Give me one example? In every case I have seen they either defend an attack,or make a premtive strike against an impending threat. There is a difference between this and proactively seeking to blow things up in the name of Alla! I am perplexed by the fact that you cannot see the difference. The UN. Take a look at the Urban Dictionary for a good definition: " 1. UN An ever-increasingly irrelevant group of nations whose widespread corruption is coming to light. The UN's time is passing. Can you say "Oil-For-Food"?" " But wait, there's more... Check it out: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=un You logic on Iran, a terrorist nation, having nukes is a bit flawed. Iran stands a better chance of being left alone if they leave their Nuclear ambitions behind and get on with life as a peaceful nation.
It is off topic, but you are wrong. Since the end of World war two the US has been involved in a many attacks on other nations. We all know about the US wars and military actions including the war against Vietnam, but here is a incomplete list of US backed coups since WWII: 1949 Syria 1949 Greece 1952 Cuba 1953 Iran 1953 British Guyana 1954 Guatemala 1955 South Vietnam 1957 Haiti 1958 Laos 1959 Laos 1960 South Korea 1960 Laos 1960 Ecuador 1963 Dominican Republic 1963 South Vietnam 1963 Honduras 1963 Guatemala 1963 Ecuador 1964 Brazil 1964 Bolivia . 1965 Zaire 1966 Ghana 1967 Greece . 1970 Cambodia 1970 Bolivia 1972 El Salvador 1973 Chile 1975 Australia 1979 South Korea 1980 Liberia 1982 Chad 1983 Grenada 1987 Fiji 2002 Venezuela 2004 Haiti Israel has a similar history.
They are not looking to defend themselves but they think it's there time now and are pretty offensive. This is the problem with the Islam world.
The Lillehammer affair is the first that comes to mind. Iran will not have a fighting chance against the US war machine (it would be over in a few weeks), but with a few warheads there will be no attack to begin with.
I do read your post. You claimed that "The US does not run around blowing things up to conquer, nor does Israel." I gave you a proper reply.
Talk about a gotcha.. Are you reading anything I have been posting, or just skimming over it and twisting it to you own desire? Do you remember a little thing called the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre? As I said in the past, Israel has not IMHO pro-actively sought to bomb the crap out of people and other nations for the sole purpose pleasing their religion. Israel was attacked and they responded rightly so. Why can't you see that? You do know what the Lillehammer Affair was about right? If not, let me say it again.... 1972 Muich Olympics Massacre. They did screw up however. It was a botched assasination. They shot the wrong guy. That was and is terrible. However, the fact remains this was not an offensive move, it was not done for Alla, it was not done to wreak terror in the minds of people every where. Their entire 1972 Olympic team was murdered. They had a right to retaliate. As I recall all but one were brought to justice (one escaped). Israel eventually took responsibility for this and provided financial compensation to the family of the man they mistakenly killed. This was a terrible tragedy. However when you are dealing with terrorist and countries that offer them safe haven, bad things are going to happen. What are you talking about? The only thing that is going to warrant a US invasion is if Iran continues its nuclear ambitions. But that is after all what they want.
So I guess all the countries you listed are now American States. No, you did not read what I said. You read what you wanted it to mean to you. Only recently has the US gone on the offensive. Prior to 9/11 we were never on the offensive. We have always been on the defensive. We have brought aid and comfort to other nations only when asked to help, or when our interests were concerned (save for some Clinton blunders that brought us to countries we had no interest or concern with what so ever). The US does not run around taking over countries and claiming them as their own. We do not kill for Alla. We do not go anywhere we are not either invited to go, or have a distinct interest in. These interests can include everything from our own safety to the safety of our allies.
The Americans, Russians and other nations with nuclear war capabilities were and are on negotiations to cut down on its nuclear warfare programs, which was partly realized 'till now. All attempts of muslim and still communist dominated nations to get nuclear bombs have caused to slow down this process - a long time. ...at least you admit that the Iranians are after nuclear bombs. Perhaps this makes the decision easier to sanction and fight them.
Sorvoja According to Mia and Gtech these coups are spreading the freedom and defending against terrorists. How ever I fail to see how chad, Bolivia, Laos,... were endangering USA security.
We only install puppet governments and it will not be for Allah but for our oil companies, coca-cola and our other good companies the give campaign kick back to our politicians.
With the hunt for Osama, investigators reveal new details of the life circumstances of the terror boss. The German Christian and terror-suspicious Christian Ganczarski supplied him with insulin. The French investigators regards Ganczarski as "the largest fish, which went so far in Europe in the net".
You've gotta cut back on the Sesame Street. It's affecting your judgement. Bad mouthing Kermit the Frog isn't the answer.
I am sure people in those countries would have preferred Kermit the frog to ruthless dictators that USA has put in charge of their country.
1. Chad Yet another French mess. Chad is a very young country. They were founded in 1960 and young as they are entered into civil war early in their forming much like many new nations do amidst the chaos of gaining independance. In March 1980, fighting broke out again between Goukouni's and Habre's forces. The war dragged on inconclusively until Goukouni sought and obtained Libyan intervention. More than 7,000 Libyan troops entered Chad. Although Goukouni requested complete withdrawal of external forces in October 1981, the Libyans pulled back only to the Aozou Strip in northern Chad. US? Think not. An OAU peacekeeping force of 3,500 troops replaced the Libyan forces in the remainder of Chad. The force, consisting of troops from Nigeria, Senegal, and Zaire, receiving funding from the United States (at the request of the government of Chad). A special summit of the OAU ad hoc committee on the Chad/Libya dispute in February 1982 called for reconciliation among all the factions, particularly those led by Goukouni and Habre, who had resumed fighting in eastern Chad. Although Habre agreed to participate, Goukouni refused to negotiate with Habre on an equal basis. In the series of battles that followed, Habre's forces defeated the GUNT, and Habre occupied N'Djamena on June 7, 1982. The OAU force remained neutral during the conflict, and all of its elements were withdrawn from Chad at the end of June. In the summer of 1983, GUNT forces launched an offensive against government positions in northern and eastern Chad. Following a series of initial defeats, government forces succeeded in stopping the rebels. At this point, Libyan forces directly intervened once again, bombing government forces at Faya Largeau. Ground attacks followed the bombings, forcing government troops to abandon N'Djamena and withdraw to the south. In response to Libya's direct intervention, French and Zairian forces were sent to Chad to assist in defending the government. With the deployment of French troops, the military situation stabilized, leaving the Libyans and rebels in control of all Chad north of the 16th parallel. In September 1984, the French and the Libyan Governments announced an agreement for the mutual withdrawal of their forces from Chad. By the end of the year, all French and Zairian troops were withdrawn. Libya did not honor the withdrawal accord, however, and its forces continued to occupy the northern third of Chad. Hmmm interesting. The US only funded Chad to help aid fightin off Libians that would not leave, and in the end the Libians stayed, and France said screw it. 2. Boliva In 1965, a guerrilla movement mounted from Cuba and headed by Maj. Ernesto (Ché) Guevara began a revolutionary war. With the aid of U.S. military advisers, the Bolivian army smashed the guerrilla movement, capturing and killing Guevara on Oct. 8, 1967. Notice it says "aid". The US was invited. We did not take the place over. We helped their current government at the time defeat a guerrilla coup from Cuba from taking them over and making them communisit. 3. Laos Phase 1: 1958 Neutralist Premier Souvanna Phouma had succeeded by November 1957 in working with both the rightist faction and the communist Pathet Lao (PL) for a neutral Laos (sought by the 1954 Geneva Accords). The latter was undermined when, after a special election in May 1958 in which PL sympathizers won 9 of 21 contests, the rightists took power. The International Control Commission (ICC) meanwhile suspended operations. Phase 2: 1/1959 North Vietnamese forces, long behind Laotian and Cambodian guerrillas, penetrated 12 miles into Laos ostensibly to force ICC reactivation. The rightist government, over neutralist and PL parliamentary objections, renounced the Geneva Accords, making possible the acceptance of US military aid. Once again, the US was asked to help, and we did. Any other countries you want me to investigate? I am pleased to say that you have no idea what you are talking about. The US does not blow people or things up just for fun or Alla. We only get involved where as our interests are concerned. This does include helping those nations seeking help. You mentioned our Consititution over and over in this thread earlier. You do realize that one of the most basic and fundemental parts of our Constitution requires that we help those seeking freedom and democracy. In fact the Constitution states we are "obligated" to help. It is in our interest to help another nation that is being other thrown, or seeks democracy. We've kept Candad free for over 230 years now!
Can you at least stop saying "our". You don't live here. There is no "ours". You share only in the freedom we continue to provide you. Enjoy it. If the War on Terror was about oil do you honestly think the average American would be paying upwards of $2.50/gal for gas? Oh that mean Coke company. What's next on the list of people, things and companies to blame? Wal-Mart? Give it a rest. Go away!
What ruthless dictators has the US "installed?" Are you saying you don't like ruthless dictators? Seems like you would be happy we took Saddam out, even though we didn't "install" him. But no, you'd rather have the terrorists take over and commit more murder of innocent men, women and children than they already are. Smells like hypocracy to me
In all fairness I think he is trying to refer to the fact that we aided Saddam and Iraq in the 80's. You have to take a look at the bigger picture though to understand why. To me, it is obvious given the threat of communism and mutually assured destruction from the cold war on through the 80's. In short if Iraq or Iran fell the entire middle east (at that time) would have been completely destabilzied. Not only would Israel have likely fallen, but many other Arab nations as well in the aftermath. The Soviets and the US helped create a stalemate. Iran and Iraq were at war with each other for some time. This is one thing about Islam I do not understand. People on the same sides fight against each other for the same silly reasons. In any event, Saddam needed to be removed. It was long overdue. I do not know a single rational person that does not feel that way. There were many that would have like to see Hitler stay in power as well.