Spiritual Portal
Feb 28, 2020 11:50 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Daze of Heaven on Soundcloud
 
  Home Help Search Gallery Links Staff List Login Register  

Does the United States invade other nations? A 20 year prospective.


Recent Items

Views: 8
Comments (1)
By: tides2dust

Views: 9
Comments (1)
By: Steve Hydonus

Views: 5
Comments (1)
By: tides2dust

Views: 3
Comments (0)
By: tides2dust
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Does the United States invade other nations? A 20 year prospective.  (Read 11 times)
Steve Hydonus
Surrender Kitty
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: 353
Online Online

Posts: 10765


Intereststs; Meditation/Spiritual Life


« on: Aug 13, 2016 11:54 pm »

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/mar/31/facebook-posts/viral-meme-says-united-states-has-invaded-22-count/
Report Spam   Logged

God Christ Gurus musical sample creations:
https://youtu.be/POW0FKCqgM8
https://www.reverbnation.com/stevehydonus music/songs<br />http://.googlepages.com/  (Personal website)<br />email:ombabaji@hotmail.com (For CD\'s
mccoy
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: 122
Offline Offline

Posts: 1309


« Reply #1 on: Aug 14, 2016 06:55 am »

Our ruling

The Facebook meme said that the United States has "invaded" 22 countries in the past 20 years. Using the clearest standard -- ground troops seizing foreign territory without the backing of international law -- then the actual number of U.S. invasions in the past 30 years is three. An additional seven military actions that were supported by international law might perhaps be called "invasions" in a technical sense, even though they had official justification. The remaining examples cited by the meme aren’t even close to any conventional definition of "invasion." We rate the claim False.


That's pretty objective, the remarkable fact is also that since 1898 there has never been any strategy of annexation, unlike China (Tibet and others), and Russia (Crimea).
Report Spam   Logged
ding dong
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: 77
Offline Offline

Posts: 640



« Reply #2 on: Aug 14, 2016 11:54 am »

I'm shamefully ignorant on much of the goings on of the world so what I say may be tinged with ignorance but...

@McCoy

Was there not an invasion of Iraq in which we effectively occupied them, took over their oil and poppy fields and then set out to make their government like ours?

I mean, maybe we weren't moving into the neighborhood but that seems pretty close. It seems logical to me that the US would not need to make any land grabs if they, or rather, the corporate interests who influence the policies, have effective control over these areas economically.

It makes sense to me that controlling whole economies, and subjecting them to your will, would be more important in the modern world than making land grabs. If you make land grabs you can no longer effectively enslave people with the support from your populace. You'd actually have to close sweatshops and so on...

It makes business sense to me to simply exploit countries and only make interventions where it is most necessary for your global goals. Again, I'm no expert political commentator so forgive me if I am talking nonsense.

Report Spam   Logged
Steve Hydonus
Surrender Kitty
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: 353
Online Online

Posts: 10765


Intereststs; Meditation/Spiritual Life


« Reply #3 on: Aug 15, 2016 08:04 pm »

i did not want mccoy to loose your post but we have two subjects here that have similar content. i thought your last reply had a lot of insight so i put my reply to your insight here as well Brock.

The Republican party would define victory in Iraq, as having all Iraq's oil here or wherever these rich internationalists keep their money, and all the profits going to US Oil Companies which are now multi international..... The profit of international companies like Haliburtan increase its profits and people like Suddam Hussein not able to determine the prices of oil nor threaten wealthy peoples economic interests. Annexation of such countries (Iraq) is totally counter productive to multi- international business and the military industrial complexes goals. They control our nation and they would like to see their control extend across the globe. They have little interest in controlling  and the annexation of a nation of religious fanatics bent upon killing one another and killing any one who interferes. These are the people who created the war and these r the people who r gaining from the war. Certainly the common person here in the states fought a rich man's war and those people  are most likely to continue to loose because of the war.

mccoy i am essentially saying that the people who control our nation have no interest in annexing other nations like the people in control of Russia. Those in control here have a completely different agenda. It is control through economic enslavement and denomination.
Report Spam   Logged

God Christ Gurus musical sample creations:
https://youtu.be/POW0FKCqgM8
https://www.reverbnation.com/stevehydonus music/songs<br />http://.googlepages.com/  (Personal website)<br />email:ombabaji@hotmail.com (For CD\'s
mccoy
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Karma: 122
Offline Offline

Posts: 1309


« Reply #4 on: Aug 17, 2016 11:24 am »

...Was there not an invasion of Iraq in which we effectively occupied them, took over their oil and poppy fields and then set out to make their government like ours?

Ding dong, of course there was an invasion whose motives may or may have not been legitimate. And economic control may be construed as a more subtle form of annexation. I'm not sure about the oil fields either, but, without an annexation proper, the property of those oilfields is always going to be of the country's governement. Such government may follow American hints and suggestions, the wealth deriving from oil though on the long term is going to benefit the  producing nation, barring gross incompetence and corruption of the government.

Unfortunately, the government supported by the US appears to have been very incompetent and corrupted, or at least, vey biased toward its own ethnical and religious affiliates. That's the way things go in those parts of the world. In such a case, annexation proper would have been probably the best for all parties involved.

Pls note that ISIS has annexed the conquested territory into its caliphate and is selling the oil produce from former Iraki oil wells. America left an avenue of acrtivity/income for her own companies but never seized the property of those oil fields or other economical activities.

By hindsight, the whole process has been a failure as we all concur, backfiring into global instability and widespread terrorism.
Report Spam   Logged

Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum


Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy