America has a war on terror, but is it not the USA who are really the terrorists? - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HUKD, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HUKD app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit

America has a war on terror, but is it not the USA who are really the terrorists?

ibiza Avatar
8y, 2m agoPosted 8 years, 2 months ago
This started in the posts on the Roots DVDs - but I felt it might offer a good discussion for Sunday afternoon here... (the original post has been duplicated as the next post to enable the links to become live)

The treatment of Jews in Germany will always be regarded as the greatest atrocity when compared to the treatment of Blacks during slavery. Simply as that Germany (who are quite rightly seen as a different Germany to now) lost the war, and the USA manages better playing down its own atrocities towards black people, as with death threats against Obama, sadly the original attitude still seems acceptable to many.

The USA just makes it into the top 25% of countries with the freest press - with they way they go on about freedom you would think they were 47 places higher.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporters_Without_Borders#Worldwide_Press_Freedom_Index_Ranking

Allegations have been made against the USA for funding terrorism in various nations, including permitting funds to collected to fund terrorism in Northern Ireland, and declining to extradite terrorist suspects as they were 'political'. Although I cannot quite see how setting off a bomb in a pub, or shooting dead one of my relatives who offered a reward for information on the same was a legitimate political protest other than just murder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States

But the USA has always done well in hiding its atrocities, even the film planned about this one fifty years later that was meant to star Bruce Willis somehow fell through. As a warning the site has some pictures taken at the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre

Or one above in the USA terrorism section where the papers got out revealing plans to kill people and damage crops in other countries, and blame it on Cuba to prompt an invasion. The plans were even to kill their own people to fuel hatred against Cuba. How can any country be respected when they see killing their own citizens to sway opinion as acceptable.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b1/NorthwoodsMemorandum.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

Returning to the treatment of Black people, why did the USA turn a blind eye to ritualistic killing of a black person to entertain a white crowd?

Here is a graph showing the numbers lynched in the century following the abolition of slavery (1865-1965)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lynchings-graph.png

If you can stomach it - take a look at this wikipedia page, but its very graphical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_in_the_United_States

But even now that some offenders are seeing the law catch up with them, its often claimed the original crime had happened too long ago in the appeal after conviction.

http://news.scotsman.com/12007/Conviction-of-39Klansman39-overturned-by.4479979.jp

I have copied the entire post as the next post so the links go live.

Now enjoy your McDonalds there y'all!!!

Right - get discussing!!!!
ibiza Avatar
8y, 2m agoPosted 8 years, 2 months ago
Options

All Comments

(124) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
Page:
1 Like #1
This started in the posts on the Roots DVDs - but I felt it might offer a good discussion for Sunday afternoon here...

The treatment of Jews in Germany will always be regarded as the greatest atrocity when compared to the treatment of Blacks during slavery. Simply as that Germany (who are quite rightly seen as a different Germany to now) lost the war, and the USA manages better playing down its own atrocities towards black people, as with death threats against Obama, sadly the original attitude still seems acceptable to many.

The USA just makes it into the top 25% of countries with the freest press - with they way they go on about freedom you would think they were 47 places higher.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporters_Without_Borders#Worldwide_Press_Freedom_Index_Ranking

Allegations have been made against the USA for funding terrorism in various nations, including permitting funds to collected to fund terrorism in Northern Ireland, and declining to extradite terrorist suspects as they were 'political'. Although I cannot quite see how setting off a bomb in a pub, or shooting dead one of my relatives who offered a reward for information on the same was a legitimate political protest other than just murder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States

But the USA has always done well in hiding its atrocities, even the film planned about this one fifty years later that was meant to star Bruce Willis somehow fell through. As a warning the site has some pictures taken at the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre

Or one above in the USA terrorism section where the papers got out revealing plans to kill people and damage crops in other countries, and blame it on Cuba to prompt an invasion. The plans were even to kill their own people to fuel hatred against Cuba. How can any country be respected when they see killing their own citizens to sway opinion as acceptable.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b1/NorthwoodsMemorandum.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

Returning to the treatment of Black people, why did the USA turn a blind eye to ritualistic killing of a black person to entertain a white crowd?

Here is a graph showing the numbers lynched in the century following the abolition of slavery (1865-1965)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lynchings-graph.png

If you can stomach it - take a look at this wikipedia page, but its very graphical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_in_the_United_States

But even now that some offenders are seeing the law catch up with them, its often claimed the original crime had happened too long ago in the appeal after conviction.

http://news.scotsman.com/12007/Conviction-of-39Klansman39-overturned-by.4479979.jp

I have copied the entire post as the next post so the links go live.

Now enjoy your McDonalds there y'all!!!

Right - get discussing!!!!
1 Like #2
Well tbh im not a fan of the usa - they are basically the bully of the world and the fact that the country stands for freedom of speech and equality yet its entire history has been full of slavery and persecution for speaking your own mind

They think they are better than everyone - starting from their fight for independance from the british and then fighting against themselves with the civil war and then vietnam and gulf war then afganistan then the iraq war then iran where next america
But then go back in time and the english werent great

The crusades murdered thousands of people because of their religion
1 Like #3
day-ham dude... i like it.... evidence to back up ur claims and all....
#4
dandoc2
Well tbh im not a fan of the usa - they are basically the bully of the world and the fact that the country stands for freedom of speech and equality yet its entire history has been full of slavery and persecution for speaking your own mind

They think they are better than everyone - starting from their fight for independance from the british and then fighting against themselves with the civil war and then vietnam and gulf war then afganistan then the iraq war then iran where next america
But then go back in time and the english werent great

The crusades murdered thousands of people because of their religion


With Iraq the reasons for invading were weapons of mass destruction and Saddam shelling the Kurds.

However, subsequently the chairman of the Federal Reserve of the United States, Alan Greenspan, admitted it was "all about oil".

Greenspan admits Iraq was about oil, as deaths put at 1.2m

I wonder, 'what's the minimum number to qualify for as a holocaust?'.


Furthermore, while it was undoubtedly an atrocity to shell the Kurds. The US position is that South Ossetia is Georgian - and their new rising star/village idiot, Sarah Palin claimed the US would go to war with Russia over South Ossetia.

However, if South Ossetia is Georgian, then did the escalation in troubles there not rise with the Georgian preseident Mikheil Saakashvili ordered the shelling of civilian areas in South Ossetia?

So it seems the US perspective is shelling civilians is only naughty if the US dislikes the person responsible for the shelling, and they will even be willing to go to war with the nation that protected those civilians.
#5
Oooops - I forgot about the weapons of mass destruction - but then again, none were ever found to remind me.
banned#6
Agree fully with OP.

2 Must see films:-

Why we fight http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0436971/

War on Democracy http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1029172/
1 Like #7
America has a war on terror, but is it not the USA who are really the terrorists?


[SIZE="7"]YES[/SIZE]
1 Like #8
i wonder who was actually behind 9/11? they make us beleive it was the muslims?
i mean what is it that they have so much grudge agianst the muslim world/people?
what is it there scared about?
its a question to ponder about am sure
theres plenty answers/truth on the web to open our eyes and mind
#9
dandoc2;3018302
Well tbh im not a fan of the usa - they are basically the bully of the world and the fact that the country stands for freedom of speech and equality yet its entire history has been full of slavery and persecution for speaking your own mind

They think they are better than everyone - starting from their fight for independance from the british and then fighting against themselves with the civil war and then vietnam and gulf war then afganistan then the iraq war then iran where next america
But then go back in time and the english werent great

The crusades murdered thousands of people because of their religion


Are you going for the ironic look by having the american flag in your avatar then?
#10
csiman
Agree fully with OP.

2 Must see films:-

Why we fight http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0436971/

War on Democracy http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1029172/


Agreed - two great films. Any of the other Pilger films are also worth viewing as many of the Chomsky-related film/documentaries e,g. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104810/

khalifazed
i wonder who was actually behind 9/11? they make us beleive it was the muslims?
i mean what is it that they have so much grudge agianst the muslim world/people?
what is it there scared about?
its a question to ponder about am sure
theres plenty answers/truth on the web to open our eyes and mind


:w00t: I think you might be stretching your paranoia a little too far there khalifazed!
#11
i'm not saying its all not true but wikipedia isnt the best source of reference.

I wouldnt say afganistan is terrorists and so i wouldnt say USA are terrorists, people do bad things, doenst mean the whole country is bad.
#12
khalifazed
i wonder who was actually behind 9/11? they make us beleive it was the muslims?
i mean what is it that they have so much grudge agianst the muslim world/people?
what is it there scared about?
its a question to ponder about am sure
[SIZE="3"]theres plenty answers/truth on the web to open our eyes and mind[/SIZE]


Plenty of nonsense to cloud our vision also, no one knows the 100% truth.............about anything going on imo
#13
And the point of this is?, to brand several billion people terrorists because of the actions of some?
sounds exactly like the arguments of other mentalists who claim all muslims are dangerous because there are a few morons amongst them as there are amongst any population over 300.
get a life dude because by your logic we are just as guilty simply because our forefathers colonized America.
banned#14
Liddle ol' me;3018626
Agreed - two great films. Any of the other Pilger films are also worth viewing as many of the Chomsky-related film/documentaries e,g. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104810/

Cheers. Will add to my lovefilm list :thumbsup:
banned#15
Actually have seen a film with Chomsky in which was very enlightening about why the USA is despised throughout the world:-

American Zeitgeist

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0759952/

[url]www.americanzeitgeist.com[/url]
#16
Titchimp
i'm not saying its all not true but wikipedia isnt the best source of reference.

I wouldnt say afganistan is terrorists and so i wouldnt say USA are terrorists, people do bad things, doenst mean the whole country is bad.


Its better to treat wikipedia as a source of allegations, however, with the 'Northwoods' plan it featured details that were released from US government papers, so on the one the cat was accidentally let out the bag.

It was also featured worldwide in the press when Greenspan said the invasion was" entirely about oil" - but all records of this appear to have been removed from Wikipedia.

Howoever, while people obviously do good or bad things, that arguement goes without dispute, but the issue here was whether the USA as a nation was the terrorist, rather than looking at good or bad individuals.
1 Like #17
America certainly appears to have had grubby fingers on numerous occasions. This is due in part to the ammount of influence they hold presently and over the last century. Any country that holds that much influence will undoubtedly not be squeaky clean. I am not condoning them. I think we should question and continue to question especially as USA and GB are structured on these principles.
Generally the world overall has changed greatly over the last few centuries. If you go back a century in almost all countries of the world you would uncover great attrocites.

@khalifazed: I am not attempting to start any sort of anti islamic attack. For the sceptical there are many questions raised over the whole september 11th issue.
That aside there do appear to be other things going on. Going back 20 years it was unusual to see moslems in Britain in the full bhurka and veil. Now in many areas there are extensive numbers clothed in black. Is this a new trend? Does it reflect different sects of the moslem religion in the same way as you might get evangelists and methodists with Christianity? Whatever it says, it has occured at around the same time as moslem groups around the world have become more radical.
It is always said that Britain has an open door policy and welcomes people regardless of culture, belief etc. But large identifiable groups that 'appear' new and radical will always at the very least arouse suspicion. (Punks in the 70s are an example).
It does not automatically mean that our way of life is under attack. At the same time if a decision is made to stand apart rather than assimilate it should not be a surprise that questions are asked at least.
I dont think I have seen any of the films mentioned. I will need to watch out for them. Unless anyone has any copies that they are not making use of ......
[helper]#18
To compare slavery to the holocaust is just nonsense. They are two completely different timescales where the morals of the time were different. Why not go further back and acuse the Egyptians of attrocities against Moses and the Jews? or something nearer home the massacre of almost the entire population of Berwick by the English?

I think America's foreign policy is crazy but to condem the entire nation due to the action of some bigots (which we have in this country also) is just silly.
#19
gari189
To compare slavery to the holocaust is just nonsense. They are two completely different timescales where the morals of the time were different. Why not go further back and acuse the Egyptians of attrocities against Moses and the Jews? or something nearer home the massacre of almost the entire population of Berwick by the English?

I think America's foreign policy is crazy but to condem the entire nation due to the action of some bigots (which we have in this country also) is just silly.


To be fair the thread really started on the Roots DVD thread, where another poster made the comparison.

However, I had taken slavery and expressed its transition into the lychings that followed through the majority of the 1900s, and then up to the recent events of recent convictions of klan members being overturned as they happened in the 60s and 70s, and even the threat facing Obama from his own nationals if he wins.

Given the other references I had quoted in the original thread - I took to expand the theme to include the terrorist aspect too.

So the slavery issue was intended to include the more recent history of continuing disrepect towards black people, and not end in 1865.

Obviously historic atrocities are best left dead - but this time feel the underlying issue still fuels current day problems. I am even quite happy to forgive the English for Berwick, upon Tweed, but its the ones who incessantly mention 1966 I could happily see lynched!!! :whistling:

One thing that has emerged from this post is no one seems to trust the government of the USA, yet upon their advice our government took us to war with Iraq.
#20
@ wooly m
what you see in britian is not a trend att all,it might be shocking for allot of people seing women in veil or even worrying but if you go to an muslim country this is very common and this is a practice of muslim women to cover there face infront of men except there husbunds and close family members.Again you will not see all muslim women wearing the burkha only some who feel they should do it.
I am a greatful british muslim to practice my religion and live my life how i like.

i dont know where this topic is leading as the op was mentioning about usa being a bully,
[helper]#21
ibiza
One thing that has emerged from this post is no one seems to trust the government of the USA, yet upon their advice our government took us to war with Iraq.


I think anyone with an ounce of commonsense would not have believed the stuff that Blair spouted about Iraq being able to lauch a wmd against the UK in 30mins. It was also clear that Saddam did not tolerate terrorist groups operating in Iraq so why invade. The USA probably did it for the oil, to make money for the Republican business chums and Bush junior to get a pat on the back from his daddy. So what persuaded Blair to get involved?

America needed another country to share the responsibility. Maybe Blair did it to look like a strong leader after 7/11. I always figured there was another reason which was never divulged - maybe sharing some secret military technology, promises of political support?

I'm not sure we'll ever know the true reason for Blair getting involved in the invasion of Iraq.

ibiza

but its the ones who incessantly mention 1966 I could happily see lynched!!! :whistling:.

Strangely I was thinking the other day we haven't had the annual repeat on the telly.....the '67 Scotland/England match is much better viewing :thumbsup:
#22
gari189
I think anyone with an ounce of commonsense would not have believed the stuff that Blair spouted about Iraq being able to lauch a wmd against the UK in 30mins. It was also clear that Saddam did not tolerate terrorist groups operating in Iraq so why invade. The USA probably did it for the oil, to make money for the Republican business chums and Bush junior to get a pat on the back from his daddy. So what persuaded Blair to get involved?

America needed another country to share the responsibility. Maybe Blair did it to look like a strong leader after 7/11. I always figured there was another reason which was never divulged - maybe sharing some secret military technology, promises of political support?

I'm not sure we'll ever know the true reason for Blair getting involved in the invasion of Iraq.


Strangely I was thinking the other day we haven't had the annual repeat on the telly.....the '67 Scotland/England match is much better viewing :thumbsup:


I don't doubt Blair will manage very well with a new life of lecture tours in the US, but to think someone's ability to see the difference between right or wrong for so little is quite alarming.

1967 - 'unofficial world champions!' - but 1878 was a far better result at 7 - 2. My mum's cousin played for Scotland in around the late 1950s and perhaps into the 60s. His name was Bobby Evans, and just missed getting into the 50 caps hall of fame with 48 caps. He died about seven years ago unfortunately. Funnily - I have just listed my entire knowledge of football.



khalifazed
@ wooly m
what you see in britian is not a trend att all,it might be shocking for allot of people seing women in veil or even worrying but if you go to an muslim country this is very common and this is a practice of muslim women to cover there face infront of men except there husbunds and close family members.Again you will not see all muslim women wearing the burkha only some who feel they should do it.
I am a greatful british muslim to practice my religion and live my life how i like.

i dont know where this topic is leading as the op was mentioning about usa being a bully,


I feel quite taken aback when I see women in burkas for two reasons. I have no religion, so see someone wishing to advertise their religion as unusual. It also seems repressive that a woman has been educated to see it as something she has an option of doing and still appearing normal. Its like crucifixes only worse as it removes their identity as a person. It must also be a bummer if you fancy a pizza. Women and men should have an equal role in society, yet burkas seem to disenfranchise the empowerment of women. That is nothing against Islam alone, as region as a whole generally places a lower value on women, but alarmingly has exemptions in law to encourage this (such as no women priests etc).

Despite not believing in religions or gods, I think its a good thing that many asian people or all religions have come here, as it offers us a broader and more varied society. I particular admire those who come here and retain their cultural identity, as the businesses they establish have offered far greater choice than would otherwise be available.

However, the same downside that causes people to group fundamentalists with normal people, becomes more common when fundamentalists group the entire white west with the actions of the minority who persecuted Moslems in the middle east and Asia.

I think from this thread its very clear no one respects america and so by association Bliar.

Returning to the previous discussions about 9/11, I see it as a reaction to the repression, persecution, suffering and deaths caused by american foreign policy. But despite being able to see a reason why something happened, makes an atrocity no less of an atrocity. But its also alarming to think how far these people were pushed for them to see their actions against innocent people as a justifiable reaction.
#23
at the end of the day the US are the biggest terrorist of all
banned#24
Labelling the entire US as terrorists is exactly the same as saying all Muslims are terrorists....

DUMB
#25
ODB_69
Labelling the entire US as terrorists is exactly the same as saying all Muslims are terrorists....

DUMB


my advice is you read this thread again :)
banned#26
khalifazed;3021652
my advice is you read this thread again :)

I have read it thoroughly, I'm just making my feelings known in the same way you made yours purely going on the thread title
#27
khalifazed
my advice is you read this thread again :)


Thanks!!! :thumbsup:


ODB_69
I have read it thoroughly, I'm just making my feelings known in the same way you made yours purely going on the thread title



If you read through the content its based on the foreign policy of the USA, in addition to its handling of race issues.

Obviously you are not going to find an entire country of terrorists, and countries' actions are the policies of their government, which invariably are not the wishes of all the people.

It would be silly to presume an entire country could be terrorist, and it sounds so silly it sounds like something that could crawl from the mouth of George Bush.
#28
gari189


America needed another country to share the responsibility. Maybe Blair did it to look like a strong leader after 7/11. I always figured there was another reason which was never divulged - maybe sharing some secret military technology, promises of political support?

:thumbsup:


I just noticed this - 7/11 (7/7) was in 2005, The troops invaded Iraq in March 2003. Many saw 7/7 as retaliation for the needless deaths in the middle east. So clearly that was not the reason behind Bliar's choice, given it did not happen until over two years and three months later.

Do you remember the protest in Glasgow on 15/02/2003 against the war?

Blair was meant to speak at the SECC and so (an estimated) 50-100 000 marched to protest outside. The Labour party tried to ban the march from having a platform outside the SECC, but failed to do so. The march went ahead - but Bliar changed the timing of his speech so he had left Scotland prior to the march even starting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_15,_2003_anti-war_protest

More secifically...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_15,_2003_anti-war_protest#Scotland
banned#29
Another must see film is called TAKING LIBERTIES about how we have lost our civil liberties since Labour came to power. Really is worth looking at and in 10 parts on youtube :-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j21rcnJ3EO8

also, WAR ON DEMOCRACY is here:-

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3739500579629840148
banned 1 Like #30
Some light reading lol

FULL list of US military 'interventions' since 1900:-

COUNTRY OR STATEDates of interventionForcesComments
PHILIPPINES1898-1910 (-?)Naval, troopsSeized from Spain, killed 600,000 Filipinos
CUBA1898-1902 (-?)Naval, troopsSeized from Spain, still hold Navy base.
PUERTO RICO1898 (-?)Naval, troopsSeized from Spain, occupation continues.
GUAM1898 (-?)Naval, troopsSeized from Spain, still use as base.
NICARAGUA1898TroopsMarines land at port of San Juan del Sur.
SAMOA1899 (-?)TroopsBattle over succession to throne.NICARAGUA1899TroopsMarines land at port of Bluefields.
PANAMA1901-14Naval, troopsBroke off from Colombia 1903, annexed Canal Zone 1914.
HONDURAS1903TroopsMarines intervene in revolution.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC1903-04TroopsU.S. interests protected in Revolution.
KOREA1904-05TroopsMarines land in Russo-Japanese War.
CUBA1906-09TroopsMarines land in democratic election.
NICARAGUA1907Troops"Dollar Diplomacy" protectorate set up.
HONDURAS1907TroopsMarines land during war with Nicaragua
PANAMA1908TroopsMarines intervene in election contest.
NICARAGUA1910TroopsMarines land in Bluefields and Corinto.
HONDURAS1911TroopsU.S. interests protected in civil war.
CHINA1911-41Naval, troopsContinuous occupation with flare-ups.
CUBA1912TroopsU.S. interests protected in civil war.
PANAMA1912TroopsMarines land during heated election.
HONDURAS1912TroopsMarines protect U.S. economic interests.
NICARAGUA1912-33Troops, bombing10-year occupation, fought guerrillas
MEXICO1913NavalAmericans evacuated during revolution.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC1914NavalFight with rebels over Santo Domingo.
MEXICO1914-18Naval, troopsSeries of interventions against nationalists.
HAITI1914-34Troops, bombing19-year occupation after revolts.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC1916-24Troops8-year Marine occupation.
CUBA1917-33TroopsMilitary occupation, economic protectorate.
WORLD WAR I1917-18Naval, troopsShips sunk, fought Germany for 1 1/2 years.
RUSSIA1918-22Naval, troopsFive landings to fight BolsheviksPANAMA1918-20Troops"Police duty" during unrest after elections.
HONDURAS1919TroopsMarines land during election campaign.
YUGOSLAVIA1919Troops/Marinesintervene for Italy against Serbs in Dalmatia.
GUATEMALA1920Troops2-week intervention against unionists.
TURKEY1922TroopsFought nationalists in Smyrna.
CHINA1922-27Naval, troopsDeployment during nationalist revolt.HONDURAS1924-25TroopsLanded twice during election strife.
PANAMA1925TroopsMarines suppress general strike.
CHINA1927-34TroopsMarines stationed throughout the country.
EL SALVADOR1932NavalWarships send during Marti revolt.
WORLD WAR II1941-45Naval, troops, bombing, nuclearHawaii bombed, fought Japan, Italy and Germay for 3 years; first nuclear war.
IRAN1946Nuclear threatSoviet troops told to leave north.
YUGOSLAVIA1946Nuclear threat, navalResponse to shoot-down of US plane.
URUGUAY1947Nuclear threatBombers deployed as show of strength.
GREECE1947-49Command operationU.S. directs extreme-right in civil war.
GERMANY1948Nuclear ThreatAtomic-capable bombers guard Berlin Airlift.
CHINA1948-49Troops/Marinesevacuate Americans before Communist victory.
PHILIPPINES1948-54Command operationCIA directs war against Huk Rebellion.
PUERTO RICO1950Command operationIndependence rebellion crushed in Ponce.
KOREA1951-53 (-?)Troops, naval, bombing , nuclear threatsU.S./So. Korea fights China/No. Korea to stalemate; A-bomb threat in 1950, and against China in 1953. Still have bases.
IRAN1953Command OperationCIA overthrows democracy, installs Shah.
VIETNAM1954Nuclear threatFrench offered bombs to use against seige.
GUATEMALA1954Command operation, bombing, nuclear threatCIA directs exile invasion after new gov't nationalized U.S. company lands; bombers based in Nicaragua.
EGYPT1956Nuclear threat, troopsSoviets told to keep out of Suez crisis; Marines evacuate foreigners.
LEBANONl958Troops, navalMarine occupation against rebels.
IRAQ1958Nuclear threatIraq warned against invading Kuwait.
CHINAl958Nuclear threatChina told not to move on Taiwan isles.
PANAMA1958TroopsFlag protests erupt into confrontation.
VIETNAMl960-75Troops, naval, bombing, nuclear threatsFought South Vietnam revolt & North Vietnam; one million killed in longest U.S. war; atomic bomb threats in l968 and l969.
CUBAl961Command operationCIA-directed exile invasion fails.
GERMANYl961Nuclear threatAlert during Berlin Wall crisis.
LAOS1962Command operationMilitary buildup during guerrilla war.
CUBAl962Nuclear threat, navalBlockade during missile crisis; near-war with Soviet Union.
IRAQ1963Command operationCIA organizes coup that killed president, brings Ba'ath Party to power, and Saddam Hussein back from exile to be head of the secret service.
PANAMAl964TroopsPanamanians shot for urging canal's return.
INDONESIAl965Command operationMillion killed in CIA-assisted army coup.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC1965-66Troops, bombingMarines land during election campaign.
banned#31
GUATEMALAl966-67Command operationGreen Berets intervene against rebels.
DETROITl967TroopsArmy battles African Americans, 43 killed.
UNITED STATESl968TroopsAfter King is shot; over 21,000 soldiers in cities.
CAMBODIAl969-75Bombing, troops, navalUp to 2 million killed in decade of bombing, starvation, and political chaos.
OMANl970Command operationU.S. directs Iranian marine invasion.
LAOSl971-73Command operation, bombingU.S. directs South Vietnamese invasion; "carpet-bombs" countryside.
CHILE1973Command operationCIA-backed coup ousts elected marxist president.
CAMBODIAl975Troops, bombingGas captured ship, 28 die in copter crash.
ANGOLAl976-92Command operationCIA assists South African-backed rebels.
IRANl980Troops, nuclear threat, aborted bombingRaid to rescue Embassy hostages; 8 troops die in copter-plane crash. Soviets warned not to get involved in revolution.
LIBYAl981Naval jetsTwo Libyan jets shot down in maneuvers.
EL SALVADORl981-92Command operation, troopsAdvisors, overflights aid anti-rebel war, soldiers briefly involved in hostage clash.
NICARAGUAl981-90Command operation, navalCIA directs exile (Contra) invasions, plants harbor mines against revolution.
LEBANONl982-84Naval, bombing, troopsMarines expel PLO and back Phalangists, Navy bombs and shells Muslim positions.
GRENADAl983-84Troops, bombingInvasion four years after revolution.
HONDURASl983-89TroopsManeuvers help build bases near borders.
IRANl984JetsTwo Iranian jets shot down over Persian Gulf.
LIBYAl986Bombing, navalAir strikes to topple nationalist gov't.
BOLIVIA1986TroopsArmy assists raids on cocaine region.IRANl987-88Naval, bombingUS intervenes on side of Iraq in war.
LIBYA1989Naval jetsTwo Libyan jets shot down.
VIRGIN ISLANDS1989TroopsSt. Croix Black unrest after storm.
PHILIPPINES1989JetsAir cover provided for government against coup.
PANAMA1989 (-?)Troops, bombingNationalist government ousted by 27,000 soldiers, leaders arrested, 2000+ killed.
LIBERIA1990TroopsForeigners evacuated during civil war.S
AUDI ARABIA1990-91Troops, jetsIraq countered after invading Kuwait. 540,000 troops also stationed in Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Israel.
IRAQ1990-?Bombing, troops, navalBlockade of Iraqi and Jordanian ports, air strikes; 200,000+ killed in invasion of Iraq and Kuwait; no-fly zone over Kurdish north, Shiite south, large-scale destruction of Iraqi military.
KUWAIT1991Naval, bombing, troopsKuwait royal family returned to throne.
SOMALIA1992-94Troops, naval, bombingU.S.-led United Nations occupation during civil war; raids against one Mogadishu faction.
YUGOSLAVIA1992-94NavalNATO blockade of Serbia and Montenegro.
BOSNIA1993-?Jets, bombingNo-fly zone patrolled in civil war; downed jets, bombed Serbs.
HAITI1994Troops, navalBlockade against military government; troops restore President Aristide to office three years after coup.
ZAIRE (CONGO)1996-97TroopsMarines at Rwandan Hutu refugee camps, in area where Congo revolution begins.
LIBERIA1997TroopsSoldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.
ALBANIA1997TroopsSoldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.
SUDAN1998MissilesAttack on pharmaceutical plant alleged to be "terrorist" nerve gas plant.
AFGHANISTAN1998MissilesAttack on former CIA training camps used by Islamic fundamentalist groups alleged to have attacked embassies.
IRAQ1998-?Bombing, MissilesFour days of intensive air strikes after weapons inspectors allege Iraqi obstructions.
YUGOSLAVIA1999Bombing, MissilesHeavy NATO air strikes after Serbia declines to withdraw from Kosovo. NATO occupation of Kosovo.
YEMEN2000NavalUSS Cole, docked in Aden, bombed.
MACEDONIA2001TroopsNATO forces deployed to move and disarm Albanian rebels.
AFGHANISTAN2001-?Troops, bombing, missilesMassive U.S. mobilization to overthrow Taliban, hunt Al Qaeda fighters, install Karzai regime, and battle Taliban insurgency. More than 30,000 U.S. troops and numerous private security contractors carry our occupation.
YEMEN2002MissilesPredator drone missile attack on Al Qaeda, including a US citizen.
PHILIPPINES2002-?Troops, navalTraining mission for Philippine military fighting Abu Sayyaf rebels evolves into US combat missions in Sulu Archipelago next to Mindanao.
COLOMBIA2003-?TroopsUS special forces sent to rebel zone to back up Colombian military protecting oil pipeline.IRAQ2003-?Troops, naval, bombing, missilesSaddam regime toppled in Baghdad. More than 250,000 U.S. personnel participate in invasion. US and UK forces occupy country and battle Sunni and Shi'ite insurgencies. More than 160,000 troops and numerous private contractors carry out occupation and build large permanent bases.
LIBERIA2003TroopsBrief involvement in peacekeeping force as rebels drove out leader.
HAITI2004-05Troops, naval Marines land after right-wing rebels oust elected President Aristide, who was advised to leave by Washington.
PAKISTAN2005-?Missiles, bombing, covert operationCIA missile and air strikes and Special Forces raids on alleged Al Qaeda and Taliban refuge villages kill multiple civilians.
SOMALIA2007-?Missiles, navalAC-130 strikes; naval blockade and Cruise missile attacks against Islamist rebels
#32
interesting read
banned#33
deejaychaos;3022305
interesting read

I hope you're serious as it took me ages to format it from an HTML source lol :thumbsup:

it might have been quicker just to name the countries the USA haven't 'intervened' ;)
#34
The world total military spending is $1 200 000 000 000 (i wonder why its priced in american dollars?)

This is the spending for every country in the world added. Sadly working out at roughly £100 per person on the planet. Or enough to buy everyone on the planet one of the new micro format laptops (you get discount for bulk like that!!!)

The spending from one country is $583 283 000 000 - 48.6% percent of the entire world military spending is from america.

Interestingly the money spent by other (mainly EU) nations tricked into a fighting a war in Iraq, made up on the weapons of mass destruction that never existed would easily drop other nations spending sufficiently to make america spend more than the rest of the world combined.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures#Chart_by_country_or_organization

(The figures are from SIPRI - but you need to download it as a file from them - all the following figures can be found on this list).

Is America the largest country in the world?

Nope, that goes to Russian, who the americans invariably accuse of warmongering. So how much do these 'warmonrgerers' spend?

$50 000 000 000 - Less than 8.6% of the country who accuses them of being warmongerers - and this amount manages to police the worlds longest borders in a country so large it covers over ten time zones.

So you would expect this warmongerer with a border that size to spend more than a small country like the UK?

Nope - the UK spends 37,8% more than the largest country in the world - but we do have the middle east rather full of troops prompted by american lies.

But has america the highest population in the world?

Nope - that's China - they spend $59 000 000 000. Just under 10% of what america spends. 9 billion more than those 'warmongering' Russians, and 9 million less than a smallish European country called, well, here.

So why does the UK have greater military spending than the country with the largest population in the world?

Sorry - we covered that already.

The UKs expenditure works out at roughly £1150 per man woman and child in this country (based on a population of 60 million). We spend the third highest in total on the planet on military spending. But we do need to help america with their problems in the middle east.

Personally I would rather see the money covering the costs of cancer drugs people in the UK are being told are too expensive.

Is the USA so wealthy it can spend this money without it being missed? Well - from their recent financial situation obviously not?

One way of judging the wealth of a nation and the sharing of that wealth, is the survival rates of babies, As the better the provision of healthcare in a country the better chance a baby stands of becoming a toddler.

The USA agrees with this - and publishes these figures for the entire world it has decided to police.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html

In the USA unfortunately 6.3 babies die per 1000 births.

This falls just behind Cuba (the country america tries to keep in poverty with a blockade) with 5.93 deaths per 1000 births. The UK comes in at 4.93 per 1000 births - with Gibraltar Portugal Australia Netherlands Luxembourg Guernsey Liechtenstein Belgium Austria Denmark Slovenia South Korea Israel Spain Switzerland Germany Czech Republic Malta Andorra Norway Anguilla Finland France Iceland Macau Hong Kong Japan Sweden and Singapore all beating us - and with a bably being more than twice as likely to die at birth in the UK compared to Singapore.

Common sense would say that the country that spends the third highest in the world on military spending (us - the UK) should surely priorities healthcare eaqually - yet 29 countries manage better than we do from these statistics.

Personally I would rather see more babies living and less help in fighting wars for america based on lies they told us.

With a little swap in expenditure from military spending to medical spending, we could see far fewer babies die in a better funded health service.
1 Like #35
Unspammed. Note to all:

* Inappropriate use of the expiry and spam buttons may lead to a ban from the forums.
#36
thej
Why not just change the title to the anti-american thread?


It's a discussion.

If you feel anything is untoward, inaccurate, or you wish to disagree with it then say what you feel is wrong.

I would agree the thread does look very anti-american, and it will continue to do so until someone post things in favour of america.

If you feel it should not be anti american - then post something against what has been said.

From your current post it is actually impossible to be certain if you would be in favour of the title being changed, or you are annoyed at the general theme of the content.

The entire thread was actually removed, as someone who I would guess was pro american - chose to disregard the right to freedom of expression in the said nation's constitution.

So please post again - but offer more and explain why.

Everyone's views are of value.
#37
emmajk42
Unspammed. Note to all:

* Inappropriate use of the expiry and spam buttons may lead to a ban from the forums.


Thanks again!!!
2 Likes #38
Wow, this thread has brought out the anti-Americans & conspiracy theorists out in plenty. So basically the world would be a safer, better place without America and with more countries like ... anybody care to name them?

There's a fairly quick & easy "rule of thumb" to find out whether nations are "terrorist" or not, tyrannical or not. Basically look at the movement of people. Where is it people want to live and where do they not want to live? I think on that score you'll find that the US is still considered a very popular place. Afghanistan is not! Simple question, where would you rather live?

The main threat to world security presently is Islam - and not just "radical Islam". Everyone knows it, but we are too afraid to voice it because we fear for our own safety. So instead we kow-tow to Islam with our Dhimmi attitudes and instead point the finger at someone who we know won't turn on us. If you were to listen to the biased BBC you'd be given the impression that the bomb on the hotel in Pakistan was the American's fault!
#39
I am not saying that the USA is all bad. There are some in this thread where although they have denounced the US as terrorists, will quite happily venture there. Agree with previous point that its unlikely that people would be happy to venture to a true terrorist state. I do feel however that the endless stories have some basis. Not necessarily collectively but we should keep our eyes and ears open. Some sectors of American goverment circles have been shown by history to have been involved in dirty deeds.

But again it may be able to apply last point to many other countries as well. French & was it rainbow warrior...
Israeilis probably a long list as well,....
Russians.... Same
#40
shieldsy
Wow, this thread has brought out the anti-Americans & conspiracy theorists out in plenty. So basically the world would be a safer, better place without America and with more countries like ... anybody care to name them?

There's a fairly quick & easy "rule of thumb" to find out whether nations are "terrorist" or not, tyrannical or not. Basically look at the movement of people. Where is it people want to live and where do they not want to live? I think on that score you'll find that the US is still considered a very popular place. Afghanistan is not! Simple question, where would you rather live?

The main threat to world security presently is Islam - and not just "radical Islam". Everyone knows it, but we are too afraid to voice it because we fear for our own safety. So instead we kow-tow to Islam with our Dhimmi attitudes and instead point the finger at someone who we know won't turn on us. If you were to listen to the biased BBC you'd be given the impression that the bomb on the hotel in Pakistan was the American's fault!


[ EDIT: After a more careful look at the biased-bbc site I will take back my earlier comment that it's a good site. It's not a 'critical' site at all, it's just a right-wing attack of the BBC! Haven't had a chance to read jihadwatch yet, but it might be more of the same... ]:

I agree that many pussyfoot around issues concerning Islam, but for too long we have also allowed US foreign policy dominance to go unchecked. In a sense, these are both dominant ideologies which are potentially lethal (dependant mainly on where you live). In many ways, they are also both all-encompassing ideologies, and I think it is that which fair and open minded people take exception to, particularly when these ideologies are used to justify unacceptable behaviours and actions (e.g. inequality, unfair trade practices, subjugation, war, torture, terrorism, mind-control, etc.). But hopefully the current turmoil will be looked back upon as a period of enlightenment; in other words, we might be witnessing the death throes of the dominance of fundamentalist thinking in general. Those pussyfooters might yet be shown to be the most thoughtful bystanders in this process... :)

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!