USA: The Most Hostile Country in the World

[/QUOTE]Threat to America's allies - Allies you chose because of America's interest in opposing a political ideal, communism. Vietnam and Korea posed no threat at all to America but your government was intent on destroying it. Frank;y, I think communism is an especially stupid idea but what right does America have to tell other people what to do?[/QUOTE]
What right did the communist invaders that were pouring over the boarder have to force communism upon the peoples of South Vietnam and South Korea. This is helped by the fact that the communist regimes in Cambodia and Vietnam proceed to slaughter literally millions upon coming to power.

[/QUOTE]world peace, and their own people - by starting wars that killed thousends of Americans? drrrrr[/QUOTE]
Every example of wars I posted except for Gulf War II was to protect a small country that was being invaded by a brutal dictator. That sure sounds like protecting world peace to me. As for saving American lives their has yet to be a 9/11 scale attack on the U.S since the war on terror.

[/QUOTE]Drone strikes to execute Americans without trial -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/22/white-house-drone-strikes-us-citizens

That's four they're admitting to.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57585798/who-were-the-4-u.s-citizens-killed-in-drone-strikes/

Let's look at who was executed.[/QUOTE]

Ok let's see.

[/QUOTE]Anwar al-Awlaki


Took up arms - no, just suggested it should happen. That's enough to get you killed by American spooks.[/QUOTE]

He was inciting for the death of Americans in a foreign land that is know to have a large amount of hostile forces inside of it. Not to mention that he preached to 3 of the 9/11 hijackers, inspired and planned the attempted Christmas Day Bombing in 2009, and was sentenced to death by the Yemeni government for his Al-Qaeda activities.

[/QUOTE]Samir Khan



Killed because he was good on the internet - no actual violence, just handy with a computer.
Is that a crime in America that normally warrants a death penalty?[/QUOTE]


He published a online magazine for Al-Qaeda (Inspire), and had also fled the country in order to pursue Jihad. . Inspire magazine also provided information on o so innocent activities such as bomb making: it is believed that the Boston marathon bombing was conducted according to information in Inspire. Lets all remember that he was only killed because he was travelling with Awlaki.


[/QUOTE]Jude Kenan Mohammad



Executed for considering a crime. I think American law generally waits until you actually commit or try to commit an offence.[/QUOTE]



He was suspected of receiving Al-Qaeda training and had fled to the tribal areas of Pakistan that just happened to be controlled by Al-Qaeda. He was convicted of belonging to a group that planned to bomb a U.S marine base in Virginia. He then fled the country and took up arms against America in Pakistan.




[/QUOTE]Abdulrahman al-Awlaki




Executed without trial for the terrible crime of trying to find his father.



Murdering a sixteen year old is justified because his father may have been trying to commit a crime.

Long live American justice. Oh, it's already dead.[/QUOTE]


I wont comment on this except; he really shouldn't have been in an active warzone looking for his father.


[/QUOTE]Saddam and crimes against his people.

IDAHO 1892 Troops Army suppresses silver miners' strike. - Iraqi dictator?
CHICAGO 1894 Troops Breaking of rail strike, 34 killed. - Iraqi dictator?
COLORADO 1914 Troops Breaking of miners' strike by Army. - Iraqi dictator?
DETROIT 1943 Troops Army put down Black rebellion. - Iraqi dictator?
DETROIT l967 Troops Army battles African Americans, 43 killed. - Iraqi dictator?

Any questions?[/QUOTE]


No all awful events but they didn't involve gassing of entire villages, attempted genocide (The Kurds, and the Marsh Arabs), or the continuous murder of thousands and thousands of people consistently for several years.
Also Black Rebellion it was a race riot. In the middle of WW2 I would dang well expect the army to put down a riot in a city with so much industry.

 

Your debt-collectors and oilmen stay forever, and your controlling embassies. As to Syria and Iran, watch this space. Colonies seldom actually become part of the ruling country: we were unlucky in that way.

 

Well, I guess that's a lazy mans way of saying, 'doing a little reading is a waste of time', lol...

Do you know anything about the Revolutionary War? The French Revolution? The Bolshevik Revolution?

Do you know anything about how Amerika assisted Mao into power by betraying Chaing Kai-Shek? or how Lenin came to power with the assistance of first the German bankers (Rothschilds), and then later with the assistance of the Amerikan Establishment? It is estimated that Jacob Schiff poured in more than $20 million of his own money to ensure that the Communists would succeed.

Adjusted for inflation that's almost $500 million in today's money - now that is one Wall Street banker that was determined to see communism succeed!!!

Reading up on those events would be an excellent start in gaining understanding about why we fight seemingly senseless wars.

FYI, the wars we fight have nothing to do with making anyone free, or "containing communism", or spreading democracy - every conflict we enter into is done with motives directed toward collapsing Amerika... even if the gains realized are seemingly minimal, the accumulated effect is the equivalent of pressure on a crack in a dam - eventually the wall will break.

Read Quigley's Tragedy and Hope... Bill Clinton loved the guy, and he was connected to the Establishment. He tells most of the truth in that book - but of course he views the treasonous activities of our Establishment in a positive light, and makes excuses for their thieving, and murderous, genocidal misdeeds.

Have to break a few eggs, huh?

 

4 million is the total number of dead from both sides, possibly also including Laotians, Cambodians etc..., The War was a US led the conflict that was escalated, and included many incidences of American committed atrocities against civilian men, women and children.

As if carpet bombing with conventional weapons is not bad enough, Americans had to use Napalm and Agent Orange. Later on Americans would use Phosphorus based weapons, depleted Uranium, and who knows what other Chemical/Biological weapons are under development even today. Why would a supposedly Democratic Republic engage in such despicable programs???

 

RAising arms against the American Government is not such a bad idea. Raising arms against the American people is another thing.

 

They are one in the same, since we elect our own leaders here. Attacking the representative I voted for is the same thing as trying to silence me.

 

Yes, private companies hire American workers trained in oil extraction. That's not a colony that's the oil business snatching up talent. And we need those USA embassies to look after our interests and provide those American oil workers access to their rights like voting in our elections without them having to leave the country and break their work contract.

Many of the oil producing nations in the ME are giant sand boxes leading to a cliff drop-off into the big salty ocean. There are no other resources. Their economy is a one trick pony. People who live there are either rich because they are involved in the oil trade or poor because there's nothing else to do.

And, it's expensive there because all the resources for life need to be transported in. That's where the debt collectors come in, I guess.

 

I've taken Western Civilization like most college students. I know a lot of wars aren't on the level as advertised. But seeing as how the OP topic limits my arguments so I can only include the last 10 years I've been bending my posts with that in mind. It's easy to refute the OP given a longer timespan. And, anyway you're the one spelling America with a 'k.' It seems to me you aren't on the level either.

My impression of history is that it's a privilege to live in a time that the USA can consider humanitarian options, that it's part of the mindset of our current, living generations, and often the USA does choose to use them. Point is, it doesn't have to use them, the Human rights movement is as much a knee-jerk reaction to World War 2 as NSA and PRISM came out of the knee-jerk reaction to the 9/11 attacks on our World Trade Center and Pentagon.

As the WW2 generation passes from living memory, there's bound to be a reduction in the consideration of Human rights when it conflicts with our defense of the Terrorist threat, and other future threats. Simply because we forget why we go out of our way to bend to other people's problems instead of using the more direct route. Mark my words there is also going to be further eroding of Human rights once the "police action" generation, the ones who died by the thousands in the drafts of the 1960-1970s, passes on from living memory.

There I've used the term living memory several times. Let me explain: there is emotional involvement with the things in living memory. I care about the things I've experienced. They shape my views, as well as our society's views about policy, what is taboo to speak about, ect. But more importantly they touch me on an emotional level.

The things before my living memory do not have the same affect on me. I can read about the Nazi genocide camps without shuddering or trembling inside. I can look at the Nuremberg trials and see them as the monkey trial, the kangaroo court that it was without a problem. I mean the people who went to trial were already deemed guilty before the trial began. That isn't law or justice, it's revenge for a hard war. This isn't taboo for me to talk about because it doesn't affect my generation. I don't care. We might as well talk about Ancient Greek wars for all the emotional involvement such things give to me, or the lack there of. If I play a game where I attack the Nazis I'm not there to get my chance to punch the Nazis. They have no more meaning to me inside than a generic enemy. I can say yes what they did was bad. But it doesn't affect me inside. They were just a page in the history book. Just turn the page, backwards or forwards, to find other dramas.

 

Who's the target in a secondary drone strike?

If a spot gets attacked, then ten minutes later, the exact same spot gets attacked again, who would be the "target" in the second strike?

Sorry but the double-tap drone strike is proof of a terrorist agenda.. What other reason would there be?

 

Reasons can be given to the court. None have been. You ignored the point from earlier: The USA abandoned the argument that they are guilty or are a risk years ago. They've long since admitted there's no evidence and have even cleared most for release.

I asked you to think of it. Have you tried giving it a think? What reason could there be to continue to torture all the detainees at Gitmo? Can you come up with a reason or not?

LOL indeed. You made a humorous straw man.

You guys keep citing law and then refusing to back it up, and so I'll ask these things yet again:

What definition for "enemy combatants" how do they fit it, what is the "battlefield" and also what is the internationally-recognized armed conflict.

So that wouldn't disprove that we still violate rights.

Burden of proof is always on the accuser and the aggressor. You simply resort to shifting the onus because you have no evidence.

 

Yes, and you'll find that America, in a fit of outraged pique, then financed and supported the genocidal Communist Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge-those responsible for the millions of deaths in Cambodia. This was after the hated Vietnamese invaded Cambodia and installed a Vietnam-friendly regime. I doubt if that's taught in American schools.
Then we have the School of the Americas which has 'educated' more despotic Latin American tyrants than you can count. But the American right-wing doesn't want to hear this; no, instead they'd prefer to ignore it, point 'over there' at all the good done by the USA, as if in mitigation and absolution.