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

as an Englishman it has always amazed me how the USA only start wars against smaller nations, But when it comes to a "biggy" they put their heads in the sand for 2 years

2007-06-15 02:40:02 · 30 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

30 answers

We hold these truths to be self evident...

...that Sidney Viscious has asked another question of incoherence, displaying once again incredibly limited mental agility.

2007-06-15 05:50:08 · answer #1 · answered by ? 6 · 3 0

It doesn't - it engages in 'Actions' .

It has not directly attacked a nation as the USA v xyz

Since WWII it's been the USA under the UN in a UN sanctioned Action or other resolutions...

1964 Congress to approved the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. The resolution gave the president power to conduct military operations in South East Asia without declaring war. It was later revealed that poported second attack on US forces that provoked the resolution was questionable. "The Gulf of Tonkin incident," writes Louise Gerdes, "is an oft-cited example of the way in which Johnson misled the American people to gain support for his foreign policy in Vietnam."George C. Herring argues, however, that McNamara and the Pentagon "did not knowingly lie about the alleged attacks, but they were obviously in a mood to retaliate and they seem to have selected from the evidence available to them those parts that confirmed what they wanted to believe."

hmmm - no change there in 40years then!

In the United States, the Korean War 1950 - 53 was officially termed a police action — the Korean Conflict — rather than a war, largely in order to avoid the necessity of a declaration of war by the U.S. Congress.


The first Gulf War was also a 'conflict': between Iraq and a coalition force of approximately 30 nations under a UN banner.

Resolution 678, passed on November 29, give Iraq a withdrawal deadline of January 15, 1991, and authorizing “all necessary means to uphold and implement Resolution 660,” a diplomatic formulation authorizing the use of force.

During a speech given on September 11, 1990, George H.W. Bush made the following remarks: "Within 3 days, 120,000 Iraqi troops with 850 tanks had poured into Kuwait and moved south to threaten Saudi Arabia. It was then that I decided to act to check that aggression." Satellite photos showing a build up of Iraqi forces along the border were the supposed source of this information. Jean Heller, an investigative reporter on the St Petersburg Times decided to investigate. Satellite photos from a commercial satellite owned by Iraq's ally—Soyuz Karta—were obtained for around US$ 3,000. On January 6, 1991 she wrote an article detailing what had been found, titled "Photos Don't Show Buildup." The photos were reviewed by several experts and did not show any evidence to support the claims of George H.W. Bush. No buildup of troops in anywhere near the amounts stated by the President were visible in the photos, although Heller admitted that "(a)nother possibility is that the Soviets deliberately or accidentally produced a photo taken before the Iraqi invasion".

When will we ever learn?

The papers and politicians were suprised B&B lied about WMDs and 45 mins and Unranium and and ...
But past performance regarding 1st GW and Vietnam has shown the prediliction that these leader have for out-right lies. And still dumwit MPs and US congresmen rally to support

Evil happens when there are not enough good men clever enough and brave enough to act.
On January 12, 1991 the United States Congress authorized the use of military force to drive Iraq out of Kuwait. The votes were 52-47 in the Senate and 250-183 in the House.

2007-06-15 03:13:39 · answer #2 · answered by Wayne ahrRg 4 · 0 2

Well, you could start by studying your own history. England formed an incredible empire back in the day.

Leaders like starting wars, whether they are called kings, sultans, tsars or presidents.

That is why America's Founding Fathers placed the authority to declare war in the hands of Congress. Their belief eas that the mulitude of Congressmen would be unable to declare a war on a whim, but enough agreed to declare war, then it was probably a reasonable war.

Things have changed a lot since then. The presidents have usurped a lot of power. Invoking their position as the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forcces, they have arbitrarily determined that they can deploy forces without declarations of war. Oddly, President Clinton did it more than anyone. Congress, more interested in their own political careers than in the interests of the nation.

In the early days, Congress was made of men with the interests of the nation at heart. Now it is filled with politicians who can be lead by the nose by anyone with enough power or enough money. There is a lot of money in the business of war.

2007-06-15 02:47:51 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 5 0

The answer is Democracy.
All true democracies are warlike. The example I know the most about (aside from the US) is Athens, the first democracy.
In Athens, the people were gradually given power as they expanded the military. Eventually, everyone who was born free in Athens was a citizen. Therefore, people who had no schooling, or whose parents were not born in Athens, were citizens. They could vote, yet they had no stake in Athens or really a desire to be there.
Any percieved slight was cause for war. Uneducated people, and people with no real stake in the country, always have and always will overreact. When the government allows their voices to be heard, the government then overreacts.
After a while in Athens, they realized they controlled much of the Aegean. These slights caused them to take over many of the islands there. That is when the people of Athens got greedy. Then, they started to pick fights by percieving a slight that was not even there.
Basically, Athenians did not want to pay taxes, and so they conquered lands to 1. distract them and 2. gain spoils.

In Democracies, when the people run the government, wars happen. If you like to voice your opinion, you must let others voice theirs, and just so you know, there are more dumb people in the world than smart people.

We have, however, learned from Athens. They picked a fight they couldn't handle (with Sparta). All that they had worked for was lost when Pericles died of a plague, because the citizens of Athens were trapped within the city walls.

We won't attack China or Korea for the same reason. We don't want to harm ourselves.

2007-06-15 02:52:00 · answer #4 · answered by scaponig 3 · 0 3

Whats amazes me the most about the USA, is how many people they let die from their fast food and their own guns inside their country. The US government just let's it slide... The fact that in example McDonald's poses a bigger treat to their citizens then Osama bin Laden or any off their enemy's, just goes them house by without them doing nothing about it.... They just export these ideas and set up fracises world wide and drags the rest off the world down with them... That's a real "BIGGY" mac enemy they stick their heads in the sand for every day :)) Damn, would it be very wrong to say McDonald's or Coca Cola is kind off "terrorists" to? Think about it...

2007-06-16 12:24:19 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Ummm, I am not exactly an expert in British history but I am pretty sure Britain has a long laundry list of smaller weaker countries it took over during the centuries and still rule to this day.

I cant recall any country simply rolling over for British Rule, and I do recall one spunky little group of colonists who were not overly pleased being under the British rule.

2007-06-15 02:53:03 · answer #6 · answered by Stone K 6 · 2 0

USA seeks smaller nations, and do not know how big they are. USA is mislead ed and misleading their own people. But the reasons for this still not known. Even USA has failed to establish peace in Iraq and Afghanistan.

2007-06-16 06:10:05 · answer #7 · answered by ifhusain 4 · 0 0

Hey guys, leave Sid alone, can't you tell he's only eight years old. Well maybe not chronologically. The last question he asked got erased. He asked, Hey America, want to see something funny? Then look in a mirror. Is this the kind of juvenile you want to waste your time matching wits with? My only problem with him isn't his obsessive America bashing, it's the fact that he's so obnoxious, that all my comebacks end up getting erased with his questions. So leave the child alone already, he's as smart as the real Sid, and not worth our time.

2007-06-15 08:19:40 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

You mean like when Iraq invaded Kuwait and the US and Great Britain along with 40 other countries liberated them? Or do you mean the 2nd time when Iraq refused to comply with it's surrender terms and violate 17 UN sanctions and was warned repeated while committing acts of war against our planes flying in the no fly zone and we went in again. Along with Great Britain and a few other countries again? Or are you referring to Afghanistan, where a Terrorist government was harboring camps to train militants and terorists, the ones that attacked the US on 9/11. They were then given the option of surrendering the terrorist leaders to us or face the consequences of their actions. They refused and we removed them from power. Is that what you are talking about?

2007-06-15 02:46:45 · answer #9 · answered by booman17 7 · 7 0

We don't start any wars. Korea was a UN action, Vietnam we were allied with South Vietnam, Persian Gulf was started by Iraq, Afghanistan was started by Al Qaida and Taliban, Iraq was a UN action... And what biggy for two years?

Get your teeth fixed yet?

2007-06-15 02:44:52 · answer #10 · answered by nom de paix 4 · 8 0

fedest.com, questions and answers