Exactly right. Everyone is expecting that for the US to be an empiral power, they have to forever station troops in the conquered lands and run the day to day operations of government. All they need is their puppets in place and insure compliance with the demands of Washington.
Exactly right. Everyone is expecting that for the US to be an empiral power, they have to forever station troops in the conquered lands and run the day to day operations of government. All they need is their puppets in place and insure compliance with the demands of Washington.
I didn't post the link to the article since NYTIMES requires registration to view articles, and someone usually ends up posting the text anyway. I posted the entire text of the article and it is quite clear what the source is. If you do not wish to read it, then don't.
Great idea, why dont you get the other members of the security council to get some force, then this will be a non issue. It is not the fault of the US that the other nations do not take defense seriously.
The US is interested in aggression, not defense. The SC needs to be backed up with military force, but not unilaterally by one country. This would involve member countries to build their forces to an extent that no single country can dominate. The US will, of course, refuse to go along as they do with any sort of international cooperation.
Nobody else would do it. Beggars sure as hell can't be choosers.
The UN is a laughable joke. A laudable goal, sure, but as the author put it: "The United Nations lay dozing like a dog before the fire, happy to ignore Saddam, until an American president seized it by the scruff of the neck and made it bark. Multilateral solutions to the world's problems are all very well, but they have no teeth unless America bares its fangs."
Europe wouldn't have done a thing about Stalin or Milosevich without the US, except maybe convene a panel, draft a declaration of condemnation, then sit around scratching their heads wondering why Milosevich didn't immediately cease and desist his campaign of ethnic cleansing in fear of their declaration.
"But we asked him to stop, twice, and he just won't comply. Ho hum, what to do...guess we'll have to draft another declaration calling him a 'bad man'. That should do it."
So far it hasn't beat anything, unless we lend it our military for it to use so it can beat something.
Sure, I know a thing or two about the Spanish American war, but I'm not so sure you do. Spain declared war on the US, you bumbling moron!
Spoken like a true idiot. See, two can play the name calling game.
Why don't you try a substantive argument for a change?
I am not familiar with this one and I don't particularly relish the idea of becoming familiar with him.
Another 15 year-old who prolly gleened a few tidbits from an anti-US web page, all of a sudden he's a God Damned expert on World History and Political Affairs.
So, because Iran calls USA "The Great Satan" and trains terrorists (weren't the Contras trained by americans?) means that they cannot have nuclear power-plants? Even though they are at odds with USA on several issues means that if they have a nuclear power-plants it automatically means that they are planning to have nukes? Are there any evidence suggesting that the power-plant Iran aquired will be used for weapons-developement?
The UN doesn't do anything because they don't see Iraq as the real threat. Why? Because it isn't.
Why not, that's what they do with Israel all the time.
Sure, I know a thing or two about the Spanish American war, but I'm not so sure you do. Spain declared war on the US, you bumbling moron![/quote]
Maybe you'd better read up on the events leading to the war then decide who the "bumbling moron" is. It was US intervention that lead to the war. From the Library of Congress:
The Spanish-American War
Spoken like a true idiot. See, two can play the name calling game.[/quote]
I concede that your better at it
Like, Iraq is bad, US is good?
And why is Iraq not a direct threat to its neighbors? I guess you have forgot that the US has kept Iraq pinned down for the last 10 years. Iraq is not a threat as long as the US keeps them pinned down. It is time to remove the problem.
That Saddam Hussein isn't a threat to its neighbors in the region would come as a suprise to the United Nations Security Council, which not only authorized coalition action against Iraqi aggression some eleven years ago, but UNANIMOUSLY imposed economic sanctions on Iraq for the expressed reason that it was a threat to its neighbors.
You presume that the UN would do something if it 'really' believed Iraq was a threat, and that presumption is ignorant, naive, and foolish. The UN doesn't do anything about anything, except draft declarations and hold meetings, unless the US gives it a nudge or three to do something and gives them an incentive like "you can use our military if you want...and we'll pay for it". Only then the UN says "Ah, ok."
That is a striking account, here let me highlight some key points for you:
"In 1895 the Cuban patriot and revolutionary, José Martí, resumed the Cuban struggle for freedom that had failed during the Ten Years' War (1868-1878) ... The Cuban cause gained increasing support in the United States, leading President Grover Cleveland to press for a settlement, but instead Spain sent General Valeriano Weyler to pacify Cuba. His stern methods, including reconcentration of the civilian population to deny the guerrillas support in the countryside, strengthened U.S. sympathy for the Cubans ... President William McKinley then increased pressure on Spain to end the affair, dispatching a new minister to Spain for this purpose ... The reluctant McKinley was then forced to demand that Spain grant independence to Cuba, but Sagasta refused, fearing that such a concession would destroy the shaky Restoration Monarchy ... Underlying strong Spanish opposition to Cuban freedom was the traditional belief that God had granted Spain its empire, of which Cuba was the principal remaining area, as a reward for the conquest of the Moors."
So it would seem that the extent of US 'intervention' was limited to helping a powerless neighbor - 90 miles off the US coast - to win its independence from an imperialist aggressor whose appetite for new world conquering was second only to Great Britain's. The US administrated Cuba for some three years before giving Cuba full automony.
Damned those Americans and their infernal opposing of Imperialist monarchies by helping to liberate an oppressed island located in their own back yard!
What makes you think that NK is going to use the plant for power? Have you read anything about North Korea, about how around 60% of the children there are starving? There's North Koreans escaping the country and moving to China for refuge, if that isn't a sign of a country in trouble then I don't know what is. Not that I'm saying that NK couldn't build a power plant if they wanted to, they can do whatever the hell they want. But when they start removing monitoring equipment from existing plants and building nuclear power stations in secret, then you can't be surprised when people start taking notice.
I'm talking about Iran, not North Korea. I thought I made that clear in my post.
Ummmm, what does that have to do with Nuclear Power/weapons?
Yep. too bad that we are not talking about NK, but Iran.
US Imperialism is an "subtle" empire since US controls the puppets that run other countries.
Saddam, at once time was a puppet for the US. Now, that the US can't control Saddam completely... it is time for a new puppet.
And Israel isn't a threat to hers? Why the double standards?
I was speaking of giving its blessing to taking action on Iraq. They have only gone this far because the US has put them in a position where they have to to prevent war.
That is a striking account, here let me highlight some key points for you:
"In 1895 the Cuban patriot and revolutionary, José Martí, resumed the Cuban struggle for freedom that had failed during the Ten Years' War (1868-1878) ... The Cuban cause gained increasing support in the United States, leading President Grover Cleveland to press for a settlement, but instead Spain sent General Valeriano Weyler to pacify Cuba. His stern methods, including reconcentration of the civilian population to deny the guerrillas support in the countryside, strengthened U.S. sympathy for the Cubans ... President William McKinley then increased pressure on Spain to end the affair, dispatching a new minister to Spain for this purpose ... The reluctant McKinley was then forced to demand that Spain grant independence to Cuba, but Sagasta refused, fearing that such a concession would destroy the shaky Restoration Monarchy ... Underlying strong Spanish opposition to Cuban freedom was the traditional belief that God had granted Spain its empire, of which Cuba was the principal remaining area, as a reward for the conquest of the Moors."
So it would seem that the extent of US 'intervention' was limited to helping a powerless neighbor - 90 miles off the US coast - to win its independence from an imperialist aggressor whose appetite for new world conquering was second only to Great Britain's. The US administrated Cuba for some three years before giving Cuba full automony.
Damned those Americans and their infernal opposing of Imperialist monarchies by helping to liberate an oppressed island located in their own back yard!
Thanks for defending my point.
Depends on where in Europe you live, sometimes people forget that not every country in europe is a member of EU and the countries are VERY different with their own governments and their own laws, their own resources and their own economy...
The gas that i use in my car and the oil that i use to heat my house comes from Norway, Norway is not a part of EU...
I posted these in another thead. These two articles do a good job of suming up what lead to the first Gulf War and what is leading to the next.
From the LA Times
The Lies We Are Told About Iraq
Pentagon propaganda got us into the first Gulf War. Will we be fooled a second time?
By Victor Marshall, Victor Marshall, a research fellow at the Independent Institute, a public policy group, is the author of "To Have and Have Not: Southeast Asian Raw Materials and the Origins of the Pacific War."
OAKLAND -- The Bush administration's confrontation with Iraq is as much a contest of credibility as it is of military force. Washington claims that Baghdad harbors ambitions of aggression, continues to develop and stockpile weapons of mass destruction and maintains ties to Al Qaeda. Lacking solid evidence, the public must weigh Saddam Hussein's penchant for lies against the administration's own record. Based on recent history, that's not an easy choice.
The first Bush administration, which featured Dick Cheney, Paul D. Wolfowitz and Colin L. Powell at the Pentagon, systematically misrepresented the cause of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the nature of Iraq's conduct in Kuwait and the cost of the Persian Gulf War. Like the second Bush administration, it cynically used the confrontation to justify a more expansive and militaristic foreign policy in the post-Vietnam era.
When Iraqi troops invaded Kuwait on Aug. 2, 1990, the first President Bush likened it to Nazi Germany's occupation of the Rhineland. "If history teaches us anything, it is that we must resist aggression or it will destroy our freedoms," he declared. The administration leaked reports that tens of thousands of Iraqi troops were massing on the border of Saudi Arabia in preparation for an invasion of the world's major oil fields. The globe's industrial economies would be held hostage if Iraq succeeded.
The reality was different. Two Soviet satellite photos obtained by the St. Petersburg Times raised questions about such a buildup of Iraqi troops. Neither the CIA nor the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency viewed an Iraqi attack on Saudi Arabia as probable. The administration's estimate of Iraqi troop strength was also grossly exaggerated. After the war, Newsday's Susan Sachs called Iraq the "phantom enemy": "The bulk of the mighty Iraqi army, said to number more than 500,000 in Kuwait and southern Iraq, couldn't be found."
Students of the Gulf War largely agree that Hussein's invasion of Kuwait was primarily motivated by specific historical grievances, not by Hitler-style ambitions. Like most Iraqi rulers before him, Hussein refused to accept borders drawn by Britain after World War I that virtually cut Iraq off from the Gulf. Iraq also chafed at Kuwait's demand that Iraq repay loans made to it during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s.
Administration officials seemed to understand all this. In July 1990, U.S. Ambassador to Baghdad April Glaspie told Hussein that Washington had "no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait," a statement she later regretted.
The National Security Council's first meeting after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was equally low key. As one participant reportedly put it, the attitude was, "Hey, too bad about Kuwait, but it's just a gas station -- and who cares whether the sign says Sinclair or Exxon?"
But administration hawks, led by Cheney, saw a huge opportunity to capitalize on Iraq's move against Kuwait. The elder Bush publicly pronounced, "a line has been drawn in the sand," and he called for a "new world order ... free from the threat of terror." His unstated premise, as noted by National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, was that the United States "henceforth would be obligated to lead the world community to an unprecedented degree" as it attempted "to pursue our national interests."
The administration realized that a peaceful solution to the crisis would undercut its grand ambitions. The White House torpedoed diplomatic initiatives to end the crisis, including a compromise, crafted by Arab leaders, to let Iraq annex a small slice of Kuwait and withdraw. To justify war with Hussein, the Bush administration condoned a propaganda campaign on Iraqi atrocities in Kuwait. Americans were riveted by a 15-year-old Kuwaiti so-called refugee's eyewitness accounts of Iraqi soldiers yanking newborn babies out of hospital incubators in Kuwait, leaving them on a cold floor to die.
The public didn't know that the eyewitness was the daughter of Kuwait's ambassador to the United States, and that her congressional testimony was reportedly arranged by public relations firm Hill & Knowlton and paid for by Kuwait as part of its campaign to bring the United States into war.
To this day, most people regard Operation Desert Storm as remarkably clean, marked by the expert use of precision weapons to minimize "collateral damage." While American TV repeatedly broadcast pictures of cruise missiles homing in on their targets, the Pentagon quietly went about a campaign of carpet bombing. Of the 142,000 tons of bombs dropped on Iraq and Kuwait in 43 days, only about 8% were of the "smart" variety.
The indiscriminate targeting of Iraq's civilian infrastructure left the country in ruins. A United Nations mission in March 1991 described the allied bombing of Iraq as "near apocalyptic" and said it threatened to reduce "a rather highly urbanized and mechanized society ... to a preindustrial age." Officially, the U.S. military listed only 79 American soldiers killed in action, plus 59 members of allied forces.
A subsequent demographic study by the U.S. Census Bureau concluded that Iraq probably suffered 145,000 dead -- 40,000 military and 5,000 civilian deaths during the war and 100,000 postwar deaths because of violence and health conditions. The war also produced more than 5 million refugees. Subsequent sanctions were estimated to have killed more than half a million Iraqi children, according to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization and other international bodies.
The Gulf War amply demonstrated the merit of two adages: "War is hell" and "Truth is the first casualty." To date, nothing suggests that a second Gulf War would prove any less costly to truth or humans.
And here is one explaining the reasons for another Gulf War. Its too long to post here, so I'm providing a link:
A Deliberate No-Exit Strategy
LMAO, Europe sold weapons to the Iraqis? And the US did what? US supplied Irak with plenty of weapons, they delivered way more than ANY european country did...
NK have nukes, they have said so themselves, NK threw out the UN inspectors, NK has stated that a war with the US is inevitable....
Yet there is no mention of doing anything about NK, why not? If THAT isn't a threat, i don't know what is...
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: A5
Not by definition, since we don't have an emperor.
(And if someone tried to become one, then everyone would be quite glad for the 2nd Amendment; but of course, if anyone did that, they'd probably have control of the military first, so we'd all be screwed.)
We also do not hold territory, which also contradicts what an empire is.
Our military of 2-3 million is no match for 200 million armed citizens.
Bwahahahahahahaha! That's pretty funny. lol
You're dreadfully confused, the Spanish American war is hardly an example of US Imperialism or aggression. The US HELPED a country WIN its independence from an Imperialist country then gave it self-rule, you dope! Is this thing on? <tap tap> HELLO!
Maybe there's a language barrier or something....
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter