Is the US a warlike country?

[Pax]

Originally posted by GePap


The US has been around for 228 years- the last 30, in which this said European pacifism" manifested itself, hardly explains America.

As was already said, Western European Pacifism is a modern change by Europeans. Lets just look at simple numbers:

NUmber of Americans soldiers killed in the last 100 years:
about 650,000 for WW1,WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Both Iraq's and miscellanous
Number of British soldiers killed, about 1.2 million
French: 1.4 million
German: at least 5 million
Russian: at least 7 million

Europeans are WAY ahead in the whole killing business.

Your numbers don't prove the point. You have to know how many deaths/casualties inflicted not received.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

In a related idea, I have witnessed here a strong difference between Europeans and Americans wrt colateral damage. It's only a bit of a charicature to say that the Europeans consider every civilian casualty as being as terrible (no matter whether the Civilian was caught in an explosion killing a military target, or in a terrorist explosion targetting civilians), while Americans are prone to excuse the killing of innocents if it was motivated by the termination of an actual enemy, while they consider the deliberate targetting of civilians to be the epitome of evil.
I have noticed the same pattern with Israelis, btw.

That's because good and evil exist in the motive of the actor, not the action itself.

Good or evil is decided by the perception of the victims, not by the motive of actor, because the perception of the victims will decide their response.

The people who smashed the jets into the Twin Towers thought they did something good and would go to paradise, but the perception of the victims was that it was something evil.

On D-day, the allies killed more French civilians than they killed Germans. But France saw this as a necessary sacrifice and did not start any insurgency. Many people in Iraq saw the Americans as evil invaders and reacted completely different.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DanS


Are you drunk?

I find your responses purile, and your posts hard to understand-obviously, I am not drunk enough.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Heresson
GePap, we are talking about present situation...

Well, then the question is wrong- because a 4 year period can hardly be used to justify a statement as broad as "The US is a warmonger". At best you can say "The US regime is warmongering", but that was not the question, was it?

[GePap]

Originally posted by techumseh
Essentially, the US spends more on it's military than all the rest of the world combined. It spends a greater percent of it's GDP on the military than any other country, except China or Israel (not shown).

Not true, in the sense that plenty of other states, like North Korea, Syria, and so forth spend larger GDP procentages in their militaries. The fact that the US spends more than anyone is a factor of other rich states spending so little.

The US armed forces have been involved in more interventions in foreign countries since the Second World War than the combined attacks of Germany, Japan and Italy on other countries from 1930 to 1945. This doesn't include CIA operations, coups or other clandestine operations, such as the attempted (or successful) assasinations of foriegn leaders. Since the end of the Second World War, the US has been involved in more wars and military attacks than all the rest of the world combined.

This is also certainly NOT true. Yes, the US has been involved in several large and small interventions worldwide, but more than the rest of the world?

France was in Indochina in the 40's and 50's, IN Algeria in the 50's and 690, with the UK and Israel invaded Egypt in '56, and has been involved in multiple military actions and coup in its old empire.

The Brits had a very active time in their empire as it fell apart.

The Russians moved in HUngary in 56, Czechoslovakia in 68, Afghanistan in '79, and participated ina number of other proxy actions.

And, since between 1936 and 1945 Germany invaded or absorbed:

Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Norway, The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Yugoslavia, Greece, The Soviet Union, Italy, Hungary the claim is far too farfetched.

Look you are right the US has intervened a lot, but making hyperbolic claims undermines your point greatly.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
Good or evil is decided by the perception of the victims, not by the motive of actor, because the perception of the victims will decide their response.

Good or evil in the eyes of the victim is decided by the perceptions of the victim. This is trivially true - the victim can't use anything but what he perceives.

The people who smashed the jets into the Twin Towers thought they did something good and would go to paradise, but the perception of the victims was that it was something evil.

Their intention was to kill lots of people. We call that evil. They call that good. The point is that one judges someone based on their intentions, not their actions. A blind person who, hoping to hit the button for room service, somehow accidentally hits the Big Red Button and kills everyone, is not evil, clearly.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
Facts? Someone with "No blood for oil" is not one that speaks facts. Think again.

So how do you get "facts"?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


So how do you get "facts"?

From republicans.

[Spiffor]

Wow, I don't even feel like saving the thread from the uteer crapolata that has invade it

[Colonâ„¢]

I didn't do it.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Colon
I didn't do it.

Don't worry, I wasn't thinking about you (hint hint )

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

The people who smashed the jets into the Twin Towers thought they did something good and would go to paradise, but the perception of the victims was that it was something evil.

Their intention was to kill lots of people. We call that evil. They call that good. The point is that one judges someone based on their intentions, not their actions. A blind person who, hoping to hit the button for room service, somehow accidentally hits the Big Red Button and kills everyone, is not evil, clearly.

Do they really consider that good? If they where people close to them, if they where faithful muslims, would they think it is good to kill them? Was their intention to kill lots of people, or to 'punish heretics' and bring redemption (at the point of a sword)?

Intent is just as "trivial" as the perception of actions as from the victims, perhaps even more so because intent doesn't exist outside of a person's mind, and can't really be known by anyone else (and indeed, doesn't even always exist), whereas the actions are what effect other people, their surroundings, and the universe in general.

A blind person who, hoping to hit the button for room service, somehow accidentally hits the Big Red Button and kills everyone, is not evil, clearly.

Now, what if the blindman knew before hand that there was a "Big Red Button" right beside the one for room service, and while feeling very confident that he knew which one was for room service, he tried to press it... but hit the red button instead?

That is the situation the military is in with regards to bombing and collateral damage.

[techumseh]

Originally posted by GePap


Not true, in the sense that plenty of other states, like North Korea, Syria, and so forth spend larger GDP procentages in their militaries. The fact that the US spends more than anyone is a factor of other rich states spending so little.

The US armed forces have been involved in more interventions in foreign countries since the Second World War than the combined attacks of Germany, Japan and Italy on other countries from 1930 to 1945. This doesn't include CIA operations, coups or other clandestine operations, such as the attempted (or successful) assasinations of foriegn leaders. Since the end of the Second World War, the US has been involved in more wars and military attacks than all the rest of the world combined.

This is also certainly NOT true. Yes, the US has been involved in several large and small interventions worldwide, but more than the rest of the world?

France was in Indochina in the 40's and 50's, IN Algeria in the 50's and 690, with the UK and Israel invaded Egypt in '56, and has been involved in multiple military actions and coup in its old empire.

The Brits had a very active time in their empire as it fell apart.

The Russians moved in HUngary in 56, Czechoslovakia in 68, Afghanistan in '79, and participated ina number of other proxy actions.

And, since between 1936 and 1945 Germany invaded or absorbed:

Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Norway, The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Yugoslavia, Greece, The Soviet Union, Italy, Hungary the claim is far too farfetched.

Look you are right the US has intervened a lot, but making hyperbolic claims undermines your point greatly.

Well, let's add it up:

Foreign interventions since 1945, by country:

Britain: Korea, Malaya, Egypt (Suez), Argentina (Falklands), Iraq X2, Serbia

France: Korea, Indochina, Algeria, Egypt (Suez), Congo (others in Africa?), Iraq, Serbia

China: Korea, Tibet(?), Vietnam

USSR/Russia: Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Afganistan

Total 19

United States: Korea, Guatemala, Haiti (X2), Dominican Republic, Cuba, Grenada, Panama, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Iraq (X2), Somalia, Lebanon, Liberia, Afghanistan, Serbia, Sudan, Libya, Iran

Total 21

Note - this doesn't include those countries where the US has engineered coups such as Indonesia, Chile, Brazil, Greece and so on. This would more than double their list.

This list is from memory and isn't exhaustive. If anyone has others to add for any country, please feel free.

Edit: http://www.greens.org/s-r/27/27-01a.html

[DanS]

I find your responses purile, and your posts hard to understand-obviously, I am not drunk enough.

If you mis-paraphrase someone, at least have the decency to apologize.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DanS


If you mis-paraphrase someone, at least have the decency to apologize.

After your insult, no. Sorry DanS, act like you did, and you deserve nothing. But you can try to be classy next time.