Originally posted by UllrPlease make a list as heavy as this one is:
I seriously doubt that statement would stand up to scrutiny. I'm pretty sure France, Germany, and the UK all have the US beat on that score.
1950-1953 Korean War
1960-1975 Vietnam War
1961 Bay of Pigs Invasion
1983 Grenada
1989 US Invasion of Panama
1990-1991 Persian Gulf War
1995-1996 Intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina
1999 - present U.S. invasion and occupation of Serbia
2001 - present U.S. invasion and occupation of Afghanistan
2003 - present U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq
05 Jul 08
4 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnasThat’s one reason why I said it would be a less than perfect arrangement. It would be better for all nuclear weapons to be possessed by an international peace-keeping government with representatives from ALL countries. But, in the absence of that ideal, which is better:
No country in the world has started more wars in history than US.
US = peacekeeper? 😀
No country in the world has ever used nuclear bombs other than US. Twice!
US = the only nuclear country in the world = world safety? 😀
Seriously...
(1) only the US having nuclear weapons.
(2) the US AND several other countries having nuclear weapons
?
Before making this choice, bare in mind that the US has already got nuclear weapons. The more countries have them the more likely that one day one of their leaders will be insane enough to use them and then do just that.
So, with all else being equal, the more countries that have them, the less safe the world would be.
AT least for the sake of minimising the risk of an all-out global nuclear war if for no other reason, I think (1) is better.
Sadly, I do not think having no country posses nuclear weapons is currently an option. If all nuclear weapons vanished tomorrow, then there would subsequently be a new arms race to see which country can redevelop nuclear weapons first and then bully the other countries into submission.
05 Jul 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasI'm surprised you didn't include the 1st and 2nd World Wars if you're going to include the 1990 Gulf War (the one started by the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait) and peacekeeping missions under the UN and NATO
Please make a list as heavy as this one is:
1950-1953 Korean War
1960-1975 Vietnam War
1961 Bay of Pigs Invasion
1983 Grenada
1989 US Invasion of Panama
1990-1991 Persian Gulf War
1995-1996 Intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina
1999 - present U.S. invasion and occupation of Serbia
2001 - present U.S. invasion and occupation of Afghanistan
2003 - present U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq
05 Jul 08
One problem with the US though I like the country and its ppl, it's the politics of it all.
Their is alot that need to be said. But I am not the right person for that. All I hope for now is that Obama takes over and kick the shame full GWB to the curb.
But basicly I agree with Fabian Fnas...
05 Jul 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonThe only country that actually once used an atomic bomb (actually twice) over populated area isn't the only one I personally can trust.
That’s one reason why I said it would be a less than perfect arrangement. It would be better for all nuclear weapons to be possessed by an international peace-keeping government with representatives from ALL countries. But, in the absence of that ideal, which is better:
(1) only the US having nuclear weapons.
(2) the US AND several other count ...[text shortened]... country can redevelop nuclear weapons first and then bully the other countries into submission.
Why not give this right to France who isn't so pro war? Or another country that has not been in any war since a very long time?
05 Jul 08
Originally posted by Hells CaretakerWell, alll that is possibly debateable, I'm sure.
Just to name one😛
But the point is that, when it comes to assesing the nations who've been most keen on starting wars, then the US is a serious contender when you look at it from historic point of view.
But if you look at the last, say, 50 years, then the US 'wins' hands down.
- Joined
- 02 Feb 06
- Moves
- 123634
06 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasFirst of all I agree with you that the US shouldn't be a world peacekeeping force. It's not a job we're good at and I wouldn't want it anyhow.
Please make a list as heavy as this one is:
1950-1953 Korean War
1960-1975 Vietnam War
1961 Bay of Pigs Invasion
1983 Grenada
1989 US Invasion of Panama
1990-1991 Persian Gulf War
1995-1996 Intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina
1999 - present U.S. invasion and occupation of Serbia
2001 - present U.S. invasion and occupation of Afghanistan
2003 - present U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq
Now on to your list.
You're contention was that the US has "started" more wars than any other nation in history. Most of the wars on your list were not started by the US.
1. Korean War - Was started by communist North Korea when they attacked South Korea on June 25th, 1950. It was escalated by the involvement of the US and the Chinese. You cannot pin this one entirely on the US and you certainly cannot blame the US for starting this war. It was started by a communist nation.
2. Vietnam War - Debatable. I don't think the US should have involved itself, however, the war was originally between a French colonial puppet government and communists from the north supported by the Chinese. Again the US didn't start it but our involvement surely escalated it. I'll give this one to you though since it was such a blatant error on the US part to get involved and escalate this war.
3. Bay of Pigs - Agreed.
4. Grenada - Agreed.
5. US Invasion of Panama - Agreed.
6. 1990-1991 Persian Gulf War - This was not started by the US. The US was part of a 34 nation coalition authorized by the United Nations in response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. How you can blame this one on the United States is beyond me?
7. Intervention in Bosnia Herzegovina 1995-1996 - Again a war not started by the US but the US did get involved as part of NATO. Perhaps you don't think the US and other NATO allies should have lent a hand where there was mass rape, torture, and ethnic cleansing involved on the part of the Serbians but I disagree. This is one case where I think it would have been shameful for the US to stand by and do nothing.
8. Present US invasion and occupation of Serbia 1999 - Now you're just making stuff up. There were NATO air strikes in 1999 and a NATO peacekeeping force but not invasion and occupation by the US. If you're going to blame the US for these events then you have to blame the 9 other nations involved as well even though none of the above started this unfortunate conflict.
9. 2001 invasion and occupation of Afghanistan - 911 bombing was an act of war by the Taliban and Al Qaeda in my opinion. The invasion was an expected and justified response. The US didn't start this one.
10. 2003 Invasion in Iraq - I totally agree with you on this one. We had no business invading Iraq and have no business being there today.
So based on my accounting your list is down to 5. Easily surpassed by The Roman Empire, The British Empire, Germany, and France. Not to mention the scope of the wars started by the above mentioned nations far surpasses the doings of the United States. Germany alone with WWI and WWII blows the doors off the US in this regard and this is before you start adding in other wars such as Franco-Prussian War, Seven Years War, etc. The British Empire? Forget-about-it! You mean to tell me you can't come up a list larger the one you just came up with for the US? The British Empire may be the only nation in history that rivals the Roman Empire in terms of the crap they've started around the world.
France surpasses the US in the Napoleanic Wars (plural) alone.
I could go on and on.
Now if you're talking the last 50 years instead of all of history then you have an argument.
06 Jul 08
Originally posted by UllrWell, firstly, it wasn't my list, I just copied it from another source. But I agree with it fully.
First of all I agree with you that the US shouldn't be a world peacekeeping force. It's not a job we're good at and I wouldn't want it anyhow.
Now on to your list.
You're contention was that the US has "started" more wars than any other nation in history. Most of the wars on your list were not started by the US.
1. Korean War - Was started by commun ...[text shortened]... talking the last 50 years instead of all of history then you have an argument.
There is a saying that, when it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then there is a great likelyhood it really is a duck.
No country is involved in this great number of wars as US is. I back off a little who started what war, but why be involved in such a number of wars outside US's borders in the first place? Because the generals are blood thirsty? Or want to earn their wages? Or because the president, who gives order, is blood thirsty?
Don't compare with the Roman Empire, they had their rulings for 1500 years. If there is a comparison between the Roman Empire and United States of America, we have to wait another 1500 years to make this comparison. We should compare with other countries in the same period of time.
And I say that the action of blasting off two atomic bombs over populated areas is a black event in US history...
Don't get into the impression that I am anti-american. I'm not. I also accuse Sweden of various things, and I'm not anti-Swedeish, but this is not the forum to express them... I think a World without USA is a duller place to live in.
I know lots of americans and I find them very amicable. But one thing I don't like abut USA is the Wild West tradition. Shoot first, ask after. An example of this is the invasion of Iraq to find mass destruction weapons. None found.
06 Jul 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasTaking the Korean example. Was nothing achieved there? Which side of the border would you rather live? Which side is more prosperous than the other with millions of people living longer healthier better lives?
Because the generals are blood thirsty? Or want to earn their wages? Or because the president, who gives order, is blood thirsty?
06 Jul 08
Originally posted by WajomaBut this happened on the other side of the planet? Does really US need to take part in every conflict throughout the world?
Taking the Korean example. Was nothing achieved there? Which side of the border would you rather live? Which side is more prosperous than the other with millions of people living longer healthier better lives?
Where is US in the crisis of Zimbabwe? Where is US when Tibet are invaded by China? Where is US when Palestine is occupied by Israel? Where were US in the genocide of Rwanda and Burundi? Where were US when the Allende in Chile was executed and dictatorship was implemented? What about Panama, what about ..., what about...
What are the criterias when US interfere in a local conflict? Oil? Communism?
I don't think US involves for the purpous of good. I think US involves in a conflict if US can gain something out of it.
So coming back to the main issue: Why give US the power of all nuclear weapons in the world, and why give US the power to maintain world peace?
Does this give us a more peaceful and politically more stable world?
I don't think so, in the light of previous involvements of wars throughout the world of more or less dubious reasons.
Perhaps to give UN this power? If not any country can give veto in this organization. But are even UN to be trusted?
06 Jul 08
Originally posted by RedmikeThe reason, Redmike, is that after 50+ years of defending AOld Europe's freedom to drift into a socialist orbit with the EU and to teach their students to hate and vilify the United States while at the same time committing cultural suicide, we've decided that Old Europe is no longer worth saving.
It seems, for the 1st time in decades, there are no US nukes on UK soil!
This follows news that 110 US tactical nuclear weapons have been withdrawn from Lakenheath airbase in Suffolk. A report by weapons expert Hans Kristensen concludes that there are now no US nuclear weapons in Britain - for the first time since 1954.
US nuclear weapons were removed ...[text shortened]... eek Germany's Social Democrats demanded the withdrawal of US nuclear weapons from German bases.