France ...classic again..wtg!!!

[weaselsan]

Originally posted by Naso
Listen man, It may have happened, but you seem to have difficulty to grasp the irony of a nation that wage war and kill people, and have his own people killed (about 600 so far) for a personal vendetta of Bush Jr for an attempted "elimination" of Bush sr.

Your vision of world seem young, how old are you, padawan?

For your info we are in the process of coming up with a way to wage war where we only slightly inconvenience people. Until then we have to kill them. I know that is very difficult for some to grasp....but it may be useful in Kosovo.

[Torque]

Originally posted by Naso
Are you sure U.S. never tryied something similar with adversaries?

Just asking.

Have fun you'll need a few days tho.

http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/ChronologyofTerror.html

[Arlo]

Originally posted by straffo
We obviously don't have the same definition of altruisme.
IMO you would better double check.

You pretend in all the following examples the interrest of the USA where not endangered or seen as endangered ?

Let see some other examples of altruisme  

1953: Iran 1954:Guatemala 1973: Chili


Either you are lieing to yourself or you delberatly choose to be blind but there never was anything like any form of altruisme in the relation between different nations (France included obviouly).

None of the wars the U.S. has participated in during the 20th century, in and of themselves, promised obvious gain to the American people at the outset (or even in the middle). Let's look back a bit:

WWI

America was strongly leaning toward becoming and staying an isolationist state. As a matter of fact, there was more sympathy for the German side of the war in Europe than the Allied side. Still, Americans, overall, wanted no part of a European war that would only cost us the lives of many of our young men. President Wilson, himself, was pro-peace.

Then the Lusitania was sunk. It sparked an outrage amongst the American population. Wilson, himself, was outraged. Congress pledged support of the allies and declared war. The U.S. sent troops to France.

The French and British soldiers were tired and had suffered great losses. Although the Germans were also suffering, the outcome of the war was uncertain. The addition of American troops and resources was a much needed infusion. Though the Germans were able to launch another great offensive, the allies held firm (and it could be said that the Americans provided the additional support to make this possible). As a result, WWI ended in an armistice followed by occupation and disarmament of Germany.

American troops who fought the battles in the trenches and in the air ... American sailors who waged war at sea ... their families, friends and loved ones ... did not profit greatly from the war but they were proud to have helped their allies defeat the German war machine. A little over ten years later the world would suffer the worst depression it had ever seen, due in no small part to the cost of the world war ... the U.S. suffering along with the rest.

So, though it was sparked by a tragedy, the people of the United States were inspired to go against their initial instincts and wholeheartedly support the allied side in WWI and, as a result, suffered for it.

WWII

Eventually the occupation of Germany ceased and, over time, the restrictions placed upon her were no longer enforced. A bitter and twisted man influenced like-minded individuals to follow him and formed a political party, rising to power and rebuilding the German war machine into something more terrible than it was before. European politicians sought peace through negotiation ... with someone bent on conquest of the continent as well as the extermination of the Jews (and any other group they felt like). Time and again promises were made and broken. Time and again the new tyrant in power took lives and land. War had once again erupted in Europe.

And once again the people of America were hesitant to send their youth back into battle on European soil. Some youth had already volunteered to fight in Spain in spite of the State department's restrictions to do so. Brave idealists who were ahead of their time, unfortunately.

And ... once again ... it took a tragedy to unify the American public in their support for a cause against tyranny .. both in Europe and the Pacific.

The allied forces, who were already receiving some material aide from the U.S, this time, benefited from America's industrial and military might as the U.S. grew into first world fighting status. Nobody could have predicted some of the technological achievements (and terror machines) this war would produce. In the end, once again, the U.S. made the difference between a war lost (or one that was waged until the world itself was wasted) and one that resulted in complete and unconditional surrender of the tyranical powers that had again attempted to take what wasn't theirs.

As a result, the U.S. became the world's first "superpower." And nobody seemed to mind ... at first.

Post War

What did the U.S. do with this sudden rise to prominence? Well, instead of taking advantage of it and taking over the world itself, the U.S. helped other nations rise. And, this too, eventually cost the U.S. It led to a cold war with the Soviets that lasted over 40 years. It led to more conflicts - "police actions" where the U.S. played a prominent role alongside other Nato forces in attempting to keep Communist nations from doing the same thing Hitler did in WWII.

And our allies didn't mind.

Desert Storm

Another tyranical madman decides to take what isn't his. The United Nations condemns this and authorizes force against him. Other Middle Eastern nations condemn him, as well, and ask for help and support. This time the U.S. leads the way (as has been it's stance since becoming a world power) - alongside other coalition forces - in waging war with tyranny. This time it is quickly put down but instead of removing the regime and occupying the country to assure the regime doesn't rise back from the ashes, the tyrant is left in power. Why? Was it because there suddenly was a fear that finishing the job would threaten and alienate other fickle Middle East nations? Or would it threaten our western allies? Resolutions are passed in an effort to convince the madman that he should make significant changes that no longer threaten the stability of both his region and the world in general.  

Does he comply? No, he doesn't.

Operation Enduring Freedom/Operation Iraqi Freedom

This time some of the U.S.'s western allies are reluctant to deal with the threat. America, however, has once again experienced a tragedy as a result  of a political agenda that supports worldwide terrorism (be it indirect or direct). The coalition steps up to the plate and America provides a big bat.

Bad America! Evil America! You have become like the Nazis!

Wait a second here. Throughout the 20th century the U.S. has answered the call against tyranny. Sometimes it took tragedy, sometimes we led the way. But we were there and we made the difference. And the world, by and large, was thankful. Even the oppressed, under the rule of the tyrants, were thankful. What has changed in the 21st century? The definition of "altruism", perhaps.

[GRUNHERZ]

Arlo:

Bush = Hitler

OK? Trust me, it's THE latest thing from europe...

[hawker238]

Grun is in a world of his own.

[straffo]

Arlo I'll not try to contradict your points,I dont' really disagree completly with them.

But it's just that's not so simple and it's not altruism according to the definition Iron provided us.

Notice I'm not speaking of the individual soldier/sailer/pilot ... I'm more speaking of the state departement, there is a more than subtil distinguo.
As  I'm sick today so I'll head back to my bed and check this thread tomorrow.

[Momus--]

Originally posted by AKIron
OK

WWI
WWII
Korea
Vietnam
Grenada
Panama
Kuwait
Somalia
Haiti

I'm as sure others can name many more as I am that you will question the altruism of these I've listed.

WW1 - More to do with protecting the investment of the munitions suppliers who had up to 1917 been supplying the Allies on credit.

WW2 - Your ruling elite, scenting huge profits, wanted in from the start but in the end it took Pearl Harbour to drag you into it.

Korea - UN operation, but feel free to take all the credit as usual.

Vietnam - Yes sure

Grenada - More to do with protecting US trade interests in the Carribean than anything relating to the welfare of the population.

Somalia - Yeah, you sure left that place in a good state eh?

Haiti - You caused a lot of the of the mess anyway. WTG!

So you basically get 1/2 a point for Korea and maybe for Somalia 'cos I'm feeling generous.

[BGBMAW]

RESOLUTION 1441


please argue

[Ping]

Originally posted by BGBMAW
please argue

I thought thats what everyone does?

[BGBMAW]

i cant see how you can argue agaisnt that resolution....But France...Germany..and of course..imagine this..CHINA and Russia did....hmm...good company....


I wonder if there voting for Kerry..lmfao

[Arlo]

Originally posted by Momus--
WW1 - More to do with protecting the investment of the munitions suppliers who had up to 1917 been supplying the Allies on credit.

And, of course, the sinking of the Lusitania had absolutely nothing to do with it. Nor the will of the constituents to whom our congressmen and senators bear a responsibility which would be undoubtedly forfeit should they seek to exchange the blood of their constituents' children for profit from war.

Our nation has empowered it's people from it's inception and war is something we have never taken lightly nor is our populance foolish to the point of being unable to ascertain legitimate cause for drastic measures, in spite of your misperceptions on such. Such theories, though offered as food for thought in some institutions of higher learning, are spurious, at best and the effect need not point to the root cause.

Originally posted by Momus--

WW2 - Your ruling elite, scenting huge profits, wanted in from the start but in the end it took Pearl Harbour to drag you into it.

Contradictory assumption. If we actually had a "ruling elite" that wanted war we would have gone to war no matter what. As it is, we have an elected body. A government "Of the people, by the people and for the people."

When the attack at Pearl Harbor happened, the country, as a whole, was outraged. In spite of the previous widespread reluctance to enter yet another European war, Congress, acting on the will of the people, supported going to war and declared war on Japan and her allies. Recruitment the following day was phenomenal. There was no dragging at that point at all.

The U.S. committed itself to the defeat of the Axis powers and even set aside it's personal goal of a dedicated campaign against Japan by agreeing at Malta to make Europe a priority.

Originally posted by Momus--

Korea - UN operation, but feel free to take all the credit as usual.

From reports published by PVA on August 15 1953, UN suffered a total casualty of 1,093,839, in which 397,543 were Americans, 667293 were ROKs, and 29,003 were others.

PVA's portion of the score was: kill and wound, 671,954; capture, 46088; pursuaded surrender, 435; total 718,477, in which 290,000 were Americans. PV destroyed or damaged 2,006 enemy tanks, 3,165 vehicles, 44 amored vehicles, 10,629 aircrafts, 583 artellery pieces; captured 245 tanks, 5,256 trucks, 51 amored vehicles, 11 aircrafts, 4037 artellery pieces, 73,263 small arms.

From western sources, UN combat casualty totalled  1 million. It breaks as follows: US 144,173, ROK 844,000 (415,000 killed, 429,000 wounded), Commonwealth 6000, others 8,800 (Hastings). US suffered another 20,000 or so fatality. From military history authored by ROK  Defense Department, ROK total casualty was actually 984,400.

Detailed US casualty was: KIA 33,629, accidental death 20,600, wounded 103,248, captured and repatriated 3,746, MIA 8,142.

http://www.centurychina.com/history/krwarcost.html

Originally posted by Momus--

Vietnam - Yes sure

France pulled out, the U.S. attempted to stave off North Vietnamese aggression by first sending advisors and later troops in force. It turned out to be a lost cause. The only twentieth century example I can think of where the U.S. probably should have followed France's lead.

Originally posted by Momus--

Grenada - More to do with protecting US trade interests in the Carribean than anything relating to the welfare of the population.

U.S. hostages.

Originally posted by Momus--

Somalia - Yeah, you sure left that place in a good state eh?

What happened to your "U.N." stance? The U.N. attempted to intervene in a bloody tribal conflict and, in the end, could not achieve that goal. The U.S. participated in the action, supporting the U.N. If you want to blame someone for the condition Somalia was in before, during and after the U.N. mandated intervention, blame Aideed and the various tribal chieftans.

Originally posted by Momus--

Haiti - You caused a lot of the of the mess anyway. WTG!

U.N. mandate authorizing Operation Uphold Democracy, the movement of forces to Haiti to support the return of Haitian democracy. It succeeded both in restoring the democratically elected government of Haiti and in stemming emigration. In that it was a success. If the powers that be turn to corruption afterwards then just blame the U.S. for not putting in place it's own puppet government, ok?

Originally posted by Momus--

So you basically get 1/2 a point for Korea and maybe for Somalia 'cos I'm feeling generous.

You, however, don't get a point.

[straffo]

Originally posted by BGBMAW
RESOLUTION 1441


please argue

Please read it
Then come back and discuss.

[straffo]

Arlo you made the demonstration it was not altruistic better than I'll ever do

Note that's not a problem for me, the fact I question the altuistic nature of the act doesn't mean I question the act itself.
(I hope this sentence is clear ... it looked really better in French )

[Naso]

Originally posted by Torque
Have fun you'll need a few days tho.

http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/ChronologyofTerror.html

Well, I will not define this site as an unbiased site.

Just look at the flag! lol

The United States also created a secret civilian army in Germany, which drew up a list of 200 leading Social Democrats, 15 Communists and various others who were to be “put out of the way” if the Soviet Union invaded. This secret army had its counterparts all over Western Europe as part of “Operation Gladio”, developed by the CIA and other intelligence services, and not answerable for its actions under the laws of any state.

The international name of this organization was "Operation Stay Behind", "Operation Gladio" was the Italian section of it.

After NATO was formed in 1949, Gladio came under its discreet aegis. “Gladiators” were responsible for numerous acts of terrorism in Europe, foremost of which was the bombing of the Bologna railway station in 1980, claiming 86 lives.

The bombing of the station of Bologna has been attributed to the N.A.R., an extreme right organization.
It's still unknow if this is the truth.
What is known is that:
Some of the N.A.R. chiefs, in particular the organizer (or supposed) of the bombing, was in strict contact with a secret services officer, member of the Massonic lodge P2, and tied with Gladio, plus member of the MSI party, the "nostalgic" Italian right party, and connected with the CIA.
The material used in the bombing (and in others later attributed to the extreme right) was completely comparable to what has been later found in the secret depots of the Gladio Organization.

The purpose of the terrorism was to place the blame for these atrocities on the left and thus heighten public concern about a Soviet invasion and at the same time discredit leftist electoral candidates. NATO feared that if the left came to power in the government of any of its members, they might pass legislation that would be a threat to the NATO installations or operations in that country.

The above It's an oversimplifyed view of the "state sponsored" terrorism that happened expecially in Italy during the '75-'85 decade.

[SLO]

I see the BIG GAY BOYmaw has opened his mouth again....

you seem to have this fetish with the French Big Boy....

better get it checked....might be some wierd exotic disease