BF2S Forums U.S. has been the greatest military aggressors of the last century

we all know now that america will never win the war in iraq, and that another vietnam style withdrawal is inevitable

they should never have gone in the first place and now their soldiers are paying the price for the governments lies

Interesting opinion j-bass.  I would actually argue that reason all of Europe is not speaking German is largely due to the British, French & Russian forces and the reason Australia (and the rest of the Asia-Pacific rim) is not speaking Japanese is largely due to the US.  The battle of the Coral Sea (can't remeber if before or after Midaway) probably saved Australia from invasion.  So thanks for that!  Don't get me wrong, being from Down Under I am not in love with the Brits or the US (the Brits have used us as cannon fodder...ever heard of Gallipoli? and we usually just blindly follw the US regardless). 

I don't see the US as an agressor.  I do think that what gets up the nose of non-US people is that they see the US as a self proclaimed Judge, Jury & Executioner of the world...e.g.  Your form of Government is a dictactorship and this is wrong you should have a democracy, so we will overthrow the dictatorship and install a democratic government.  Who is to say this is right?  This is an observation not an opinion. 

Of the recent conflicts Desert Storm was required.  Saddam (sic?) had invaded Kuwait and his forces were raping and pilaging that country.  I think the mistake here was not continuing on and rolling the Tanks into Bagdad and ousting Sadam then, and then leave them to implent a new dictator.  I am sure the new dictator having seen what happended to the previous would have been very careful.  This didn't happen as this was a UN action and the UN mandate was to remove them from Kuwait

As for the recent conflict, yes Saddam is an evil, evil but did the coalition (Australia included) make the right decision in the means to remove him?  I do find it Ironic that in the Desert Storm conflict the UN mandate was followed to the letter, yet this time it was ignored (they said don't do it), but the Brits, US Australia, Spain, etc still went ahead.
     
In the end I am very glad to be Down Under....nicely isolated from it all and nearly everyone forgets about us!!  Very handy in the current world climate

Yes we are in fact the worlds largest aggressor and we will continue to be as long as the world keeps wanting us to be. Until the failed group called the United Nations realizes that protecting this world from fanatical and destructive regimes is a unified effort and that having a smaller military does not excuse you from at least pulling your own weight, then the US will be constantly sending troops in all directions to fix the mess of others. I for one think we are fucked regardless of what we do as Americans. If we do help we are considered war mongers who can't keep our noses out of other people's business. If we do not help then we are considered horribly callous inhumane monsters who do not care about the suffering of others.

So which will it be? War Mongers? or Inhumane Monsters? I think it's high time the rest of the world start picking up the pieces and pulling their own weight.

SlartyBartFast wrote:

Interesting opinion j-bass.  I would actually argue that reason all of Europe is not speaking German is largely due to the British, French & Russian forces

You forgot Canada. The landing at Normandy from my recollection involved 5 beachheads, 2 American, 2 British and 1 Candian. The Russkies were also backed by the US in many ways, along with the French, and British. They all played a part together, but the American involvement of supplies of weapons cannot be denied. It was a joint effort but one that US forces made happen. By the time America got involved which wasn't easy to get a populace that voted the president in for a second term on the basis that he would not bring the country to war, to actually take them to war was a difficult thing. The French had no real way of defeating Germany alone, the British were severely strained, and the Eastern front, well if you know the Battle of Stalingrad, or saw Enemy at the Gates, you would know just how strained the russians were. We did it TOGETHER, and British, the French, and the entire continent of Europe is probably glad that we stopped an Empire based on lies.


OnTopic I would love for the US to not have to be the World's referree and I wish the US got involved in more issues then it has. But we must look out for our own goals as a country just as any other country does.

Go to South Korea today, and see if you think they appreciate what the US has given them. Freedom.

I said something about South Vietnam here, even though it is all Vietnam now... removed

If Japan didn't surrender like it did in 1945, they would STILL be recovering from the damage the Allies would have done beating them back in the Pacific.

Iraq, we disposed a very horrible man from leadership, a man that killed at the blink of an eye. The plan here supposedly was about 15 years ago, they had planned that we could not successfully invade Iraq very well at the onset from Desert Storm, the plan was to beat back and destroy as many military assets as Iraq had, and then to wait 10 years and hope that the country fell apart, if it didn't it would be easier to dispose of the leadership in 10 years time just because of attrition due to sanctions. And who were the problem causers of the Oil for Food program? France, Germany, and a few others. Their true colors showed, the US has a poor foreign policy, but so does much of the rest of the world though. Take China constantly threatening Taiwan. Or what were those islands the British had so much trouble with many years ago.... France also has several engagements that aren't mentioned much in the past 20 years. Many countries involve themselves in other countries affairs, but nobody does it to the scale that the US does because the UN has corruption and doesn't want to do the nasty work themselves. 15 years go by and they continued to talk to a leader that commited blatant war crimes!

Last edited by freebirdpat (2005-11-22 03:14:58)

freebirdpat wrote:

SlartyBartFast wrote:

Interesting opinion j-bass.  I would actually argue that reason all of Europe is not speaking German is largely due to the British, French & Russian forces

You forgot Canada. The landing at Normandy from my recollection involved 5 beachheads, 2 American, 2 British and 1 Candian. The Russkies were also backed by the US in many ways, along with the French, and British. They all played a part together, but the American involvement of supplies of weapons cannot be denied. It was a joint effort but one that US forces made happen. By the time America got involved which wasn't easy to get a populace that voted the president in for a second term on the basis that he would not bring the country to war, to actually take them to war was a difficult thing. The French had no real way of defeating Germany alone, the British were severely strained, and the Eastern front, well if you know the Battle of Stalingrad, or saw Enemy at the Gates, you would know just how strained the russians were. We did it TOGETHER, and British, the French, and the entire continent of Europe is probably glad that we stopped an Empire based on lies.


OnTopic I would love for the US to not have to be the World's referree and I wish the US got involved in more issues then it has. But we must look out for our own goals as a country just as any other country does.

Go to South Korea today, and see if you think they appreciate what the US has given them. Freedom.

South Vietnam would also not be possible today without the US involvement.

If Japan didn't surrender like it did in 1945, they would STILL be recovering from the damage the Allies would have done beating them back in the Pacific.

Iraq, we disposed a very horrible man from leadership, a man that killed at the blink of an eye. The plan here supposedly was about 15 years ago, they had planned that we could not successfully invade Iraq very well at the onset from Desert Storm, the plan was to beat back and destroy as many military assets as Iraq had, and then to wait 10 years and hope that the country fell apart, if it didn't it would be easier to dispose of the leadership in 10 years time just because of attrition due to sanctions. And who were the problem causers of the Oil for Food program? France, Germany, and a few others. Their true colors showed, the US has a poor foreign policy, but so does much of the rest of the world though. Take China constantly threatening Taiwan. Or what were those islands the British had so much trouble with many years ago.... France also has several engagements that aren't mentioned much in the past 20 years. Many countries involve themselves in other countries affairs, but nobody does it to the scale that the US does because the UN has corruption and doesn't want to do the nasty work themselves. 15 years go by and they continued to talk to a leader that commited blatant war crimes!

sorry, but there is no south vietnam.
the north won....
so its just vietnam. run by a communist government

ug. I will say only this.... Iraq is not Vietnam, its nothing like Vietnam, not even close... not the same ball park, not the same game, not even the same sport. can't even watch it on the same channel. Iraq is something different, but Vietnam it ain't.

- the fundamental difference, the majority of Vietnamese did not support US intervention and the "Vietnamese Government" we endorsed and fought for did not represent the population at all. in Iraq the majority of people were brutally oppressed under the regime of Saddam and they welcomed liberation, regardless of how the media attempts to slant it. In Vietnam we were fighting Vietnamese on their home turf, in Iraq a majority, yes MAJORITY, of the insurgents fighting us today aren't even Iraqi. Don't take my word for it, do a little research of your own.

Personally, I think generalizing two totally different conflicts like this is disrespectful to both the men who died in Vietnam and the men dying in Iraq. You can't just strip an event of all of its historical context to make a cheap soundbite and a 45 cent bumper sticker. Its a totally innacurate comparison and nothing short of bastardizing history.

I'm too tired to respond to the rest of this stuff, except to say life would be a lot different in EVERY part of the world had the US not been invovled in WWII, and its riduculous to call us the biggest aggressors of the last century when twice there was a GLOBAL CONFLICT caused by the krauts. I'm sorry, but Korea and Vietnam don't hold a candle to WWI and WWII, I'm afraid the bratworsts take the the title of greatest aggressors of the last century right to the bank.

Finally, in true spirit of my typical posts... I have to scold that guy above, South Vietnam???? Pretty much every single aspect of your post, intelligent and meaningful or not, flies right out the window when you say "South Vietnam wouldn't be possible today either." If you're going to talk about something as if you are educated on the subject, do everyone a favor and first make sure you ARE educated on the subject.

Last edited by dshak (2005-11-22 02:05:55)

Freebird...quite correct on the Canada point...I don't want to offend my Canadian friends...pretty much my point, an Allied effort on many fronts.  I also didn't mention my country, Australia as I was just focusing on the "Big" powers.  I could have listed New Zealand, Greece, Australia, Canada, etc, etc.  But I would still be typing my post now

I could talk about this stuff for hours...love the debate.  I wanted to get into The Crusades, The Spanish Inquisition...man History is full of this stuff.  In the end I beilieve any conflict can be brought down to two things... Land, territory and it's resources (Minerals, fossil fuels, forests, water, etc ...three things if you want to seperate this from land) and religion......But alias my five week old daughter (the only thing I will ever use agression to protect) is putting on a turn and screaming her head off and I need to attend to priorites.  I will check later to see where you all took this!!

j-bass wrote:

easy there lefty.  I think it would be more accurate to say the U.S.  has responded to more aggression than any other country.  All of Europe would be speaking German right now if not for the United States.

Excuse my language, but bollocks.

Yeah, America sent 2 million troops over to Europe. These troops they sent in 1918. US President (Wilson I think) spent the first 3 years of the Great War in a sodding fruitless peacekeeping role (It started in 1914). Of course this failed, and US declared war on Germany on 6th April 1917.
Sure, those AEF (American Expeditionary Force) Troops sent over did help alot - but by no means did the US win the war for us. It's a shame there were political uprisings against Czar Nicholas II in Russia, forcing the Imperials out of the War. Oh yeah, forgot to mention the reason America actually joined in the War, instead of continuing to say please to Germany - Unrestricted Submarine warfare threatened your shipping over in Europe. Britain managed to survive attacks on our shipping - hence we were able to stay in the war and continue on to the D-Day landings at Normandy - along with the French, Canadian and American.

I agree that America has responded to more aggression than any other country. This is not a good thing. U.S. is trying to police the world, and failing - They've succeeded quite a lot (That is, of course, if you count Vietnam a success...I wouldn't) - But now the U.S. is getting arrogant - Look at the fuck up they've (by 'they've' I mean British as well) made of Iraq. Would of been nice to have a reason to go to war. A real reason. Not bullshit like 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' - which there aren't - or Oil. Or 'well, he's (Saddam) evil, isn't he?'.
Iraq was better off before everyone got involved. Yeah, they were ruled by a harsh dictatorship - but now they are being governed by 2 countries whose leaders don't have a clue. George Bush didn't even know there were two different schools of Muslim thought at war there - much like in Ireland, with the Protestants and Catholics of the Christianic 'religion'. But, I won't get started on Bush - I'll leave at him being a fuckwit (before you denounce it, let me pick some quotes..."...Bible was written in American"...that should do it).

mikeshw wrote:

much like Nazi Germany going into Poland in '39

Hitler had a reason. And it was a better reason than the 'reasons' Bush and Blair gave to going to Iraq.

Anyway, i'm tired, and my point probably doesn't make sense, so i'll stop.

-=Meshekal=- wrote:

mikeshw wrote:

much like Nazi Germany going into Poland in '39

Hitler had a reason. And it was a better reason than the 'reasons' Bush and Blair gave to going to Iraq.

I know. I hesitated quoting Iraq in my post because that has been argued to death, and it could go on and on. Colin Powell holding a small vial of anthrax in the UN and showing graphics of mobile lab trailers making them is still vivid in my mind, and the failure to find WMD made that image stuck all the more.

Did Saddam had a valid reason for invading Kuwait? Was it any worst  (or less valid) than Bush's or Blair's? Its really, at the end of the day, whose PoV we are seeing events through.

My 2 cents worth..

Last edited by mikeshw (2005-11-22 02:22:40)

OK, I'll delve into this again.

On the topic of WWII

A great many countries fought against the Axis powers in WWII. Each of these countries sacrificed quite a bit to ensure that these two powers did not suceed in taking over the world. Each of these countries and their sacrifices should not be diminished in any sort of fashion. However every single military strategist will tell you the exact same thing in regards to the American involvement in WWII, "It was going to happen one way or another and that timing was the key." If the US decided to take an isolationistic approach to Germany and ignored its allies in Europe then Europe would have fell. The British Isles would have been conquered for the first time since William of Normandy. This is a fact and not a possibility. Left unchecked the Nazi war machine would have pounded Britain into submission and would have occupied the isle. Once this happened it would have taken Iceland as a post and then guarded against any future US involvement. Greenland would have a possible next target. However their first target would have been to secure each neutral country while keeping a majority of their forces on the Eastern front against Russia and also in Africa. Once they secured these areas then the push to Moscow would have started and Russia would have fallen. Insurgent and Underground resisitance would have continued for many years to follow. With the US not in the war in Europe, the Japanese would not have been as hard pressed to attack Pearl Harbor to elliminate the US Fleet presence there. They have secured the Pacific rim from the edges of Alaska down to Australia in a matter of time. Neither of the Axis would have touched any US territory if the US had remained neutral and did nothing to help their allies. In the end the US I believe would have been forced to deal with the Nazis and the Japanese in sharing what was left of the world. Eventually one of these 3 major powers would enter into war with one of the others. The winner of this hypothetical war is unknown and I would not like to guess on it's outcome.

This is the plain and simple truth. American Industry and Manpower were what pushed the Allies over the edge from a defending and dying force into a growing and offensive force. Drives into Africa supporting British forces against Rommel. Normandy would not have been possible without the American fleet. Without the sheer number of Liberty Ships sending supplies over any hope of troops remaining fed and armed would have been impossible. The Pacific theater was 90% American troops. Australia, New Zealand and a few others helpped in this offensive in each of their own ways.

The bottom line is it took everyone working together against the Axis to remove their momentum and retake conquered lands. Entering into the war was a matter of surival for America and to not do so was to admit a future defeat at the hands of two very powerful military mights. We commited troops and supplies at the strong urging of our Allies and were vaulted full steam into the war by the attack on Pearl Harbor. This was not aggression and should never be considered that. It was survival and defense of our way of life in those days.

The Aggression of the US
If we are to discuss the US aggressive attitude then let us look at History outside WWI and WWII. Both of these wars saw American action due to Alliances and not arbitrary Aggression.

Let us look at the Spanish American War, our actions in the Med near Tripoli, or fleet battles against Spain in the Phillipines. That was a war in which to win land and resources. Or independant actions like Panama or Grenada. That is a war of aggression. Korea and Vietnam were acts of Aggression on our part and were eagerly supported intially by the Democratic free world who wanted Communism to be kept in check. No one else stepped up to the plate against Communism more than the US. It was these actions and their support by Allies that implied and set the stage for the US to become the World's Police. If other countries had taken an equaly proactive role against such conflicts then the burden of policing the world would be today a cooperative effort. But this is not so and instead American troops are spread across this world keeping the peace in the guise of UN colors FOR the UN. The 1st Iraq war (Desert Shield and Storm) was in defense of Kuwait. Iraq invaded Kuwait to secure an established Persian Gulf port. They did not have access to the Persian Gulf and Kuwait was a perfect location to gain this access. Oil was not as important to Iraq as they had many of their own fields which draw from the same massive underground oil resource that Kuwait does. That action was supported by the UN and sanctioned by the world who all agreed that the invasion of Kuwait was unforgivable. This was not an act of aggression but was an act of defending an defenseless country.

The Iraq War
The current Iraq war, no matter the reasons we entered, is an act of Aggression. We declared war on Iraq, we conquered Iraq and then we intiated the motions to establish a Democratic government. We put the current leaders in power and we closely consul them on the development of their government and economy. This is a puppet government that holds its very existance to the US. Hence they will publically support the US. However it is a government placed on three warring tribes that have a history of infighting. A culture set heavily in Religion must now attempt to rule itself through Government and not Military might and fear. Government and Religion rarely mix well together and in this case I do not think it will be easy. I hope for their sake that Iraq does not enter into a civil war and collapse before it even gets going.

Thanks for reading this very long post.
Cheers.

Last edited by kilroy0097 (2005-11-22 03:03:26)

Has the United States been the most militarily active this last century? I'd have to say yes

But most aggressive? I think not

Aggression as defined in the American Heritage Dictionary:

1.  The act of initiating hostilities or invasion.
2.  The practice or habit of launching attacks.
3.  Hostile or destructive behavior or actions.

Last I checked the history books, the US has never engaged in hostilities UNPROVOKED in the 20th century, either directly or indirectly.  Nor have they INITIATED hostilities.  Allow me to illustrate:

The Great War - Assisting allies against German invasion
WW II - In the Atlantic, assisting allies against Nazi aggression; in the Pacific, two words: PEARL HARBOR
South Korea - Assist a democratic society (supported by the people) from aggression from a communist 
                     regime, as well as the 'Japan" point illustrated above
Vietnam - Assist a democratic faction under attack (and the US paid dearly for the mistake of not supporting a
               faction without the support of the people)
Bosnia - Assist refugees attempting to defend against admitted GENOCIDE
Gulf War I - Talk to the Kuwaitis
Afghanistan/ Op ENDURING FREEDOM - Ask a family member of one who died in the World Trade Center
Iraq/ Op IRAQI FREEDOM - Gulf War I never ended... we just finished the job... If you disagree, what do you call Op SOUTHERN and NORTHERN WATCH (UN sanctioned operations... with three Security Council members participating)

I challenge anyone to name a conflict since the Great War where the US initiated hostilities without reacting to some heinous event in that area.......

or did it without at least one full partner who is also a member of the UN Security Council......

Having helped launch aircraft in Saudi Arabia for SOUTHERN WATCH, and other parts for ENDURING FREEDOM.... and seen the powerful good being done on the ground in Iraq first hand,  I'm here to tell ya that the news is a business and they peddle their wares in classic form.  Warm hearted stories of the schools the US is building, or the people now being fed, or the liberally minded peacefully protesting a US presence (without being beaten and drug away by the Feyadeen Saddam mind you) doesn't make ratings... and money.  But explosions, 'shock and awe' reporting, and faces and names of the dead do.  You decide what's the whole truth and what’s not.

The US may have made mistakes... who hasn't, and innocent people have died.  But armed conflict is messy as hell and it will always be that way, that’s why its hopefully the last resort and you never find out if it's worth cost until everything is done (ask the Russians about their time in Afghanistan).  But in my eyes the decisions have been for the best in the end.

We won't answer the question posed in the title any time soon, until well after the hostilities have ended and all of us are old and gray

Cheers,
Grey Wolf

I am in the US military, stationed in Germany, and I refuse to talk about politics for many reasons.  But I did, however, recieve an email that I found to be good.  Here it is (cut and pasted):

The Plan!
 
You gotta love Robin Williams......   
Even if he's nuts!  Leave it to Robin
Williams to come up with the perfect
plan.  What we need now is for our
UN Ambassador to stand up and
repeat this message.

Robin Williams' plan...(Hard to
argue with this logic!)

"I see a lot of people yelling for peace
but I have not heard of a plan for
peace.  So, here's one plan."

1) "The US will apologize to the world for our "interference" in their affairs, past & present.  You know, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Tojo, Noriega, Milosevic, Hussein, and the rest of those 'good ole boys', we will never "interfere" again.

2) We will withdraw our troops from all over the world, starting with Germany, South Korea, the Middle East, and the Philippines.  They don't want us there.  We would station troops at our borders.  No one allowed sneaking through holes in the fence.

3) All illegal aliens have 90 days to get their affairs together and leave.  We'll give them a free trip home.  After 90 days the remainder will be gathered up and deported immediately, regardless of whom or where they are.  They're illegal!!!  France will welcome them.

4) All future visitors will be tho-
roughly checked and limited to 90 days unless given a special permit!!!!  No one from a terrorist nation will be allowed in.  If you don't like it there, change it yourself and don't hide here.  Asylum would never be available
to anyone.  We don't need any more cab drivers or 7-11 cashiers.

5) No foreign "students" over age 21.  The older ones are the bombers.  If they don't attend classes, they get a "D" and it's back home baby.

6) The US will make a strong effort
to become self-sufficient energy wise.  This will include developing nonpolluting sources of energy but will require a temporary drilling of oil in the Alaskan wilderness.  The caribou will have to cope for a while.

7) Offer Saudi Arabia and other oil producing countries $10 a barrel for their oil.  If they don't like it, we go some place else.  They can go somewhere else to sell their production.  (About a week of the wells filling up the storage sites would be enough.)

8) If there is a famine or other natural catastrophe in the world, we will not "interfere."  They can pray to Allah or whomever, for seeds, rain, cement or whatever they need.  Besides most of what we give them are stolen or given
to the army.  The people who need
it most get very little, if anything.

9) Ship the UN Headquarters to an isolated island some place.  We don't need the spies and fair weather friends here. Besides, the building would make a good homeless shelter or lockup for illegal aliens.

10) All Americans must go to charm and beauty school.  That way, no one can call us "Ugly Americans" any longer.  The Language we speak is ENGLISH...learn it...or LEAVE...Now, isn't that a winner of a plan?

"The Statue of Liberty is no longer
saying 'Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses.'  She's got a baseball bat and she's yelling, 'you want a piece of me?'  "

If you agree with the above forward
it to friends...If not, and I would be amazed, DELETE it!!

Last edited by CBRacky (2005-11-22 03:44:57)