*DAMN R6 Forum

Within the next 48 hours the United States and Britan will begin their invasion of Iraq. The coming of this invasion will bring with it a chilling New World Order. Our world is about to forever change, again.

The 9/11 attack on the WTC signaled the emergence of a new threat to American Freedom, international terrorism. This new threat would prove one of the most elusive foes the US has ever faced. What we did not know at the time was that a much greater threat would soon emerge, this time from within our own government.

In the hours after the attacks, while most Americans were still wandering around in a stunned silence, the Bush administration was already taking steps to ensure justice would be done. Recent documents have shown that Bush made the decision to invade Iraq just days after September 11.

This, combined with the discovery of forged documents that the US provided the International Atomic Energy Association alledging Iraqi attempts to buy Nuke Technology from South Africa, leads me to believe that the American People have lost control of their democracy. They now have a president who completely believes that his crusade against the "evil doers" is God's work.

One man alone dictates the course this nation will follow. The checks and balances have failed. The constitutional protections have failed. The only other polictical party powerful enough to take on Bush's Administration is factionalized and leaderless.

This one man, this relic from the Age of Kings and Crusades, is now about to set the disturbing precedent of pre-emptively attacking a nation based on concerns that it might be a threat. This is a clear break from traditional American Foreign Policy. The Americans of the past didn't start fights, they finished them. Wether or not this action is justified is now a debate for future historians to argue. The fact is, if the US continues to travel down this path, it's list of enemies will only grow while it's list of allies dwindles.

These days, it's not so hard to believe the old conspiracy theories of an "invisible hand" that governs the fate of the world. There is clearly more going on in the world today than meets the eye. Bush Sr.'s talk a decade ago of a New World Order has finally come true.

These are just some thoughts I've had recently, I hope they can offer you some perspective on recent events...

Yeah, as bad as Saddam has acted...he's an evil dictator, it is expected of him.  On the other hand there are many questionable actions on the part of the Bush administration, between the aforementioned forging of documents trying to provide proof, to the patriot act, to the unproven and often denied link between Al Queda and Saddam, Bush is not going about this in a way that shows good intentions.  He is going about it in a way that shows impatience and a mad desire for war.  This is why I don't trust him or his position on this war.  I am truly worried about the state of the US, and I am showing it with action by moving to Canada whenever I get my documentation this summer.

Maybe I'm just young and irrational, but I can't help but feel a certain sense of disconnect from all of this.  I'm not really sure why - I know people who've been called to duty, I read about advancements every day, yet somehow I don't quite feel personally threatened.  Likewise, when terrorists attacked in New York, I never really felt like my life was in danger.  Somehow though, I feel a greater sense of trouble.

Maybe not in my life, or those around me, but I feel like we as a people are idling.  It seems odd to me that a country that boasts so many wonderful freedoms and ideals can still have so many problems.  And yet we wage a foreign war of aggression while so much is ignored at home.  I don't fear a new world order as much as I fear the continued complacency of the American people, or perhaps the human race in general.  There have been so many great theorists with brilliant ideas to safeguard the well-being of all, yet none ever seems to work.  There will always be sufferring, so why cause more of it?  Or worse, stand back and watch as others do - in your name.

I'm just rambling a bit.  It's frustrating to me to be able to do so little to combat things I believe to be wrong.  I don't want to be just a passive letter writer, or even a faceless protester.  I wish I or someone I could have faith in could be the one to make the decisions - but if those decisions rest on the will of a people as dull as what I see now - there seems to be little hope.  

Ultimately, I too will either forsake the system like Bondo, or accept it as millions do without thinking.  Is it ever possible to break it?  When I hear patriotic fervor today it rings hollowly to me - like the echo of nazi salute in years gone past.  There no longer seems to be any individuality in love of ones country - when loving the actions of that country are a singularly antithetical thing to do.  Again I ramble - but alaric and the late hour inspire me to say something. . .maybe my thoughts are worthwhile too.

The United Nations Association of the US sponsored a high school essay contest recently which I entered.  It discussed the legacy of Ralph Bunche, one of the UN's greatest statesmen.  He was a genius, undoubtably, and averted numerous conflicts which have left a lasting impact of peace.  Yet today he is virtually unknown - in a world where we wage war.  It seemed very ironic that the UNA-USA would hold such a contest - whose message supports peace - even as its official position advocated war.  If the United States acts without full UN approval, I fear the demise of that body, and then a world where I would truly be afraid to live.  A place where a US passport abroad would be like a death sentence.

Lately I've been balancing a few thoughts.  A part of me, that which loves the ideas behind this country, might perhaps want to serve someday in the foreign service, the UN, or some other such position.  However, I love the world even more than my country.  I wonder how many people can truly say that?  And I wonder.  In the near future, will it be in the best interest of the world to support the United States?  If it were not for the current state of affairs, I would wholeheartedly say yes - we are the superpower that must set the example.  But if that example is not set, then what?

Today I read a column in the newspaper by Molly Ivins.  Unfortunately she tends to be ignored a little too much because she can be slightly too pedagogical.  However, she has the power to genuinely scare me.  So often she raises an alarm I never see repeated - a problem unheralded by the media - even as my same newspaper devotes pages to a single dying girl, or found girl, or lost girl.  Enough of the pitiful little girls - when will the people ever learn to make decisions about the world as a whole?  Ivins quoted a statistic saying that 42% of Americans believe Saddam Hussein bombed the WTC.  This is the world we live in. . .

What else?  Why is the loss of 3000 Americans the galvanizing issue of our time, when twice that many die daily at any myriad of other events.  Starvation, disease, war.  What is it about America that has to be invincible?

Maybe I've rambled too much.  Respond to alaric, respond to me, Bondo, just talk about these things.  Buccaneer in particular, but to all of you - is anyone really wrong?  Eventually we all desire the same things - it's a shame people can't agree on better ways to go about them.  Also to Bucc - if you have read this, please either ignore it completely, or respond to the gist of it.  I'm quite certain there are individual statements that may be misstated, or even wrong.  Don't waste your time analyzing every line you disagree with.

I think the scariest thing about all of this is the sociointellectual climate of common America. People really seem to be getting into the whole "Un-America" wave, and bashing of France and Germany is becoming a common conversational topic. People honestly seem to believe that it is not only the duty of every American to agree with the administration, that it is also the duty of the world to do so. I'm getting so tired of being smeared in the mass media as un-patriotic or un-American. Recently a Florida congresswoman proposed that America go to France and dig up the remains of US soldiers that died there in World War 2 because France "didn't appreciate them". Customs officials at US borders and airports have been regularly turning away anyone that they believe has dissenting beliefs, even going so far as to directly question people as to whether they support US action in Iraq or not as the basis for their judgment. Our civil liberties are rapidly disappearing, and the government is watching over its citizens with increased scrutiny. I am not willing to make these sacrifices in freedom to "fight terror". You can be damn sure I'm going to do everything in my power to make sure people vote for someone besides Bush in the next election. He was right in his campaign promises when he said that he was a uniter. So far he has succeeded in uniting almost the entire world against us.

just fyi, it will most probably be 72 hours and not 48 after bush's speech tonight (it has to do with insurance coverage, cynically enough; if you don't give your citizens, embassy personnel etc 72h to leave a region after a declaration of war, insurances won't pay).

not that it'd make it any better though.

Alaric, I do think this one statement is premature.  There are more checks and balances to be played out.  Bush is only allowed to act for so long without Congress giving it's official OK.  I haven't seen Congress do it yet.  Bush can attack Iraq without consent, but he can't actually go to war without their approval.  

On top of that, while there are many in America (especially here) that think it's a bad idea, there are also a good many people in America that think it's the right thing to do (and I'm not debating right or wrong here about that).  According to the polls I've been seeing, the checks and balances haven't even failed at all, since a slight majority seems to still think going to war is better (unless the polls have changed from the last I saw).

Bucc - nothing against you, just a curiousity here.  What is the difference between attacking Iraq and going to war?  Who draws the line?

Loudnotes, really, stop telling me what to do.


Loudnotes, what you exclude here is all the thinking, logical people that disagree with your opinion on the war.  You are comparing all of them, and even me, with the Nazi's.  Based upon what?  Who in America has been silenced in their protest?  You say there no longer seems to be room for individual expression of patriotism, but I ask where is your proof of this?  What intolerance have those Americans protesting the war faced?  Is it any worse then the name calling (and other treatments) they've done to the Americans supporting Bush? Is it?


Why ironic?  Does everything have to be black and white?  Does the wish for peace mean that violence must never be considered?  Ignore Iraq for a moment.  Are you saying that no war or act of violence could bring a greater peace then avoiding the war in the first place?  Sometimes, you need to use violence to bring about peace.  Think about this, if you could go back in time, and kill Hitler, do you think it would have made a difference?  Do you think it would be the right thing to do?  If you said yes, then you accept that violence is a necessary evil.  And if it is, then it shouldn't be ironic that the UN or USA wants peace, even while preparing to act with violence.


Do you really believe that?  It sounds like quite the exaggeration to me.  Is any Iraqi given a death sentence based upon his passport?  They attacked Kuwait, without UN sanction.  Any Russian have that problem?  Loudnotes, most governments act without UN approval.  The UN is almost impotent, which is one of the problems faced by both sides.  If the UN had been more forceful with Iraq over the last decade, we wouldn't be in this spot either.  The UN couldn't (or wouldn't) stop Iraq from ignoring it.  The UN also doesn't control the US or UK or Spain.  The UN can't order the US to not go to war.  

How many would want to is another good question.  What makes loving the world better then loving a country?  

In a few years, you'll be old enough to find a country that fits you and move there.  And you should, by all means, live there.  It may be the US, it may not be.  There's nothing wrong with that.  Nothing wrong with countries being different and having different opinions (as long as they don't force their opinions on others).  There are places in this world that I consider a shit whole.  There are other places which I think are wonderful.  I've chosen to live in America, because it fits me.  I think it's better then the rest of the world.  That's my opinion, and I don't see loving the world more then this country being an asset, something to be sought.  I see it as another opinion.  


Invincible or secure?  Part of why we are a nation is to protect ourselves from foreign threats.

Why can't we be effected by it?  When I was your age, AID's was very new to the scene.  It was the galvanizing issue.  It had people on both sides, arguing about it, and it's morality.  

It's a galvanizing issue because there was no sense to it, and we were unprepared for it.  Why should starvation be a galvanizing topic?  Do that many people starve in America every day?  Do we not already make efforts to end it?  Does not America give more in charity then anyone else?  Same with disease.  Money, time and effort are being spent.  Same with crime.  Same with all those other things.  But terrorism, that's something that is unusual for Americans to face.  That's something that American citizens have no control or effect on.  We can't take a pill and stop terrorism.  We can't give more food to Africa and slow it down.  Because all those other things that kill Americans, we have some degree of control.  You can use a condom, make safer cars, not fly, not eat red meat, blah blah blah.  You can't stop a terrorist like that.  As soon as you make any stand, you piss off the people that are on the other side of the issue.  What's to stop them from using terrorism?  Only one thing, fighting all terrorism.  Making terrorism not work, and not an attractive option.  That's it.

The line is drawn by the laws of the USA, in what I was talking about.  There are differences, and they have been defined for us, and that's what I'm talking about.

You may chose your own personal definition, but I'll go with the books, because it makes for less miscommunication.

The difference between attacking Iraq and going to war is merely a technicality in the laws of the United States. Thus, if you go to a  library and look up the Vietnam War, you find it under "Vietnamese Conflict," since it too was never a properly declared war.

The difference in all reality? Nothing. We still send our troops over to fight theirs, they shoot/bomb/attack/kill each other, and people die. If war is declared when we're already fighting, the difference will be nothing.. we will continue to follow the same battle plan, with the same troops, weapons, vehicles, against the same enemey. Bush will just be legally "justified" in his attack if war is declared.

After all, how many veterans do you know from Vietnam that refer to it as a "Conflict"?

3


Right, however, in the case of Vietnam, Congress never really put on the brakes either.

What you are overlooking is that after an amount of time (30 days?  60 days?  can't remember off the top of my head), Congress has to give it's OK, or Bush has to pull out.  That's what the check and balance is.  

And, if Bush does start bombing, and attacking, and Congress does put the brakes on him, that will make quite a statement in the world too.  Everyone will see that if he's wrong, even being President, he is not all powerful.

And if Congress backs him, then he's justified.  Not just legally.  Our laws and system will have been followed.  Just because some of us don't agree with it, doesn't mean it's not justified, does it?  If not, what makes something justified?  Nothing is ever supported 100%, so, if not the law, what makes something justified?

The world will last far longer than any country. Countries are impermanent intellectual inventions of man, and the world is (at least in a relative sense of time and space) permanent. Also, people can't control what country they are born in. If someone is born into poverty in Africa, the circumstances of their life are basically beyond their control. I don't feel that much more connected to an American than I do to a citizen of any other nation. We speak different languages and embrace different cultures, but there is an underlying level of humanity that we all share. There is nothing wrong with loving a country, but I think that love for the world is more edifying for its altruism and understanding.

Forgive me for what I am to say.
This war makes me want to vomit, the only thing that can cure the world is to assasinate George W Bush. I dont care if the FBI get a hold of this post, but Bush needs to die. Bush is a born again christian, I have read his opinions. Just now I was surfing the channels and I stoped at a network called TBN. Trinity Broadcasting Network. This is a christian country bumpkin network. Well I decided to watch, seeing as I have been getting anti-war leftist opinions. I hear some fat Ft Worth worthless peice of shit minister saying that this war will bring about the second coming of christ, that the church will be in rapture during this war. These fuckheads are activley seeking the apocolypse, and Bush is one of them! I am so angry at the United States, that I have made final plans to move back to Russia. If Bush's crusade ever comes to Russia or its allies I will be more than happy to fight the Evil Baptist Empire. America needs to impeach Bush or die.
Evangelical Christians= Al Queda.

So is loving a person worse then loving all people?  Is loving a dog, since their lives are so short, less then loving a country?

Love is love, devotion is devotion.  Love, above all else, is a choice.  Is it better to love the whole world more then one woman (or man)?  Why?  That person could be a saint, while some parts of the world are hell on earth.  


Ah, now you are talking about people loving it because they have to, and those who make it a choice.  Most people are not forced to live in a country.  Anyone that wants to enough, can usually find a way out.  A way to a better country.  Not everyone.  Some societies are so repressive, they don't let their citizens leave.  

But, for many people, we make a choice.  If you don't agree with your governmental system, you should find one you do care about.  

It's like this.  You shouldn't settle for your high school sweetheart, and marry her, if you don't really love her, just because you are afraid to go out in the world and look elsewhere for it.  If you don't love your country, you should find one you do love, and live there.  There's nothing wrong with it.  Problem is, most people are to afraid to do it.  


There's nothing wrong with loving the world.  Nothing wrong with loving your country.  Hell, there's nothing wrong with loving both.  And loving your country doesn't mean you embrace our differences any less.  

Bottom line, there's nothing better about loving the world over one nation.  It's just different.  Nothing worse, nothing better, but different (one of those things to be embraced).

The only reason I think it's more important to love the world than to love a country is that love for a country often results in or contributes to action that is a detriment to people that do not live in your country. Love for the world ensures that all people will be considered equally in policy decisions, not cast aside as enemies because they do not share the same nationality.

That was your first mistake Coss!  I erased that crap from my satellite dish the day I moved in.  


Now Coss, you know better then that.  You can't impeach him unless he breaks the law.  Not agreeing with him isn't enough.


That may be going a little too far.  Just a little.  The Evangelists haven't been bombing people as an organization so far.  

They tend to be just as nutty and extreme in their views, but they haven't graduated to violence.  KKK= Al Queda, yeah, that I agree with.  Doesn't matter which faith they follow, if any.  Terrorists are terrorists.

To Bondo and Loudnotes: gosh oh golly, I use the same method on Coss and Alaric, and they are my buds.  And gosh oh golly, Tasty seems to follow along.  Gee, we don't agree on it, but he sure doesn't seem to find it hard to follow.  Or, maybe he does (only he knows for sure), but he doesn't let it stop him from discussing the points.

This was the inspiration for the satire news piece that I posted...I agree that it is distressing.

Cossack...If Bush were assassinated it wouldn't change anything.  The US Goverment unlike Iraqs, doesn't work on one man.  It would manage as it has in the past and most likely just be more adamant to fight the war on terrorism

What I want to know...I know there are ways to recall public officials locally, is there any way the public can recall a President and force a new election?  I know Parlimentary systems can do that (wouldn't be surprised if it happens to Blair really seeing as his own party has issues with him) and I would hope there is something we can do.

Anyway, I most definately love the world more than the US.  In fact, I find them mutually exclusive seeing as the US trashes the world.  I dislike the US because of the harm it does the the world.

I'm just glad Canda has announced they aren't providing any support for this war.

True indeed, but you also didn't post 4 pages of quotes this time.  Nevertheless, your "buds" didn't even attempt to respond to every detail you mentioned.  I guess that means you win?  Most likely it's because they lack the time to address everything.  Most of us do.  That's why I ask you to go for the big picture more than the little things.

Likewise, regarding tasty's comment about the world as a whole.  You said:

This continues an idea of limiting everything.  Sure you can love an individual saint, or wonderful place.  But that shouldn't outweigh your love of all humanity as a whole, or of the planet.  With the one the other would be nonexistent.  In your arguments you shirk the whole argument to pick out the "hell" within.  But does that mean the whole thing is invalid?  Is humanity in totality bad because we have produced Hitlers and Husseins and others whom we deem hateful?

To love your country, you must love the world as a whole.  But people tend to forget that, and think that their nations are like islands, which can exist entirely alone.  

Oh and why did I tell you how to respond to my post?  Perhaps that was uncalled for, but tell me whom you were responding to?  Did you say those things for someone else's benefit?  If it were a conversation between me and you, why not just either leave it alone or address it the way I asked you to.  Is it that hard?

Did you know Bush went AWOL and deserted his post when he was in the Air National Guard? That is against the law, you'll get court marshalled for that. He probablly has commited a crime. Isnt it unlawful to throw our civil rights out the door? In any case, he and his cronies must be destroyed. Even George HW Bush think his son is doing it the wrong way. He said in a tactful way that it was wrong of his son to abandon our allies and go this alone. America is turining into Nazi Germany. I know none of us has lived in Nazi Germany, but my grand mother has. She notices the same pattern of events happening. Your country will be heading into a time as dark as Stalin's era. This is a conflict of religion above anything else. Evangilism vs Whabbism.
By the way Bucc, I would erase that shit from my TV, but I dont have sattelite or cable.

     <Ha-ha-only-serious>I think you're all missing the obvious course of action. We've got a couple of millionaires among our number, let's recruit more, head to Guatemala or another poor Central or South American country, buy up a few million acres or so, and set up our own country.  ;D </Ha-ha-only-serious>

Sounds just fine.  But if the Bush administration decided it didn't like us, it could bomb us to smithereens any day of the week.   ???

I've always had the dream of making a new country that would be a true democracy. We would buy a tiny island and recruit citizens with the guarantee that they would be willing to vote every single day. No representatives, just democracy in its purest form. Now I just need a few million dollars to get it started?

Buy Molokai and call it Tastytown

So, I'm on vacation and i finally get online.. and this. Really, for god sakes, this is overdramatic. We are going into a third world sandpit and engaging in a "war" that happened 10 years ago as well... and the whole world is screaming about it. Please people, relax, do you think people were yelling bloody murder about their leader going to war after pearl harbor? Everybody just needs to read some books (not the newspapers, you all tend to get bad ideas from those things) go surfing, do something other than worry about something you shouldn't waste your breath over.

@cookie: u are an idiot. go to burger king and eat shit. and forget about the rest of the world until it crashes a plane into your fat ass.

@buccanneer: i long stopped to read your postings. they remind me on the mindless blahblah of bush/blair/aznar/powell & co. they already have decided what they will do (in the name of god again. blah i could poke here!) and they will ignore any argument that could point out that they are wrong.
so fuck off or go to the holy-army and fight some iraqi women, dressed in green and running around with a AK-74 wich not even a noob would choose in RS. there is not much left from the U.S. than the ugly face of a BIG hairy gorilla. congratulations.

@cossak, bondo & loud notes:

REALLY - i mean this honestly! Why dont u guys take some weeks vacation and come over to austria for a month or so? you would get a taste of "foul old europe" and meet lotsa people who are disgusted by your current goverment and their followers - but u will find out these people will not HATE you personally, unlike what happens to french people (for excample) in america actually (refering to a french golf player who can only go on the cort being protected by two bodyguards due to fanatic threatenings).

so just message me, i give u my phone number and u can stay in my flat as long u want (and meet mauti and the other "old europeans"). if u guys get homesick i bring u to mac donalds.

Last words on Bush & company:

Fuck Bush! Fuck the Bushmen! The best would be to surround the U.S. with a new kind of "berlin wall" (only much BIGGER) and isolate it from the rest of this planet. then they can dig a tunnel to the brits and eats some BSE?ed cows (wich doesnt matter, cuz the mad cow desease affects the BRAIN) and fuck tonys butt.

I just hope "the old america" will survive this ill-spirited nationalism. I fear not. and i am sick of that american psycho attitude already. really.

Bah!

Btw.: If interested. Here a nice sum-up of ALL american wars during their short phase of existing history:

1. 1775-1783 Revolutionskrieg gegen Gro?britannien
2. 1775-1776 Kanada
3. 1798-1800 Seekriek mit Frankreich (ohne Kriegserkl?rung)
4. 1801-1805 Tripolis, Erster Berberkrieg
5. 1806 Mexiko (Spanisches Gebiet)
6. 1806-1810 Golf von Mexiko
7. 1810 West-Florida (Spanisches Gebiet)
8. 1812 Besetzung der Insel Melia (Spanisches Gebiet)
9. 1812-1815 Gro?britannien (Kriegserkl?rung erfolgt)
10. 1812-1815 Kanada
11. 1813 West-Florida (Spanisches Gebiet)
12. 1813-1814 Marquesas-Inseln
13. 1814 Spanisch-Florida
14. 1814-1825 Kariben
15. 1815 Algier, Zweiter Berberkrieg
16. 1815 Tripolis
17. 1816 Spanisch-Florida, Erster Seminolenkrieg
18. 1817 Insel Amelia (Spanisches Gebiet)
19. 1818 Oregon
20. 1820-1823 Afrika (Bek?mpfung des Sklavenhandels)
21. 1822 Kuba
22. 1823 Kuba
23. 1824 Kuba
24. 1824 Puerto Rico (Spanisches Gebiet)
25. 1825 Kuba
26. 1827 Griechenland
27. 1831-1832 Falkland-Inseln
28. 1832 Sumatra
29. 1833 Argentinien
30. 1835-1936 Peru
31. 1836 Mexiko
32. 1838-1839 Sumatra
33. 1840 Fidschi-Inseln
34. 1841 Samoa
35. 1841 Drummond-Inseln, Kingsmillgruppe
36. 1842 Mexiko
37. 1843 Afrika
38. 1844 Mexiko
39. 1846-1848 Mexiko
40. 1849 Smyrna
41. 1851 T?rkei
42. 1851 Johanna-Insel (?stlich von Afrika)
43. 1852-1853 Argentinien
44. 1853 Nicaragua
45. 1853-1854 Riukio- und Bonin-Inseln (Japan)
46. 1854 China
47. 1854 Nicaragua
48. 1855 China
49. 1855 Fidschi-Inseln
50. 1855 Uruguay
51. 1856 Panama, Republik von Neu Granada
52. 1856 China
53. 1857 Nicaragua
54. 1858 Uruguay
55. 1858 Fidschi-Inseln
56. 1858-1859 T?rkei
57. 1859 Paraguay
58. 1859 Mexiko
59. 1859 China
60. 1860 Angola, Portugisisch-Westafrika
61. 1860 Kolumbien, Golf von Panama
62. 1863 Japan
63. 1864 Japan
64. 1864 Japan
65. 1865 Panama
66. 1866 Mexiko
67. 1866 China
68. 1867 Insel Formosa
69. 1868 Japan
70. 1868 Uruguay
71. 1868 Kolumbien
72. 1870 Mexiko
73. 1870 Hawaiische Inseln
74. 1871 Korea
75. 1973 Kolumbien
76. 1873 Mexiko
77. 1874 Hawaiische Inseln
78. 1876 Mexiko
79. 1882 ?gypten
80. 1885 Panama (Colon)
81. 1888 Korea
82. 1889-1889 Samoa
83. 1888 Haiti
84. 1889 Hawaiische Inseln
85. 1890 Argentinien
86. 1891 Haiti
87. 1891 Beringmeer
88. 1891 Chile
89. 1893 Hawaii
90. 1894 Brasilien
91. 1894 Nicaragua
92. 1894-1896 Korea
93. 1894-1895 China
94. 1894-1895 China
95. 1895 Kolumbien
96. 1896 Nicaragua
97. 1898-1899 China
98. 1898 Nicaragua
99. 1898 Amerikanisch-Spanischer Krieg
100. 1899 Samoa
101. 1899-1901 Philippinen
102. 1900 China
103. 1901 Kolumbien
104. 1902 Kolumbien
105. 1902 Kolumbien
106. 1903 Honduras
107. 1903 Dominikanische Republik
108. 1903 Syrien
109. 1903-1914 Panama
110. 1904 Dominikanische Republik
111. 1904-1905 Korea
112. 1904 Tanger, Marokko
113. 1904 Panama
114. 1904-1905 Korea
115. 1906-1909 Kuba
116. 1907 Honduras
117. 1910 Nicaragua
118. 1911 Honduras
119. 1911 China
120. 1912 Honduras

121. 1912 Panama
122. 1912 Kuba
123. 1912 China
124. 1912 T?rkei
125. 1912-1925 Nicaragua
126. 1912-1941 China
127. 1913 Mexiko
128. 1914 Haiti
129. 1914 Dominikanische Republik
130. 1914-1917 Mexiko
131. 1915-1934 Haiti
132. 1917-1918 Erster Weltkrieg
133. 1917-1922 Kuba
134. 1918-1919 Mexiko
135. 1918-1920 Panama
136. 1918-1920 Sowjetru?land
137. 1919 Honduras
138. 1920-1922 Ru?land (Sibirien)
139. 1920 China
140. 1920 Guatemala
141. 1921 Panama-Costa Rica
142. 1922 T?rkei
143. 1924 Honduras
144. 1924 China
145. 1925 China
146. 1925 Honduras
147. 1925 Panama
148. 1926-1933 Nicaragua
149. 1926 China
150. 1927 China
151. 1933 Kuba
152. 1940 Neufundland, Bermuda, St. Lucia, Bahamas, Jamaika, Antigua, Trinidad, Britisch Guayana
153. 1941 Gr?nland [D?nisches Gebiet]
154. 1941 Niederlande (Niederl?ndisch-Guayana)
155. 1941 Island
156. 1941 Deutschland [Attacken auf deutsche Schiffe]
157. 1941 US-Eintritt in den Zweiten Weltkrieg
158. 1941-1945 Deutschland, Italien, Japan
159. 1942 Labrador
160. 1945-1960 China (CIA)
161. 1946-1947 Italien (CIA)
162. 1947-1955 Griechenland (CIA)
163. 1945-1955 Philippinen (CIA)
164. 1950-1953 Koreakrieg
165. 1949-1953 Albanien (CIA)
166. 1955 Deutschland (CIA)
167. 1953 Iran (CIA)
168. 1953-1954 Guatemale (CIA)
169. 1955 Costa Rica (CIA)
170. 1956-1957 Syrien (CIA)
171. 1957-1958 Der Mittlere Osten
172. 1957-1958 Indonesien (CIA)
173. 1955-1965 Westeuropa (CIA)
174. 1945-1965 Sowjetunion (CIA)
175. 1955-1975 Italien (CIA)
176. 1945-1975 30 Jahre Krieg in Vietnam (CIA)
177. 1955-1973 Kambodscha (CIA)
178. 1957-1973 Laos (CIA)
179. 1959-1963 Haiti
180. 1960 Guatemala
181. 1960-1963 Ekuador (CIA)
182. 1960-1964 Kongo (CIA)
183. 1961-1961 Brasilien (CIA)
184. 1960-1965 Peru (CIA)
185. 1960-1966 Dominikanische Republik (CIA)
186. 1950-1980 Kuba (CIA)
187. 1865 Indonesien (CIA)
188. 1966 Ghana (CIA)
189. 1964-1970 Uruguay (CIA)
190. 1964-1973 Chile (CIA)
191. 1964-1974 Griechenland (CIA)
192. 1964-1875 Bolivien (CIA)
193. 1962-1985 Guatemala (CIA)
194. 1970-1971 Costa Rica (CIA)
195. 1972-1975 Irak (CIA)
196. 1973-1975 Australien (CIA)
197. 1975 Indonesien [CIA]
198. 1975-1985 Angola (CIA)
199. 1975-1978 Zaire (CIA)
200. 1976-1980 Jamaika (Wirtschaftskrieg)
201. 1979-1981 Seychellen
202. 1979-1984 Grenada
203. 1983 Marokko (CIA)
204. 1982-1984 Surinam (CIA)
205. 1981-1989 Lybien
206. 1981-1990 Nicaragua [Anstiftung zum B?rgerkrieg]
207. 1969-1991 Panama (CIA)
208. 1990 Bulgarien [CIA]
209. 1990-1991 Irak, Zweiter Golfkrieg
210. 1979-1992 Afghanistan (CIA)
211. 1980-1994 El Salvador [CIA]
212. 1986-1994 Haiti (CIA)
213. 1992-1994 Somalia
214. 2001-???? Afghanistan.
215. 2003 Irak????

Lets be friends. (muahaha).

Intresting.... I happen to be in Austria right now about an hours drive outside of Vienna staying with friends
weeeeewt and i just had a 3 hour long discussion about politics
only going to be here till friday though  >:(

If we waited a week to attack then the Biological suits our soldiers wear would become too hot after a little over a month and they would faint. In showing off the suits 1 fainted from the television lights. I hate how many pro-war activists cry is "Support our troops" somebody needs to design a tee-shirt that says "We support our troops just not thier commander" or something to that effect. Do I want american civilians or military personel to die? No but does that mean I have to agree to this war? I think not. At any rate there are going to be many many protests within the next week so I will be busy. Anybody have t-shirt ideas??


Arbor Day: Plant Trees, Remove Bushs

Hmm, that's what I told my mom when she came screaming into my room this morning about war. :P

Bander, I beg to differ. Cookie's ass is most definitely *not* fat and is really quite nice. And since we can't do a whole lot about preventing the war now anyways, I think reading a book is an excellent suggestion. I'm halfway through Dune as I write this.

And bucc, that's out of how many Veitnam vets you know? All that I know (Two grandpas, their buddies, teacher, etc.. abotu 8 or so) refer to it as a War, because plain and simple, that's what it was.

Is war Justified? I say no. For 12 years Iraw has been un-touched and because of this Bush thinks "Now we must do something". But I ask WHY now? Those twelve years Saddam has not threatened us in anyway. I pre-emptive strike in Iraq before our government gives us a concise outline of the proof is unjustified. We are mad at Iraq because they are not following what the UN says. The UN says however no war, and so now we are the ones not following what the UN is saying. There was a great Oprah, yea Oprah on today. If anyone watched that then you are all the more smarter. It goes into why countries around the world hate us and thier reasons are legitamate. Are they worth blowing uup buildings with planes, in my mind NO. However in some minds yes. You see the United States has no empathy. We dont understand how people hate us when we embarass them. We dont understand that people think we are just for profit. If we take over Iraq and set up a government and the world accepts it and is a better place then all be it, with a limited number of Civilian casualties I have been wrong this whole time. However if the world sees this as just revenge for 9-11 then this is a death warrent not only for innocent Iraqis but also innocent americans in the future. But if this quest is really to better the world and its not revenge or not economically favorable to the oil industries then I ask why Iraq. We know North Korea is a bigger threat to us. We know that genocide occurs in Africa, we know of other hot spots but why dont we help them, or take care of that problem. Is it because we havent gotten to them yet or is it because they havent favorable natural resources andwe dont need them to make a military base.

Now Bander some of those are not exactly true. For instance you listed WWII three times. Also I would like to list some of the english name of the countries you mentioned. Many Americans probablly wouldnt know what they are. The first group is our/their war of independence. We never conducted a war against the independent nation of Canada, we went into Canada when it was a British colony. Many of those actions in the Carribean (Kariben) were against English pirates and robbers whom prayed on American ships. The War of 1812 was when it flared up to a climax. It is true we had a few wars against the Barbary Pirates and their sultans. It was mostly a naval war. We had military action in Africa? Collecting slaves? Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) Outlawed the importation of African Slaves, he also did not conduct military action against France. It is true he purchased land from France, but a bullet was not fired at Napoleon's Armies. Many of those listed with Spain are not military conflicts, but purchases from them. We purchases Florida, we Purchased Texas, we Purchased Alaska. We also split Oregon in two between Britain and the US. Spain and Russia withdrew their claims, relizing that both of their colonialtzation efforts were exauhsted. Japan is true to an extent. Admiral Byrd did bombard the Jappanese coastline, but that did not happen for three years. His "bombardment" was to make Japan open to trade negotiations. We also took part in the Opium War and putting down the Boxer Rebellion in China, but those were not three wars in a row.
Now to the 20th century. We had a military conflict with Columbia (Kolumbia) aiding Panama in its independence (so we could build the canal). Yet we did not have three consectutive wars in a row with them. It was 1 war.

It is completley true what you said about Russia, except it was much wider than that. Americans along with French, Brits, and Canadians, invaded Northern Russia, the Crimean, and Caucuses also. Just not Siberia. They were in there to supress the Bolshoviks. So just for your information and a chance to edumacate  Americans, yes infact you have invaded Russia. I am told otherwise very often.
In China we did ain Sun Yat Sen and Chiang Kai Shek against the Jappenses and the Maoists. Your list also mentions the war of entering into WWII, the War against the German U-boats before December of 41, and WWII against the Axis. This lists WWII three times! I can assure you that it only happened once. Many of the others are pretty much true, but the list is made to make America look worse in wars and military actions than it really is. It also dosent even mention Kosovo, Bosnia, or for that matter WWI.

Cookie, I am pretty sure you are smarter than that. The world has every right to scream about it. Here America is going to war relitivley unprovoked against a nation that has not conducted any military action since Kuwait in a Global Economy. France, Russia, Germany, China, Turkey, and Chile have every right in the world to scream and bitch!
This is much different than WWII. In WWII we were physicaly attacked! We were bombed, we are not being bombed here, we are the one throwing the first stone. Pfff typical Houstonian! ;)

Bander- You dont deserve to be posting here, and I don't even say that of any other notorious offenders. I don't even know you, you don't know me, but you tell me to go to "burger king" just because I think people should chill out. Fuck you, it could do the world some good to sit down and think about life or read a good novel. But you, like so many others, choose the path of ignorance and stereotyping and for that I have no mercy or sympathy for your pathetic circumstance.

As for the rest of your post, I find it nothing but appalling... in the future, try not to set a bad example for your european counterparts and shut the hell up. I love germany, I love being in europe... but not radical flaming assholes like you.

To everyone else, I apologize for the offensive nature of this post. I'm just pissed off. I think the rest of you are great.. even rapid!  ;D

@Cookie: Okay you ass is not fat and you dont need to go to burger king if u dont want to. I am reading a book too actually "The ugly american". AND i am also watching the news. Might be i cant change anything - but i can make and speak out my own mind. Sorry that i have been offending but i was pissed too when i posted. especially when i just listened to another dumb bush speech on tv.

@Cossak: Dude, i just posted that list. Its just a sumup of all wars fought by american soldiers since the independence. Its NOT a list of "bad" or "good" wars its just a sum up of all involvements since the beginning.

I took this from a german site so i have to translate it. but those wars u refering to (slavery) where "justified" wars for excemple - NOT to bring in slaves but to PREVENT slave-tradings there. I did not want to say all these wars where unjustified. But its still a huge number for my taste.

I will translate that list later.

I think the idea behind the list is that the United States has had military involvement somewhere throughout its history.  That could explain the attitude Bander has toward you for your arguments cookie, and to all Burger King consumers because of their symbolism of the United States and its actions.

Coss- in WWII, we were attacked... we struck out. WTC- we were attacked, we're striking out. Sure, there are a few dissimilar elements but all in all it's comparable. Simply put, my point is that this isn't the humongous deal everyone thinks it is.. Clinton was warmongering back during his term in Kosovo and such and no one really gave a damn. All this fuss is just because it's the United States doing this and alot of people are pissed off at us, if a relatively small, uncontroversial nation like mali decided they were going to take out saddam because they felt threatened the world would be like ok, whatever, do your thing. There are wars going on all around the world, ethnic wars that have been killing hundreds of thousands... but has the UN ever put its foot down in those places? No.. it's the politics of today.. they make me sick. graghh

Bander- read jihad and mcworld. it's a better book, most likely. and sure, in ways i understand that you were angry but when i get angry i dont spew hateful, stereotypical statements.

loudnotes- almost every major country, even many minor ones, has some sort of military involvement going on somewhere, at all times. And Burger King isn't symbolic of the US... it's only such to a few radical minorities.

cookie, the reason no one gave a damn about Kosovo (except a few Republicans in congress) was the fact that it was supported by our allies and was much more easily justifiable than our current one. Also, I take issue with your connection of this with the WTC - despite Bush's wishes, they really aren't connected at all.

Cookie, you're on vacation, right? Go out and bask in the sun already, you bastard... ;)

Bander, "The Ugly American" is by far one of the best books on what is wrong with American Foreign Policy. Despite the fact it was written about 40 years ago, it still applies every bit as much today.

Every American should make it a priority to read this book. Our own Special Forces Green Berets consider it so important that many of them carry it with them on every mission they make to a 3rd world country.

My aunt gave me a book called "The Eagle's Shadow: Why America Fascinates and Infuriates the World" by Mark Hertsgaard which sounds interesting.  Haven't had time to read it and won't for a while but basically the author went to a variety of countries and interviewed people on their opinion of America and as the title shows there were aspects of admiration but also uneasiness.

God damn you people have ADD? Pearl Harbour is not a war, it was part of a war. The list put the the start of WWII as a seperate war from say Normandy. They are part of the same war. They also say we had three consecutive wars in a row with Columbia, three wars in three years with the same country, no. More like 1 war for three years, but the list lists it as three wars. So we did not have 215 wars/military actions as the lists suggests.

Bondo, I read that book recently and highly recommend it. Once you get past his journalistic style of writing, you get an eye-opening account of America's place in the world and why we are seen in the light that we are.

About the different aggressive wars the US has participated in, there are some good examples in the movie Bowling for Columbine. I really like that movie.

michael moore gives detailed information about former us wars and their aggressive actions around the world. i can recommend "bowling for columbine", but also "stupid white men".

for anyone interested in what hans blix has to say about the american actions:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2867913.stm