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

ubersoldat...dos sniper wrote:

as a citizen of the u.s. i think its fair to say i can say shit about my own country. the war was a huge mistake they crashed into our towers then we kill about 10 times as many ppl of theirs i think that covers payback.  time to insult bush. that asshole. well he is. he cant say a speech of his own to save his life, we also had osama or it was sadam not exactly sure. well anyway we had one of em here and our wonderful president had a relationship with the family of the guy and he shipped the guy back home to iraq or afgan. how rediculous is that. what a douche bag. plus hes all talkin about weapons of mass destruction. destruction my ass all they got is weapons we gave them to fight their stupid war and oil. oh yeah they have rocks also. if i could get away with it and if i was insane i would end bush's presidential stay in the white house. there is no point in our troops being in there except for them to die. we've already scared the shit outa both osama and sadam like they are gonna attack the u.s. again. if anything we should just nuke their asses now. we are spending a shitload of taxes (1.3 billion dollars) i'm not sure what the exchange rates are these days so i wont do it. you can if you want. well hes spending all that on damn school and clinics for the bitch dirt bags. when we need it for our own schools. and its not like hes payin for this himself. so now all of our taxes will be sky high. then during the sunami(spelt that wrong) in asia guess what bush donates a shit load of money to the god damn gooks or who ever got hit. then other countries donated aswell but i dont really care about what they spent. but bush and i think it was england donated a good deal of money, and bush has the nerve to out donate the country. as if that was gonna prove some kind of point. are county is already 3.5 trillian dollars into dept. then along comes this donating then the schools and clinic there goes a few more billion dollars yay more dept. who in the us voted for this dip shit you should be shot along with bush. its the pointless killing of our troops is what gets me. its like if they were fighting a country tryin to take over a friendly county i could agree with that. but fighting for weapons of mass destruction, yeah right. its just so outrages.

What the hell is this slop?  Paragraphs?  You have no idea what you're talking about.

Also...watching Fahrenheit 9/11 probably isnt' the best source to get your information, since the entire movie is pretty much lies and half truths.  Try picking up a book or doing some actual reading yourself. 

Here's a place to start:

59 Deceits of Fahrenheit 9/11

Last edited by BigSwoll (2005-12-13 04:12:38)

No. It won't. No murder can ever be in the name of Allah. If you'd know anything about islam you'd knew that. Don't be ignorant.

Just like no murder can be in the name of Christ? lol Crusades

it was in the name of god and yes it can, read up u will be shocked, on both counts

Is the US the biggest aggressor of the 20th C?? not likely.
Having studied 20th C history when I was @ school, I have come the conclusion that the biggest military aggressors of the 20th C, are in fact Germany (started and lost 2 World Wars - within a period of 20 years no less), and Japan (invaded China and South East Asia, and bombed the US, a neutral country).
At this time the US are in a war they shouldnt have started, (and having started, cant quite figure out how to stop)...... I mean dont get me wrong Saddam was VERY bad news and had to go, but the were better ways of going about it than illegally (without UN approval) invading Iraq.
As for Vietnam, the US were asked by a friendly country (South Vietnam), to help defeat a Communist insurgency from North Vietnam. Australia and New Zealand were only dragged into the conflict because of the ANZUS Treaty.
Before you all start getting anti-US and assume that the US starts most conflicts I suggest you all start reading history and the reasons why conflicts happen.

Last edited by -101-InvaderZim (2005-12-15 02:57:40)

REDTEAM wrote:

China is going to turn US into a gaint crater
Just like US poeple want to turn mid east into a crater

history is strewn with the wreckage of Countries that Were going to turn " The USA into a big crater "
ad china when you are ready.

Horseman 77 wrote:

REDTEAM wrote:

China is going to turn US into a gaint crater
Just like US poeple want to turn mid east into a crater

history is strewn with the wreckage of Countries that Were going to turn " The USA into a big crater "
ad china when you are ready.

techincally it has been done, usa was conquered by us the brits, u got your indepence from us, because we all know we let the bible bashers go because we loved em so much,

and on a side note america is dot years old compared to nearly every country on the planet. in fact what was it called before america.

I am an Australian and sick and tired of our government blindly following a nation where half of its people could not even identify our country on a globe let alone know how their own works.

well get used to it cause no matter how ungratefull you are your govt recognises what a crucial ally we have been and are gratefull. i like that you base your opinion of americans on some stupid video where dude tricks people into misidentifying austrailia .. nice source..

Your President is an idiot who couldn't make it in the commercial world and can't make it in the polical realm unless his way has been paid for.

im no big fan of bush but none of that is really true. he graduated from yale. what prestigous ivy league school did you graduate from ? he was a miilionaire from the energy business and became a multimillionaire from the rangers. you can do better ? hes a horrible speaker but ask any political anaylst and theyll tell you he has political genious behind that dufus demeanor.

To date that has been the only Millitary action between The USA and GB

oh and dont forget the war of 1812 .. in many ways it was more significant than the revolutionary war

Last edited by chitlin (2005-12-15 23:08:48)

Yet America has one of the longest running governments in the world

whos is longer? just curious..

Nehil wrote:

chitlin wrote:

Yet America has one of the longest running governments in the world

whos is longer? just curious..

Possibly the brits.

Didn't they have a king and some crap like that when our boys were throwing the Constituition together? Chasing around dragons with catapults and stuff....

Kidding, but I think we (The US) have the longest running government. We had an attempted coup in the civil war, but that didn't work, so the 225+ year streak goes on.

wow. How could I miss this thread ?

After actually having read through all 13 pages, I take the opportunity to add my 2 cents. Feel free to comment, swearing or ethnic slurs will not be tolerated though.

Has the US been the greatest military aggressors of the last century ? No. Having caused two world wars, that trophee goes to germany ( or the krauts, bratwursts, as someone else has put it ever so eloquently ).

Did the US support for the allies have a considerable ( if not decisive ) influence on the outcome of WWII ?
Absolutely.

Would Hitler have won the war if the US hadn't supported Brits and Russians alike ? Impossible to tell from today's perspective. Arguments could probably be found for both sides. I happen to believe that the fact germany had to fight on two fronts after Hitler broke the pact with Stalin didn't help much either.
Then again, Hitler was a madman. Madmen don't win global conflicts.

Which leads me to my second point. WWI and WWII were global conflicts, being fought on a much larger scale and with much larger implications and consequences than the regional conflicts we have been facing since then ( corea, vietnam, the balcans, the first gulf war ).

The UN were created just after WWII to ensure that all sovereign nations could work together on a political basis and to help avoid having another global conflict. It is essentially a peace-keeping institution. And with all its weaknesses it has helped for a lot of decades to preserve world peace. The UN is not the world's police. It is merely a place were sovereign nations can meet and try to resolve their difficulties in a peaceful manner. Considering its relatively short existence ( by historical dimensions, that is ) I believe the UN has achieved a lot. Even my american friends, who had not so many friendly words for the UN with regard to their handling of the iraqu affair can not deny that.

Now, the emphasis with the UN lies on the fact that they deal with sovereign nations. through history, every sovereign nation on planet earth has defined its national interests quite differently, and the UN has made it its priority only to interfere with every nation's right to solely decide on the means to protect their interests if there was no other way. thus, military action against one of its members must be the last resort.

on the other hand, ever since the monroe doctrine, the US has defined their global interests quite "loosely",
basically saying it will reserve the right to protect US interests with all means appropriate, everywhere on the planet. Over the past years, the implications of this doctrine has largely undermined UN's credibility up to a point where the newly assigned US ambassador to the UN questioned the necessity to be in the UN after all.
Lately, the US has been rather critical about the UN, especially after 9/11 and as its handling of the Iraq affair.

Personally, I would have wished the US had decided to let the IAEO do their work and not invade Iraq, but Bush obviously chose differently. Why ? Because he could, because he needed to present an enemy in the global war on terror, because of the oil, because of  US strategic interests in the region, because of guilt. pick one of these, as far as I am concerned it was a combination of all of those reasons.

Up to that point, every military action after WWII the US was involved in was justified in some way or another ( corea, vietnam, the balcans, afghanistan ), and in a lot of these cases, US forces were carrying out a UN mandate.

The attack on iraq though, was unprovoked, basically an act of war against a sovereign nation, a member of the UN. The UN itself could do nothing about it. They have to rely on the will of each member to keep to the principles the UN was created to protect.

Now, don't get me wrong here. I know Saddam was a bad man, a tyran, and the world is probably better off without him. My point is, the US had no right to decide when he should be removed. Forcing your will on another sovereign nation like that is not fighting terrorism or fighting for freedom or democracy, it is shitting on the values you claim to defend. At  the time, Saddam was not a threat to anyone outside of his own territories , surely not to the US. At the time, he had no WMD. And he had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks either.
a safe haven for terrorists ? come on, these people hide everywhere, most of them weren't even iraqis but from saudi arabia ( like osama ). But have we seen the US attack the saudis ?

Will the US campaign in iraq be a success ? As someone else has put it, it is far too early to tell. As far as I am concerned, there will be no peace in iraq for at least another 10 to 15 years. you cannot force democracy on people. It needs to develop within them, possibly over hundreds of years. europe has learned that lesson, and I do hope the US will some day.

"Bombing for democracy is like fucking for virginity"

with all that said, I believe the US foreign policy in the middle east has been incredibly short-sighted over the last 30 years.

ricardo1978 wrote:

Osama Bin Laden was supported by the US with arms to fight the russians in the 80's and then abandoned, no wonder he's pissed off.

The Taliban were put into power by the US as a puppet regeime so to enable the US to build a pipeline through their country into the Kazachstan gas fields when compliance was refused propaganda was espoused about human rights violations and the harbouring of terrorists.

Saddam Hussein was put into power by the US and was a close personal friend of George Bush Senior and even informed his government that he planned to invade Kuwait because of border incursions,  when he no longer complied with Oil requests the US felt that this was a perfect opportunity to teach him a lesson thus he became the most evil man in the world and don't forget all his WMD (biological,chemical etc) technologies were supplied by the US to fight Iranians that were being supported by the Russians.

history has strange ways to deal with us. Basically, US troops are now fighting two regimes / organisations the US helped put up in the first place.

well, at least you are trying to clean up after yourselves...

Don't get me wrong here. I admire what the US is willing to do to preserve their idea of "democracy" and promote "freedom". And I respect what they have done for us in the past.

It is the underlying motivation and their methods today that I question. and judging by the failing support for the war in iraq in the US, I am not alone.

so, what's ahead ? iran ? syria ? maybe north corea ? only time will tell. whatever turn US foreign policy might take in the coming years, I sincerely hope that one sentence from the cold war era remains present in US minds. It goes something like "we all live on the same planet, we all breathe the same air, we all care about the future of our children"...

sorry, cannot remember the exact quote. You all know who said it, I suppose.

thx to everyone who took the time to read through all of this.

Revolutionary War     

casualties 10,623 deaths 4,435
   
War of 1812

casualties 6,765  deaths 2,260

if the war of 1812 was quasi then so is the revoltionary war .. it is not considered the same conflict by most people by any means.. it occured 36 years after and i guranty any histirian you ask will not say it is the same war ...

heh im aware ...

shingara wrote:

FeloniousMonk wrote:

Nehil wrote:

Possibly the brits.

Most certainly not. They continued to be a monarchy long after 1776. The whole point of the American Revolution was to get away from that form of government.

hmm, long after u say, WE STILL HAVE ONE.

and the government goes back way longer than that, and definetlky longer back than when u lot went trundling off to the new land. and are u forgeting about france who is younger than ours but way much older than yours. dont forget the fact that it wasnt and isnt just english that went there, but half the world is in america when it comes to races. and u had the help of france, spit

Uh, you're not run by a monarchy. The Crown does not make state decisions like it did back in the days of the American Revolution. Britain is not under the same form of government it was then.