Ok, but then we are strong allies with an absolute monarch of Saudi Arabia and have no intentions of removing him from power. The oil is there. I think a number of American presidents should be tried as war criminals as well. The Iraq war was illegal under the UN charter. But with a cock as big as the United States' who would dare fuck with it
The USSR actually did use its army fairly often post-WWII, and for the EXACT purpose of building an empire. Estonia, lithuania? The soviets even sent Russian civillians to these places along with troops in order to wrestle away the cultural sovereignty of the Estonians, after brutally thieving their political autonomy. The Soviets were worse than the Nazis for Estonians.
Why can't we all share the burden of defense from hypothetical maniacs? The US shouldn't struggling to protect everybody else, it's not fair to our citizens. We just got carried away and exploited since WW2, and Europe was able to focus on providing cushy entitlements.
true, BUT there is a fundamental difference: the USSR """rightfully""" conquered the Baltic territories and all eastern europe after german aggression Its very different from, say, US intervention in Korea...Vietnam etc
US military support increases terror attacks on American citizens study shows - 02 - 2011 - News archive - News - News and media - Home
this maybe so... it may be 'rational" for the terrorists to do what they do, but that must be one of those cases where rationality and humanity are removed from each other. Targeting innocent people to make a statement will always be the work of cowards.
i hate repeating myself but: you dont see any difference between this and US intervention in Korea vietnam etcc
I read that dude, but the Soviets stayed in places like Estonia from the end of WWII until the USSR collapsed only 20 or so years ago. This notion that they had to stay in Estonia, once a sovereign, not russian territory, for 50 years after WWII to take it back from the Nazis is absurd.
lol who ever said that they had to stay there for 50 years hahah?? I agree with you, i wish that the USSR would have left all the territories that they conquered from NAZI Germany... however, the military occupation, specially during and right after WW2 is justified in contrast with US military intervention and occupation of, again, Vietnam or Korea.. I am not arguing whether the USSR was "good" or "bad". my point is that the USSR or other countries dont HAVE to be expansionist/imperialist like the US. in fact, history demonstrates how they are not, and how the US is the biggest international aggressor.
History lesson coming up: The Soviets annexed the Baltic countries (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) in 1940. A full year *PRIOR* to the germans attacking the Soviets. They also attacked and later annexed Poland *TOGETHER* with the germans in 1939. So the USSR was very much an aggressor during WW2. As for the US, you seem to forget that Nazi-Germany declared war on the US, and even prior to declaring war, sank US shipping. The US have never annexed another country or displaced any nationals from their own country. Contrary to say the USSR who forced millions from various occupied countries to make a precarious living far away in Sibir. Whilst sending Russian nationals by the trainload to replace the upper echelons of the occupied and annexed countries. China is doing the same today in Tibet. Contrast that to the US, who do fight wars, and do occupy states that behave rather naughty. But only until something resembling a stable government and a working economy is up and running.
Not defending the war in iraq in any way.... but: didn't the US set up a parliamentary democracy in Iraq? That doesn't sound too shabby (though yes, a million dead Iraqis does sound pretty shabby )
yeah but it's corrupt as fuck.. (tons of info about it all over the net) we'll end up leaving Iraq and coming back to bomb these guys that we put in place http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/28/iraq-war-logs-media-reaction http://www.cfr.org/middle-east/pollack-iraq-may-end-up-worse-off-than-under-saddam/p11727 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/sep/21/iraq http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/1493998...africa/t/torture-iraq-worse-now-under-saddam/ http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,214936,00.html
Are you lamenting that Saddam is gone? Need I remind you that Saddam was a huge sponsor of terror. That he invaded Kuwait. Used nerve agents and mustard gas on his own population. That he held his entire country in a grip of fear from being arrested, tortured, raped and/or killed by the police for even the slightest of suspicion of opposing the regime? Besides, Iraq is in a nice cozy strategic location _and_ got oil. Win-Win. Iraqies are rid of Saddam, the US get bases that secure the supply of a strategic resource.