideals.

but speaking of 'convoluted ideals', the article itself was written for Z magazine, one of the more
notorious far-left-of-center yellow rags in the known universe. debunking them is almost cruel,
and usually a waste of precious seconds. but you appear to be a mere neophyte - or one 'convoluted
ideal' yourself.

but without referencing any sources, i'll take a stab at the author's first mention . ... china.

he faults us for siding with chang kai-shek, the pro-republic man, against the communists,
the anti-democracy side. hmmm, i dunno, but something reeks in Z country. chang's forces
fled to taiwan and made something of a minor economic miracle of that small patch of earth.
the chinese communists were blessed with a man named mao. why don't you ask the editors
of Z magazine what the good chairman mao brought to his land and people.
Click to expand...


neophyte? Listen, i recognized the bias in the article by just reading it, so I know it had its liberal tilt. But what about the case of the Dominican Republic, or Brazil, or other developing (well at the time) countries?

 
Originally posted by: Francodman
Originally posted by: syzygy
Originally posted by: Francodman
Originally posted by: syzygy
the whole site linked above is trash, or, to put it more fairly, a sugar drink to help liberals grow
up to be brave pigeon chested warriors ! ! here the liberals roar ...er. . . hiccup . ..

at least, it appears, that the author is feeding you the kind of 'information' that any traveler to
third world domains would need to ingratiate himself to the local militants. i suppose it might
serve a purpose as survival lingo when confronted by marxist yokels sporting ak-47s.
Click to expand...

So then, debunk the claims made by the author instead of contributing nothing but your own convoluted ideals.
Click to expand...

i wasn't expressing any ideals.

but speaking of 'convoluted ideals', the article itself was written for Z magazine, one of the more
notorious far-left-of-center yellow rags in the known universe. debunking them is almost cruel,
and usually a waste of precious seconds. but you appear to be a mere neophyte - or one 'convoluted
ideal' yourself.

but without referencing any sources, i'll take a stab at the author's first mention . ... china.

he faults us for siding with chang kai-shek, the pro-republic man, against the communists,
the anti-democracy side. hmmm, i dunno, but something reeks in Z country. chang's forces
fled to taiwan and made something of a minor economic miracle of that small patch of earth.
the chinese communists were blessed with a man named mao. why don't you ask the editors
of Z magazine what the good chairman mao brought to his land and people.
Click to expand...


neophyte? Listen, i recognized the bias in the article by just reading it, so I know it had its liberal tilt. But what about the case of the Dominican Republic, or Brazil, or other developing (well at the time) countries?
Click to expand...

mea culpa: you did note the obvious.

but referencing Z magazine is a cardinal sin nonetheless, at least if you care to be taken seriously.
they are stricken with much more than a 'liberal tilt'.

judging just from the china example above, you can see they are very selective of the facts. the
facts they choose to include are themselves spun a little and shaved down to fit their ideological
shoehorn. resorting to the likes of Z magazine, noam chomsky, the liberty lobby, john birch society,
or michael moore for your fun facts is never wise. actually, it should never be an option.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top