Countries who start wars generally tend to lose them!

[lazarus]

I heard a political commentator say this once......I seems true to me.

[Dr. Shane]

Well it certianly has proved to be the case with Iraq. Saddam invaded Kuwait and then refused to abide by the peace treaty and... well, we don't have to worry about Saddam any more, do we?

[lazarus]

Here's some examples

Russia Crimean War

Germany WW 1&2

USA Korea ?

USA Vietnam

Middle Eastern countries V Israel

Pakistan India 1971

Argentina - Falklands war

Iraq Iran? a draw.

Iraq Kuwait

USA Iraq?

[Ron Lambert]

What about:

USA Afghanistan

USA Grenada

USA Panama

USA Spanish-occupied Cuba (there are still some questions about the sinking of the Maine)

USA Tripoli pirates ("From the halls of Montezu-uma, to the shores of Tripoli...")

Also, the USA attacked Germany, in WWI and WWII, when Germany did not attack us first (there are still some questions about the sinking of the Lusitania)

[Planey]

Quote:

---

USA Korea ?

USA Vietnam

USA Iraq?

---

Quote:

---

USA Afghanistan

USA Grenada

USA Panama

USA Spanish-occupied Cuba

USA Tripoli pirates

---

Gee, this USA is certainly a peaceful nation, isn't it?

Graeme

[Dr. Shane]

Who ever claimed the US to be a peaceful nation? It is the land of the free and home of the brave. Freedom comes at a cost and it requires brave men.

[lazarus]

very often the freedom of one group comes at the cost of the liberty, even the life, of another group.

What does "land of the free, home of the brave really mean" Does it mean Americans are the most free and the bravest?

Let me repeat that true freedom is a relatively new phenomenon is America. If America realised this it wold walk more humbly and respectfully in the world.

Here's an example:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4603136.stm

[Bravus]

I was just thinking about 'land of the free, home of the brave' the other day. It seemed to me that America needs to be both, or it will be neither. And that sure, bravery can be displayed in battle, but bravery is also displayed in standing up to those who want you to live in fear, and react out of fear, and in refusing to live in fear. I think when Americans rediscover their bravery they will less often find it necessary to go to war.

On the lists above, I don't think the evidence is definitive on either side... but counting the US invasion of Granada as a war the US won is giving it a little too much credit.

[Dr. Shane]

In respect to racial minorities, freedom is realtively new in America. Economically speaking, the case can be made that freedom is dwindling in America.

In fact, Abraham Lincoln is often seen as the turning point for the freedom of racial minorities but he is also the turning point for intrusive big government. The three Presidents that have done the most to increase the size of the federal government are Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson. Others that compare are Teddy Roosevelt, Richard Nixion and George W. Bush.

As the size of government increases, economic freedom decreases. Government doesn't create wealth. The private sector does. As government increases it syphons funds from the private sector to fund itself. That redistribution of wealth actually decreases economic freedom.

Historically Americans have demostrated their bravery in both war and economics. Not all American wars have been justified. Some, like the Mexican-American War (Pres. Polk), Spanish American War (Pres. McKinley) World War 1 (Pres. Wilson) and Iraq War (Pres. GW Bush) were based on lies. (Granted Presidents McKinely and Bush likely didn't know they were lies.) Many of the indian wars are a downright disgraceful stain on America's history. Yet American soldiers have often marched off to war to defend other nations.

Economically, American entrepreneurs have risked fortunes in risky ideas from the stock market to the steam boat. And in less risky adventures like farms and real estate. The American capitalist has increased the standard of living to the point where even the nation's poor enjoy luxeries like carpetted homes, indoor plumbing, television and air conditioning.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

---

US invasion of Granada as a war the US won is giving it a little too much credit.

---

Even saying it was a war the US started is disputable.

[lazarus]

Quote:

---

Shane said:

In respect to racial minorities, freedom is realtively new in America.

---

Its interesting how you phrased the response, actually you highlight the issue I have. When Americans (generally white Americans) talk about their land being the land of the free they are generally talking about themselves. When I hear commentators talk about how America has spread freedom around the world they seem to ignore the lack of freedom that existed at home. This lack of acknowlegement reveals a flawed perception of what America has been and still is.

For America freedom is new. To have your fellow countrymen in bondage by your own hands you leave yourself in bondage too.

I don't deny Americans have been brave. I have repect for every man who had stood or fallen on the field of battle. I simply want to suggest that accross the continents of the world there haas been astounding bravery, and powerful champoins of freedom.

Quote:

---

The American capitalist has increased the standard of living to the point where even the nation's poor enjoy luxeries like carpetted homes, indoor plumbing, television and air conditioning.

---

My guess is that the US worker has had a bit of a hand in this too.

[Dr. Shane]

Yet to be fair to America, at the time it was founded (1776-1789) slavery was practiced in many nations of the world, including England from which they succeeded. Yet the US Constitution had provision in it to end the slave trade - so it was headed in the right direction. Yet it was Great Brittan, not the US which effectually ended the slave trade on the high seas.

Black Americans enjoyed many freedoms in the northern and western states that they did not have in the South. The civil rights movement of the 1960s had its greatest impact on southern blacks although affirmative action has helped blacks throughout the nation.

[there buster]

In what alternate universe did the U.S. start the Korean War?

The North Koreans (with many Russian pilots) invaded South Korea. Then, the United Nations sent troops to oppose the aggression.

GIGO

[Ron Lambert]

Good point Ed. Thanks for catching that for us.

The same can be said for Vietnam. The communist insurgency, armed and funded by North Vietnam, came first. The South Vietnamese government appealed to us for help after the French gave up and bugged out.

[jasd]

Not to forget that the USofA was signatory to the UN-sponsored SEATO Treaty that Ron Lambert notes called upon us to fulfill our 'obligations-as-called-for' in said Treaty. Our involvement was,

supposedly, a defeat for us; however, before the war the French franc was the common currency in that part of the world; whereas, by the time we finally left Indochina and environs

the dollar had replaced the franc. It was the inflation

of our money supply which put that second car in our garage and those extra TVs in every room of our new three-bedroom homes, etc... Had not all

those newly-printed dollars found their way across the Pacific, we would probably by now have had an inflationary collapse. Looking at the Vietnamese war

from that perspective, one might easily come to the conclusion that we won the war -- or were it the bankers and their sorts --who won? All it cost was

55,000 dead and 350,000 wounded Americans (without mention of other national casualties), including the loss of our military hardware. Every nation and king

drink of the cup of the bankers and their cognate forms; though it is said and though it is false -- that every king drinks from the cup of Vatican Rome.

[bevin]

Quote:

---

The North Koreans (with many Russian pilots) invaded South Korea. Then, the United Nations sent troops to oppose the aggression.

---

http://www.alternativeinsight.com/Korean_War.html

supports Ed's position, while adding some deeper insight

/Bevin

[bevin]

Quote:

---

The same can be said for Vietnam. The communist insurgency, armed and funded by North Vietnam, came first. The South Vietnamese government appealed to us for help after the French gave up and bugged out.

---

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pentagon/pent11.htm

Quote:

---

By 1956, peace in Vietnam was plainly less dependent upon the Geneva Settlement than upon power relationships in Southeast Asia--principally upon the role the U.S. elected to play in unfolding events. In 1957 and 1958, a structured rebellion against the government of Ngo Dinh Diem began. [:"red"]While the North Vietnamese played an ill-defined part, most of those who took up arms were South Vietnamese, and the causes for which they fought were by no means contrived in North Vietnam[/]. In 1959 and 1960, Hanoi's involvement in the developing strife became evident. Not until 1960, however, did the U.S. perceive that Diem was in serious danger of being overthrown and devise a Counterinsurgency Plan.

It can be established that there was endemic insurgency in South Vietnam throughout the period 1954-1960. It can also be established-but less surely- that [:"red"]the Diem regime alienated itself from one after another of those elements within Vietnam which might have offered it political support, and was grievously at fault in its rural programs[/]. That these conditions engendered animosity toward the GVN seems almost certain, and they could have underwritten a major resistance movement even without North Vietnamese help.

---

/Bevin

[lazarus]

To me it was an interesting thought. It would be interesting to find out if there have been any serious studies done.

[james423]

When you study the history of other countries (Great Britain, France, Russia, Japan, China, for examples), you find that the countries who start wars sometimes win, sometimes lose.