If I have to sit and watch some dumbass act as if a nations actions are justified if anyone ever did something worse I'm going to decapitate some asshole. And if I talk about one thing I don't have to fucking talk about every fucking thing in existence. And you seem to think that I never criticize other nations, which is obviously false.

I don't always agree with Smedley Butler but I have to give him credit here, he is consistent. If you pay attention to his posts he rips apart just about every major government under the sun at one point or another.

But nations are not people. It is hard to control a government and convince it has done evil actions.

It could be better if it did not assume country interests and let them to be managed at a lower level. While simply managing and make sure everythng works well.

Who is best suited to decide national interests ? How the national interests work ?

Edited 9/18/2015 03:30:03

Kuwait was in defense of Kuwait.

Time for some graphs.

Where was the defence of Ethiopia? And the UN just watched and marginally helped some territorial disputes after the war ended. A far bloodier war and longlasting war.

This was not about "defence of Kuwait", this was about disabling all nonallied OPEC.

http://imgur.com/YzINCHV

http://imgur.com/vA27dQa

I'm sure the rest can inform you where you're a: assuming that your claim is true without counterargument and b: how those other actions are standard evil country deeds.

But nations are not people. It is hard to control a government and convince it has done evil actions.

It could be better if it did not assume country interests and let them to be managed at a lower level. While simply managing and make sure everythng works well.

Who is best suited to decide national interests ? How the national interests work ?

Nation has a strange connotation.

A large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular state or territory.

Many folk just wrongly assume that nation means country. But I think you mean country here. In my opinion, a great confederation should be made across the world.

Edited 9/18/2015 04:31:52

Where was the defence of Ethiopia? And the UN just watched and marginally helped some territorial disputes after the war ended. A far bloodier war and longlasting war.

This was not about "defence of Kuwait", this was about disabling all nonallied OPEC.

The main objective of the Gulf War was the liberation of Kuwait. That's why the war ended not long after Kuwait was free. President Bush (Senior) could of stayed and tried to finish off Saddam Hussein's regime, but he didn't because the job was done. You could argue the U.S had it's own reasons for wanting to protect Kuwait (Oil) but the bottom line is that the defense of Kuwait was indeed the main reason, selfish motives or no.

Also, your mention of Ethiopia seems rather irrelevant to the topic. Intervening to protect/liberate one country does not obligate you to interfere in every single other war. Should something have been done about it? Maybe, but it would just add to the list of things people never stop beating the U.S over the head with. Also, the United States is not the U.N, nor does it have total control of it.

The U.N has never been very effective and that's simply the nature of the beast.

The corporations are not the problem. The problem is that the corporations are indicative of the rest of society.

I think America could have been an amazing place today had it kept the core ideals it was founded on. What I see now is a country heading slowly deeper into the territory of a police state, and don't forget the creepy way they make their kids pledge their allegiance daily - even when they're too young to understand all the words.
They have been told they have a lot of freedom, and that people from other countries are so very jealous - and some really seem to believe it (as evidenced earlier in this thread). Well obviously compared to some places they do but compared to the vast majority of the western world they seem under-the-thumb in a more meaningful way. What other western country forces people to fight, kill and die for it under threat of arrest in this day and age? (If there is one let me know :) )
I know a lot of governments do a lot of messed up stuff so I don't really include that in my opinion too much on what I see America as being. It just seems so wrong to me that a major part of their society argues for their insane defence budget to, if anything, rise - and yet argue so fervently against any social programs designed to help people. Have they really been pumped with that much fear or are they just so stupid as to argue against their own interests in favour of their establishments'? Well, stupid people exist in every developed country fairly equally I guess.
I think it's a real shame too - it was so promising and yet strayed so far. It can't even be called a democracy anymore. As has been said before, it's an oligarchy. And they're just not as nice. Most Americans I've actually met have been fine though, not really much difference except a cool/terrible accent depending on the state.

Edited 9/18/2015 05:29:30

The main objective of the Gulf War was the liberation of Kuwait. That's why the war ended not long after Kuwait was free. President Bush (Senior) could of stayed and tried to finish off Saddam Hussein's regime, but he didn't because the job was done. You could argue the U.S had it's own reasons for wanting to protect Kuwait (Oil) but the bottom line is that the defense of Kuwait was indeed the main reason, selfish motives or no.

"liberation" and "freeing" are pretty loaded wars, don't use them. What we say the Attacking of Kuwait, many Arabs are guilty of calling it "Kuwait's Liberation". Yes, Kuwait was an American ally and a good stronghold against Iraq, but I think oil has quite a bit to do with it. Take a look.



All the blue countries (OPEC) are either allied to America (Ecuador, Arabia, Kuwait), in massive turmoil (Iraq; Libya; Nigeria) or declared foes to world peace by America (Iran, Venezuela). Other countries with quite a bit of oil: Canada (ally), Russia (foe).

Also, your mention of Ethiopia seems rather irrelevant to the topic. Intervening to protect/liberate one country does not obligate you to interfere in every single other war. Should something have been done about it? Maybe, but it would just add to the list of things people never stop beating the U.S over the head with. Also, the United States is not the U.N, nor does it have total control of it.

Well, I wasn't really trying to saying that. There's a whole bunch more where that came from. I'm saying that when Iraq invaded Kuwait (2-4 August 1990), ~500 Kuwaiti and Iraqi soldiers were killed, but the war would be over; Iraq and Kuwait would have no more oil disputes and share their wealth across the countries. Instead, NATO kills 24,000 more Iraqis, keeps warring it economically until 2003, when they war Iraq literally again.

Anyhow, my point is, the Gulf War could have been done with 1000 deaths. In the Eritrean-Ethiopian War, there were far more deaths in two already poorly developed countries (Ethiopia and Eritrea today rank 173 and 182, respectively, on UN HDI list). As you can imagine, the war was good to neither of them. West Double Standards, this is said.

The U.N has never been very effective and that's simply the nature of the beast.

Too true, mate.

Well obviously compared to some places they do but compared to the vast majority of the western world they seem under-the-thumb in a more meaningful way. What other western country forces people to fight, kill and die for it under threat of arrest in this day and age? (If there is one let me know :) )

Ah cheers, more than I thought, though I'm not surprised by most of that map!

I'm not going to list out every country having major oil reserves and OPEC and classify it, I'll answer your two:

Indonesia - no oil to talk about, really. It's 30th in reserves, and something in the 20s in exporting.

Angola, America has hated since independence and before(1975). It caused rabble in the Independence War (1960s-1975), then it caused rabble in the Civil War (1975-1992). America then left Angola alone pretty much after 1992; the Angolan government promised free elections along with renouncing communism nominally. "Free" is a word America assigns, too well. Today, the Cabindas want independence and fight for it, and they are supplied by France and Belgium (subordinate to America), though since that mainly stays at Cabinda. Now America is allied with the government, and it is its second biggest trading partner in unarabic Africa.

Few African countries are more important to U.S. interests than Angola. - Council on (American) Foreign Relations

Second, USA will never go to war with Venezuela.

Do you have proof or grounds?

Edited 9/19/2015 00:50:52