English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Iraq, Vietnam, Spanish American. Mexican American.

Why on earth do the american people view themselves as GOOD or peace loving...when they are clearly war mongers?

2007-01-30 00:19:33 · 22 answers · asked by T - blaster 1 in Politics & Government Politics

22 answers

So just where are you from cupcake? Maybe you should go read a history book.

2007-01-30 00:26:42 · answer #1 · answered by ArfsaidSandy 2 · 4 3

We didn't start the Vietnam War. We got involved in South Vietnam's war after France got kicked out, when JFK wanted to prove himself as an anti-communist. And I'm not sure what lie you mean - what was said to the American public was that if South Vietnam were abandoned to the communists, they wouldn't stop there, the next country over will fall too and hundreds of thousands, maybe millions would die at the hands of another brutal communist dictator, which did in fact happen.

2007-01-30 00:34:06 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Honesty doesn't start wars, and in order to get everyone in a democracy to agree to war (or a majority at least) they have to have good cause. Wars are not caused by the best of human intentions and conduct, the people aboard the Lusitania were peacemongers, the people at Pearl harbor were peace mongers, the people killed in 9/11 were peacemongers. The difference between waiting for someone who promises and plots the destruction of the USA to attack, or hitting them first, is a difference in loss of American lives of those giving peace a chance, or willing to wear uniforms and go to war. The problem is too many lowlifes confuse a strong desire for peace as a weakness, we desire peace . But peace at any price of appeasement is not an option. The UN is supposed to be there to work through peer pressure to prevent wars, and work through brotherhood to help those in need, only when it fails, or needs help or money, does the US get involved. Not because we want to but if we don't who will? Saddam had WMDs, the successful removal of most WMDs by truck convoy before the country was secured by coalition ground forces doesn't make him innocent, and even one artillery shell containing nerve gas the insurgents tried using for IEDs was enough to break the "no WMDs" claim. teh Spanish American war was due to jumping the gun, the Maine had yet to be inspected or damage explained. the Mexican American war was debatable grounds, but it came years after teh Alamo and Sam Houston's victory, that was about the ruthlessness of Santa Anna who, had he conquered Texas, had his eyes set on cutting across the south to Florida and judge his ability to further conquer the East Coast from there, he boasted of that. That's why he was called the "Napoleon Of The West." And frankly, the citizens of any country can view themselves any way they want, and the movies they make to entertain themselves will probably reflect what they want to see, because they have to pay for it. Movies about maniacal nutjobs who want to save mankind by destroying 2/3 of it so he can take over the world, are not going to make him the hero, at least not in this country.

2007-01-30 00:48:12 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

Lies or faulty Intel it doesn't matter. A free Iraq is the way to achieve destabilizing Iran and Syria who are the largest funding sources of terror on the planet.
This strategy can accomplish a goal with the least amount of US casualties.
A sectarian government in place and Iraqi's receiving oil revenue checks (just as in Kuwait) will shake the foundation of Iran and if Iran's foundation is cracked the Syrians don't have a leg to stand on.
They will either have to deal economically with the robust economy of Iraq and gain from the changes in the region or be undermined by their own peoples.
Iran's government will lose it's incentive to go nuclear lest they be cut out of the economic pie.

Their only option will be to change in order to survive.

This is why they are fighting so hard to keep Iraq destabilized as long as they can.

2007-01-30 00:44:38 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

Most U.S. citizens are against this war. Anti-war rallies and marches are increasing in number and strength. It takes a while for some of us to get past the propaganda we are fed on a daily basis, but it is our current 'leaders' and certain past right-wing, 'leaders' who are the warmongers, NOT most U.S. citizens, who ARE good and peace-loving people.

It's not fair to bring up wars from 1800s and back....Were you there? All large, 'civilized' countries were empire building, including Spain in Mexico and elsewhere (France and Russia also). Did you know that the Spanish president wanted British in the U.S. to settle in Texas to fight the Native Americans who routinely chased the Spanish invaders of Mexico down to Central America and killed them for invading their territories?

Well, the Brits and others took him up on his offer, settled in Texas, and eventually, declared themselves independent of both Mexico and Spain. Then they chose to join the good 'ol USA, and, as someone said, certain parts of North America were simply "destined" to become part of the United States--the French, English, Spanish, Mexicans, Russians and Indians be damned!

2007-01-30 06:44:36 · answer #5 · answered by H. Scot 4 · 0 1

Most Americans can't face up to the fact that America is an imperialist power, and has been for quite some time.

2007-01-30 00:37:51 · answer #6 · answered by mattzcoz 5 · 3 0

You're right. We also should have steered clear of the two world wars...so ungrateful Eurofags could be speaking German and complaining about THAT government. You wouldn't be yapping on a computer, you'd be chucked into a concentration camp. You should thank God each and every day for Uncle Sam.

2007-01-30 00:43:54 · answer #7 · answered by Rick N 3 · 1 2

Wars are used to get something.

2007-01-30 04:24:24 · answer #8 · answered by Mysterio 6 · 0 0

The pieces are moving. They’ll be in place by the end of February. The United States will be able to escalate military operations against Iran.

The second carrier strike group left the U.S. west coast on Tuesday January 23. It will be joined by naval mine clearing assets from both the United States and the UK. Patriot missile defense systems have also been ordered to deploy to the Gulf.

Maybe as a guard against North Korea seeing operations focused on Iran as a chance to be aggressive, a squadron of F-117 stealth fighters has just been deployed to Korea.

This has to be called escalation. We have to remind ourselves, just as Iran is supporting groups inside Iraq, the United States is supporting groups inside Iran. Just as Iran has special operations troops operating inside Iraq, we’ve read the United States has special operations troops operating inside Iran.

Just as Iran is supporting Hamas, two weeks ago we found out the United States is supporting arms for Abbas. Just as Iran and Syria are supporting Hezbollah in Lebanon we’re now learning the White House has approved a finding to allow the CIA to support opposition groups inside Lebanon. Just as Iran is supporting Syria, we’ve learned recently that the United States is going to fund Syrian opposition groups.

We learned [last] week the President authorized an attack on the Iranian liaison office in Irbil.

The White House keeps saying there are no plans to attack Iran. Obviously, the facts suggest otherwise. Equally as clear, the Iranians will read what the Administrations is doing not what it is saying.

It is possible the White House strategy is just implementing a strategy to put pressure on Iran on a number of fronts, and this will never amount to anything. On the other hand, if the White House is on a path to strike Iran, we’ll see a few more steps unfold.

First, we know there is a National Security Council staff-led group whose mission is to create outrage in the world against Iran. Just like before Gulf II, this media group will begin to release stories to sell a strike against Iran. Watch for the outrage stuff.

The Patriot missiles going to the GCC states are only part of the missile defense assets. I would expect to see the deployment of some of the European-based missile defense assets to Israel, just as they were before Gulf II.

would expect deployment of additional USAF fighters into the bases in Iraq, maybe some into Afghanistan.

I think we will read about the deployment of some of the newly arriving Army brigades going into Iraq being deployed to the border with Iran. Their mission will be to guard against any Iranian movements into Iraq.

As one of the last steps before a strike, we’ll see USAF tankers moved to unusual places, like Bulgaria. These will be used to refuel the US-based B-2 bombers on their strike missions into Iran. When that happens, we’ll only be days away from a strike.

The White House could be telling the truth. Maybe there are no plans to take Iran to the next level. The fuel for a fire is in place, however. All we need is a spark. The danger is that we have created conditions that could lead to a Greater Middle East War.

2007-01-30 00:27:33 · answer #9 · answered by FOX NEWS WATCHER 1 · 2 3

Not a one. I guess that clearly makes you a lie monger.

2007-01-30 00:47:48 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3 2

No wars have been started with lies! Do your research more thoroughly.

2007-01-30 00:52:40 · answer #11 · answered by tcbtoday123 5 · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers