But no-one (for other than ideological purposes) ever mistook the US for a fundamentally peaceable nation (internally or externally).
War is an extension of politics.
What?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_mili...
Except the local militias that would inevitably form, and would cause considerable losses on the US side, leading to poor public appetite for war
See: Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan
Indian here. Colonization is just a placeholder term to describe resource grab. There is no real chance England could have annexed India.
Why do all this annexation business, and offer the other country free citizenships? All you have to do is militarily control the country while you can take their resources and ship to your homeland.
>>This whole land grabbing kind of war ended to be a thing with WW 2.
Territorial control often has further ulterior motives. Like grabbing useful land, or creating buffer zones etc.
Mexico came a long time ago, we aren't doing stuff like that anymore. Except when we invade small countries like panama, that we still do.
The US still does it via corporate resource extraction and puppet regimes.
I wonder what kinds of things history will be saying about the United States in 200 years, a nation who probably didn't take the brutish British approach to invasion, but has tripwire forces-I mean "installations" dotted all over everyone else's back yards instead.
Without the US, the world would be a sh*tshow. The tripwire bases prevent the likes of Russia putting its paws on Eastern Europe or China snatching more islands they claim as there own.
Back when the Serbs were genociding their Muslim citizens, Europe was inept while the US saved the day, as usual.
The US enjoys the status quo - most military interventions are to maintain it.
All the actors are needed for a multi-polar world.
What everyone needs is for all of them to stop waging proxy wars, grabbing international waters and deploying nukes around each other.
US saved the day
We'll ignore Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq (twice) for the sake of this comment?
Also lets ignore all those south american Coup d'états because it helps the narrative.
This is false. Have you heard of the korean war or the vietnam war? Or the afghanistan/iraqi war? There are ( and have been ) powers that opposed the US ( sometimes successfully ). Look at current day syria.
> Since they are not doing so, its hard to call them belligerent.
What? We have been in a state of perpetual aggressive war ever since ww2 ( frankly since the american revolution war if we are being honest ).
> The British Empire was way worse than the USA all things considered.
It may or may not have been worse. But being belligerent isn't a relative matter of comparison. It's a matter of state. It's like being pregnant. You are pregnant or you are not.
When perceived benefits outweigh costs. The US's multiple invasions of, and coup plots against, other countries didn't 'spill over into a larger conflict' because the US's power & ruthlessness have been well-understood by the world. The costs of resisting US militaristic aggression have just been too high. The same has applied to Russia, and perhaps will in China's case if it makes good on its threats (though it would have to fight on multiple fronts for decades to even approach US levels of aggression).
Sudan 1998
Afghanistan 1998
Yugoslavia 1999
Yemen 2002
Iraq 1991-2003 (US/UK on regular basis)
Iraq 2003-2015
Afghanistan 2001-2015
Pakistan 2007-2015
Somalia 2007-8, 2011
Yemen 2009, 2011
Libya 2011, 2015
Syria 2014-2016And while they were saving Muslims from genocide in the Balkans, what islands did they steal?
Not all acts of war are the same.
So yeah, not all wars are the same, but people suffer all the same.
But the US also acts through a democracy, while the countries mentioned above do not. I can criticize the stupid policies of the US in a public forum. The citizens of the countries listed above can not. Democracy is not the equivalent of an oligarchy or tyranny. The people of a country are different from the government that represents them. Unelected governments are illegitimate and a danger to the free world despite what their minions of propaganda post.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Life_in_the_Emerald_C...
When I read these type of comments I get truly scared on how the lives of non-western people don't really mean anything to lots of people.
There wasn't as slight shift in a conflict but an all out invasion causing hundreds of thousands of deaths in a few years. Millions if you consider the last 20 years.
> But the US also acts through a democracy, while the countries mentioned above do not.
Crimes committed by a democracy, a theocracy or a dictatorship are crimes all the same. That is how the rest of the world sees it and it's time for the west to start seeing it too.
I guess the innocent men, women and children feel better having died at the hands of a democracy.
But, your comment did bring a smile to my face, especially as what is happening right now [0]
Democracy? Iraq War pt II. Led by Bush, declared illegal by many, unwanted by more. Led by Bush, democracy. How did he get installed again? Ahh yes, the Florida "recount". Where the governor was his brother and the partisan SCOTUS decided along partisan lines rather than recount.
------ [0] POTUS stating the current recount in Florida should be stopped, even though is mandated by state law. Democracy?
The fact is that the US is a global aggressor just as much as the other countries on the list.
If you're referring to the NATO bombing of Serbia, then you are incorrect -- there was no genocide in Kosovo.
The justification for the Western intervention (100,000's of people murdered by Serbia) was a lie [1] [2], and Milosevic (the "Butcher of the Balkans") was exonerated of the charges of war crimes, twice [3] [4].
[1] https://www.newstatesman.com/europe/2008/08/pilger-kosovo-wa...
[2] https://www.newstatesman.com/node/151946
[3] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/feb/28/warcri...
[4] https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-hague-tribunal-exonerates-...
Just because he was personally exonerated does not imply no genocide happened.
It seems there is a war against Radical religious terrorists which is stateless and more regional, and stopping dictators.
If the US cared about stopping "dictators", why are there so many dictators allies of the US?
Unfortunately the world is a messy place — ideological purity gets you no where.
While I also disagree with the parent, these facts are not in evidence.
The hypocrisy is clear, but hypocrisy is not sufficient to prove that one does not care at all.
What is pretty clear is that the USA takes a strategic and occasionally very partisan view when making their choices of alliances as well as their use of power and force. I'm not sure they are very unique in this respect though.
Countries which support the Al-Nusra front, which was affiliated to Al-Qaeda, which masterminded 9/11 an event which 90% of the terrorists were from Saudi Arabia or other gulf countries and 0 from Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria or Iran.
The concept of righteous crusades has been around forever and it's stunning that it still works.
The previous few presidents got the US involved in lots of stupid wars. This president has expressly said he doesn't want to do that and has avoided it.
"With us or with the terrorists" definitely had a authoritarian bent to it
They are ramping up ‘engagements’ in Africa not lowering them.
> The previous few presidents got the US involved in lots of stupid wars. This president has expressly said he doesn't want to do that and has avoided it.
I'm not sure how you can find fault with Obama and Clinton but absolve Trump. What do you make of his continuation of the many wars we are involved in? Or his bombings in Syria?
While explicit declarations of war don't exist, airstrikes and threats do.
Trump has accelerated bombing rates over the Obama administration: https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/09/donald-trump-is-droppin...
Trump has threatened Iran: https://fox8.com/2018/07/23/trump-tweets-explosive-threat-to...
Trump has threatened North Korea: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-un-north-...
Trump has an extraordinary ability to do and say whatever is to his momentary perceived advantage. He's excellent at creating scary distractions; note how the sinister migrant caravan, so dangerous as to require thousands of US troops on the border, became a non-issue as soon as the election was over.
There are many who have made the case that Trump is a clear authoritarian. Today there's a great thread from David Neiwart on the topic: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1062018162500153344.html
And authoritarians definitely love external threats, creating them as necessary, just as Trump did with the migrant caravan.
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2018/04/21/Iranian-g...
Iran is training proxies in Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine to attack Israel. And that's what they're doing. They just launched a missile barrage, the largest ever, at Israel.
It seems that Israel is just defending its existence.
Hamas chose Saudi Arabia's and Qatar's side on the Syrian conflict and that lead to Assad breaking relations with them.
Syria took it as a betrayal so I doubt they would do anything to help Hamas.
Israel is not bombing Syria to defend itself. Syria never had and nor will have the capability to do anything to Israel.
The reason Israel have been bombing Syria is the same reason Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, USA, UK, France, Australia and the rest of the coalition are doing it too: regime change.
They want to replace Assad with a puppet, like Hariri in Lebanon, so they can all push their own agendas in the region.
And on the other side Russia, Iran and Hezbollah jumped in Assad's rescue to counter that move.
They are ALL pushing their own interests at the expense of Syrian lives so please drop this outrageous "defending itself" narrative and admit all actors of both sides are war criminals with blood on their hands.
You're forgetting about the Six-Day War [1] and the Yom Kippur War [2]. Yes, there are controversies around those too, and Israel came out on top in the end - but let's not pretend that Israel the modern nation-state hasn't been on guard against being obliterated by its neighbors since Day 1.
But sometime seems that only Israel has the right to defend itself, even when its not on the defense but actively bombing countries with far inferior armies / allies and they have to just accept being bombed because of events 50 years ago.
Can Iraq or Syria use the recent invasions as excuse to do whatever they want for the next 50 years too?
The concept of preemptive war has always been an excuse to actually start wars.
You using something to deflect from something else doesn't mean anyone else isn't aware of the thing you use to deflect.
This is not strictly true. Words were twisted and misconstrued and reported falsely in western media of what was actually said (which I think was still reprehensible, but Iranian policy is not the annihilation of Israel)
> and what they've said they'll do when they get nukes.
Absolutely not true. For one, they would never state they are trying to build a nuclear weapon, two they know Iran would cease to exist on the map if they did.
Unless you are perhaps referring to just a random person stating as such, if so, you could can find many more examples of Israeli and US persons saying the same of Iran, but that does not make it policy of Israel and US
>Iran is training proxies in Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine to attack Israel.
while Israel helps ISIS in Syria to destroy the country, bombed Lebanon, annexed the Golans and areas in the West Bank... you really shouldn't be digging up that dead high horse.
You jest. That's the centerpiece of their foreign policy.
World War I did not start because Austria had a legitimate grievance against Serbia that it was determined to settle with military force. It started because France, Germany, and Russia were all willing, maybe even eager, to go to war and the putative Third Balkan War in as many years was an opportunity to do so. When the leaders of Germany and Russia started getting cold feet and asked about partial mobilization as an alternative option, the military commands were shocked and worked assiduously to convince them that there was no alternative to complete war. In stark contrast stands the Cuban Missile Crisis, where Kennedy and Khrushchev both ignored their military commands' pleas for war and sought to find alternatives to war.
The ingredients for global war are international disputes irreconcilable except for war; a conflict that can serve as a flashpoint to rapidly bring in these wide international disputes; and you need leaders who can continue to escalate the war, knowing all the consequences it might entail. The Middle East simply lacks strategic importance to make two major power blocs go to global war in support of their local allies in a localized conflict.
Subsequent nuclear weapons projects in erstwhile NPT NNWS could easily trigger a few regional wars, and from there the escalation to a global conflict is certainly possible.
More than enough to bring the Fallout series to life.
There are aggressive factors on all sides of that conflict and there's no clear-cut good or bad guy; only unfortunate things happening to real people who'd all be better off if religion stayed inside the walls of one's dwelling and temple of worship.
Also if in cases of contested buildings listed above, everyone had equal access to the area administered by a neutral outside party.
I think quite the opposite, I believe they wanted the current leadership to stay, consequences and means of enforcement and human rights be damned. (it's also contrary to the US's wishes, for right or wrong). They want the status quo, cuz it's their only navy base on the Mediterranean. source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_involvement_in_the_Syr...
Will China's big sea grab start a war? So far, they've been able to smother any of their neighbor's push back, and have just ignored any international rulings against them.
What about when they invade Taiwan, which they've said they will do? What about when they take over some of Japan's islands, which they said they would do?
They seem to be going down this path where they think if they just push a calculated amount each time, it won't cause a big problem. It's exactly that kind of thinking that is the problem, though.
And China's not the only aggressive, belligerent country out there. There's also Russia (Crimea/Ukraine, Syria) and Iran (Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon), for example. At what point do their aggressions spill over into a larger conflict?