The US is the World's Biggest War-Monger

[terranMarine]

Yet Bush himself fought during WW2 as a pilot so it doesn't matter. Iraq has invaded Kuwait and used WMDs in the past and we stopped them for that. Its a known fact. Since the leader of Iran pretty much threaten to wipe out Israel in the UN assembly I figured its real enough. Thank you Ahmadinejad!

Look you are avoiding the question, first you say nobody act before it was too late, WW2 had been going on for quite some time and why didn't USA do thing back then? Answer this and don't avoid the question by referring Bush fighting as a pilot cause we all know that. Also why not give some time reading the article involving Bush? You would be amazed why USA didn't do a freaking thing until they were being attacked by the Japanese.

 

[Sashan]

Look you are avoiding the question, first you say nobody act before it was too late, WW2 had been going on for quite some time and why didn't USA do thing back then? Answer this and don't avoid the question by referring Bush fighting as a pilot cause we all know that. Also why not give some time reading the article involving Bush? You would be amazed why USA didn't do a freaking thing until they were being attacked by the Japanese.

Learn your history on the Lend-lease program which sustained USSR, UK and even Chinese war efforts throughout the WW2. The total spend from US was $50 billion. US was involved from day one in the WW2 though it sent its troops only after Pearl Harbor was attacked.

 

[Oldman1]

Look you are avoiding the question, first you say nobody act before it was too late, WW2 had been going on for quite some time and why didn't USA do thing back then? Answer this and don't avoid the question by referring Bush fighting as a pilot cause we all know that. Also why not give some time reading the article involving Bush? You would be amazed why USA didn't do a freaking thing until they were being attacked by the Japanese.

LOL! You probably don't know history enough to see that FDR wanted to help get rid of Hitler. Learn about the Lend Lease Act and the fight between U.S. destroyers and German Uboats before we officially went to war. FDR still had to maintain his promise about not sending the boys to war to the American people and they believed it. However its a well known fact he wanted U.S. involved.

 

[terranMarine]

You are trying to link some individual with Hitler(remember Bush or his family was not in power during second world war) and trying to establish that US was involved with Hitler?

And mind you if US or its allies were not there, China would still be under the control of Japan.

As for Iraq, WMD or not, a dictator who never hesitated to commit genocide against his own population was gotten rid of.

Some individual? Am i trying to establish a link of US involving with Hitler or you are trying to put me in that spot?
Did i mention anything about China liberating herself from Japan? We all know the allied forces liberated Asia as well so what's your point?

 

[Sashan]

Some individual? Am i trying to establish a link of US involving with Hitler or you are trying to put me in that spot?
Did i mention anything about China liberating herself from Japan? We all know the allied forces liberated Asia as well so what's your point?

Then let me understand what was the reason you posted the link about Bush's grandfather's supposed involvement with Hitler while it has no connection to the topic on hand.

 

[Oldman1]

Some individual? Am i trying to establish a link of US involving with Hitler or you are trying to put me in that spot?
Did i mention anything about China liberating herself from Japan? We all know the allied forces liberated Asia as well so what's your point?

U.S. involving with Hitler? Might as well linked the Brits appeasement as support for Hitler.

 

[terranMarine]

U.S. involving with Hitler? Might as well linked the Brits appeasement as support for Hitler.

Well Sashan thinks i'm linking US involvement with Hitler but the article i posted only talks about Prescott Bush involvement with Nazi. Maybe Sashan should be reading the article too. Without reading the article he is assuming me linking US helping Nazi which i never said.

 

[Sashan]

Well Sashan thinks i'm linking US involvement with Hitler but the article i posted only talks about Prescott Bush involvement with Nazi. Maybe Sashan should be reading the article too. Without reading the article he is assuming me linking US helping Nazi which i never said.

Mate - I read the article. But still I could not understand the reason for you to bring that link. Again I am stating some individual's involvement has nothing to do with US or even Bush for that matter.

 

[terranMarine]

Mate - I read the article. But still I could not understand the reason for you to bring that link. Again I am stating some individual's involvement has nothing to do with US or even Bush for that matter.

Well Oldman thinks USA must act before it is too late when he was referring to Germany and Japan during WW2 as examples. I'm using the article to debate how the Nazi got the cash to finance their military and who was involved with it. The article also wrote the US neutral attitude not to engage the Nazi when other EU countries were occupied by Nazi Germany. So is it strange for me to be wondering why it took so long for the US to send massive troops?
Back to this age, with zero proofs USA lied about evidence concerning Iraq building WMD. So is it justified to invade that country (must act before it's too late remember?). The same case with Iran now.
Look i know Iraq used chemical weapons back in the 80s, was it not USA who reached out to Saddam when Iraq and Iran were having a war? USA simply saw these 2 countries as evil but decided to help Saddam to attack Iran, when he suddenly invaded Kuwait of course Bush decided to stop Saddam. But since there are no solid proofs USA go invade some country based on lies, now Iran face the same threats coming from USA.

 

[Wright]

Well the Arabs should not have turned on the soviets then.

 

[Anotherangle]

Well the honest conclusion I get to is that US is a war monger but still much better than any replacement available on the planet earth so far, just try to choose between Nazis, japan, USSR and USA.

 

[anon45]

Look you are avoiding the question, first you say nobody act before it was too late, WW2 had been going on for quite some time and why didn't USA do thing back then?

Because we were hesitant and didn't want to get involved in European affairs like we did in WW1 where Europe decided to divide the spoils and punish Germany instead of making a lasting peace by bringing Germany back into the concert of Europe. We got our wakeup call that isolation from global affairs is impossible, so we will shape global affairs to the best of our ability instead.

We made a second try at a global council to promote peace and dialogue, and that time we succeeded (though it is increasingly the talking board of genocidal dictators and corrupt oligarchies). Asia is one of the greatest beneficiaries of this world order, experiencing unheard of prosperity nearly across the board since we took the head.

Now China is going to jeapordize that for its narrow minded territorial gains and nationalist fervor. They've internalized zero-sum theory instead of positive-sum (accept maybe for its few client states, but even they aren't seeing much help). Basically anyone who is not a client state of China will have negative gain with China as hegemon, because free trade is not their interest.

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

Defending the indefensible , you just can not justify America's actions in Iraq though I do believe the Afghanistan campaign was a necessary evil .

I will not talk of Korea and Vietnam as i don't have deep enough knowledge about the circumstances surrounding those two wars .

 

[Fanling Monk]

Now China is going to jeapordize that for its narrow minded territorial gains and nationalist fervor. They've internalized zero-sum theory instead of positive-sum (accept maybe for its few client states, but even they aren't seeing much help). Basically anyone who is not a client state of China will have negative gain with China as hegemon, because free trade is not their interest.

Typical narrow minded bias western propaganda without knowing the sequent of events that lead up to the disputes in SCS and East China Sea. First you should learn what are the other players claims and what were their actions prior China made her moves to counter the said actions.

Even your government wouldn't label China as hegemon and curbed some of her puppies in the disputes. Learn the events before you point an accusing finger at someone otherwise you are only embarassing yourself.

 

[Sashan]

Well Oldman thinks USA must act before it is too late when he was referring to Germany and Japan during WW2 as examples. I'm using the article to debate how the Nazi got the cash to finance their military and who was involved with it. The article also wrote the US neutral attitude not to engage the Nazi when other EU countries were occupied by Nazi Germany. So is it strange for me to be wondering why it took so long for the US to send massive troops?
Back to this age, with zero proofs USA lied about evidence concerning Iraq building WMD. So is it justified to invade that country (must act before it's too late remember?). The same case with Iran now.
Look i know Iraq used chemical weapons back in the 80s, was it not USA who reached out to Saddam when Iraq and Iran were having a war? USA simply saw these 2 countries as evil but decided to help Saddam to attack Iran, when he suddenly invaded Kuwait of course Bush decided to stop Saddam. But since there are no solid proofs USA go invade some country based on lies, now Iran face the same threats coming from USA.

Again one individual's involvement does not mean the involvement of U.S in funding Nazi military. As for why it took so long for the U.S to send massive troops, anon45 has provided an excellent explanation in post #27 especially the highlighted portion - so I am not going to repeat it.


Don't you think it is unfair to call USA world's biggest war monger for one aberration i.e Iraq though I feel it is good riddance that a dictator who killed his own people mercilessly, was gotten rid of( on the contrary I can provide you an example where one country went to war supporting one of the word's biggest killers in 1970s? and I feel the word war monger would fit the bill perfectly but that will be an off topic )