CDZ Imperialism and mass murder or noninterventionism and virtue?

[D Truth]

The actions of "Israel" easily outmatch the OP list... care to comment on that O.P.?
Are you an anti-semite OP?

 

[Kalki]

"English "and" has properties not captured by logical conjunction. For example, "and" sometimes implies order. For example, "They got married and had a child" in common discourse means that the marriage came before the child. The word "and" can also imply a partition of a thing into parts, as "The American flag is red, white, and blue." Here it is not meant that the flag is at once red, white, and blue, but rather that it has a part of each color." - From: wikipedia under Logical conjunction.

Please try to look at the forest, rather than a strange leaf with a hole that exists only in your own perception. Obviously, I gave the list to show how many nations America has been meddling in for centuries, I clarified they do not all involve mass murder, nor do they all involve imperialism.

However, when we look at the totality, it is plain to see that America is an empire, not a republic - as it was originally intended to be.

The grammar review you provided, though a touch incomplete and a touch inaccurate, is surely helpful to someone. Notwithstanding, America, regardless whether it is today an Empire, absolutely was not at the time of the American Revolution. Indeed, it was by dint of the Revolution and the Seven Years War that Americans gave up their membership (or any potential for there being any) nations that then were empires, most notably France and England. Moreover, less than 30 years after the Revolution, via the Louisiana Purchase, Americans effected the end of any meaningful French presence in the territory of the U.S.

That's not to say the Founders had, or had no, visions of empire in their minds, only that in 1776 and for quite a while afterwards, America was not an empire. Certainly after acquiring "Louisiana," America reached the size of substantively the whole of Europe, and, if on no other basis than size, America might, repeat...might....then have been called an empire. It'd be a difficult moniker to make stick, however, because size notwithstanding, America was better suited to fighting small skirmishes adjacent to itself and defending against foreign encroachment than it was conquering distant lands and also holding on to its core territory.

Far more plausible, with or without considering the Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny, is that the U.S. became an empire between the first and second World Wars, and certainly after WWII, the key difference being that it wasn't until then the U.S. could project and effect its will by using its power (economic and military) to influence and control geopolitics and global economics.

One thing in my mind is that the U.S. "idea" of empire differs from that of the Great European Powers of the 19th century and before. The key difference being that the "old boys" saw empire as necessitating one own the far flung lands that comprised the components of their empires. The U.S. version doesn't require that; American leaders figured out that creating economic and military dependence on the part of other nations was, for the purpose of ensuring one's political will is exerted, substantively as good as actually owning the land.

I never said America was an Empire at the Revolutionary War era and the period of the establishment of the U.S. Constitution. The founders advocated noninterventionism and not getting involved in foreign entanglements, this changed with the Monroe Doctrine.

The physical size of America does not make it an empire, what makes it an empire is establishing 700 military bases around the world, and controlling and sanctioning other nations, as well as the continuous military actions in other nations.

If Manifest Destiny continued to usurp the entire world, then it could be labeled as an imperialist tactic, but it did not and it stopped once the ocean was reached. Keep in mind, no one in that era believed the Amerindians were human or human on the same level, so that is irrelevant to my point of view.

You are correct that America became the Imperialist power due to WWI and WWII and the aftermath of their genocidal actions in Europe against the Germans.

The reason the old colonialism disappeared is because International Finance wanted to control and regulate and harvest the other nations, through unequal currency exchange rates, and creating a structure of debt enslavement to each nation's government, and the use of sanctions rather than physical coercion to do the same thing. It is more efficient than physical colonialism and the same phenomenon of the Hazard Circular of 1862.

 

[Kalki]

D Truth, if you are mentioning Israel as an argument form, then it is a logic fallacy called 'whataboutery'. This thread is about America.

If you are mentioning Israel as an interesting topic of discussion, then please start a thread on the subject of Israel.

Henry Morgenthau Jr was one of the persons most responsible for the mass murder of 60 million people, and he was the Secretary of Treasury of America. I don't think Israel has initiated and enabled the mass murder of 60 million people, and so do not see how they could have outdid America using numbers as a gauge. Watch the documentary film 'The Greatest Story Never Told' by Dennis Wise, as proof that.

Obviously, Israel has Imperialist goals in the Middle East since they want to expand and take territory.

However, I do not want to discuss Israel on this thread. Start a different thread on that topic for that, if you are interested in discussing Israel, please.

 

[Elvis Obama]

Recycle the metal. Keep some of the ships and planes to protect from piracy and such. Disband the military bases in foreign lands. Keep all of the nuclear weapons in a ready state. Keep a much smaller number of people as professional military strategists, trained in the knowledge of warfare.

No one will dare attack a nation with thousands of nuclear weapons and guns in the hands of every adult. The point isn't that the entire structure of the military needs to be removed, just the vast majority of it.

I'm still searching for a point to all this. I have no interest in reading the 2nd Amendment Primer. This is not a classroom. There is no assigned reading. If you can't make you point by yourself, or through publicly accessible links, forget it.

As best I can tell, you want the following:

1- American should follow the same foreign policy now that it did in the late 18th Century.
2- We should abandon all treaty obligations. NATO go bye-bye.
3- We should melt down our military. Might this result in a reduction on the price of razor blades?
4- We should all be armed to the teeth. Muskets? Cannons? Trebuchets? Nuclear weapons?
5- America is currently an empire, and therefore is morally compromised. We must abandon imperialist designs.

As food for thought goes this is a light snack, at best.

Jefferson avoided "foreign entanglements" because the US was too weak. They would have destroyed us. The embargo was a radical policy decision which brought us to the brink of dissolution, but we simply didn't have the firepower to go toe-to-toe with the big boys. This was in no way a "founding principle" of this nation. It was simply a pragmatic response to the prevailing world conditions.

Imperialism is no longer a goal, except for ISIS and other backwards morons with Napoleonic complexes. Power is derived from many sources. Isolationism is no longer a practical policy, as Signor Ferrari taught us. Part of our power derives from the power of others, and it is in our interests to make sure that those entities remain healthy, wealthy and wise (or as close to wise as we humans are capable of being).

So, what's the point of all this?

 

[Kalki]

Recycle the metal. Keep some of the ships and planes to protect from piracy and such. Disband the military bases in foreign lands. Keep all of the nuclear weapons in a ready state. Keep a much smaller number of people as professional military strategists, trained in the knowledge of warfare.

No one will dare attack a nation with thousands of nuclear weapons and guns in the hands of every adult. The point isn't that the entire structure of the military needs to be removed, just the vast majority of it.

I'm still searching for a point to all this. I have no interest in reading the 2nd Amendment Primer. This is not a classroom. There is no assigned reading. If you can't make you point by yourself, or through publicly accessible links, forget it.

As best I can tell, you want the following:

1- American should follow the same foreign policy now that it did in the late 18th Century.
2- We should abandon all treaty obligations. NATO go bye-bye.
3- We should melt down our military. Might this result in a reduction on the price of razor blades?
4- We should all be armed to the teeth. Muskets? Cannons? Trebuchets? Nuclear weapons?
5- America is currently an empire, and therefore is morally compromised. We must abandon imperialist designs.

As food for thought goes this is a light snack, at best.

Jefferson avoided "foreign entanglements" because the US was too weak. They would have destroyed us. The embargo was a radical policy decision which brought us to the brink of dissolution, but we simply didn't have the firepower to go toe-to-toe with the big boys. This was in no way a "founding principle" of this nation. It was simply a pragmatic response to the prevailing world conditions.

Imperialism is no longer a goal, except for ISIS and other backwards morons with Napoleonic complexes. Power is derived from many sources. Isolationism is no longer a practical policy, as Signor Ferrari taught us. Part of our power derives from the power of others, and it is in our interests to make sure that those entities remain healthy, wealthy and wise (or as close to wise as we humans are capable of being).

So, what's the point of all this?

I already quoted from the 'Second Amendment Primer' on the first page so you don't have to read it, to understand the point, please go back and look in case you missed it along with the point. I suggested reading it for those who are interested in such subjects. If you aren't interested in the subject and understanding, then why are you commenting here?

Armed to the teeth with machine guns and ammo, like Switzerland citizens. That is sufficient. To protect Americans from other governments and the U.S. government. Then, have nuclear warheads under the control of the drastically reduced military.

This "light snack," is apparently the first time in your life you have been shown another way, in regards to the status quo on Imperialism and America. I understand, it is like the film Matrix, when it was stated that they normally don't unplug those who have already been programmed into adulthood, because the mind cannot tolerate other programs or lines-of-thought, and the system programming breaks down, like Neo at first. My thoughts and book suggestions are not for you if that is the case; they are for those who are interested in alternative thoughts and learning.

"The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities." - George Washington

"President Thomas Jefferson extended Washington's ideas about foreign policy in his March 4, 1801 inaugural address. Jefferson said that one of the "essential principles of our government" is that of "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." - wikipedia

"In 1823, President James Monroe articulated what would come to be known as the Monroe Doctrine, which some have interpreted as non-interventionist in intent: "In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken part, nor does it comport with our policy, so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded, or seriously menaced that we resent injuries, or make preparations for our defense." - wikipedia

"After Tsar Alexander II put down the 1863 January Uprising in Poland, French Emperor Napoleon III asked the United States to "join in a protest to the Tsar."[6] Secretary of State William H. Seward declined, "defending 'our policy of non-intervention—straight, absolute, and peculiar as it may seem to other nations,'" and insisted that "[t]he American people must be content to recommend the cause of human progress by the wisdom with which they should exercise the powers of self-government, forbearing at all times, and in every way, from foreign alliances, intervention, and interference." - wikipedia

Read United States non-interventionism on wikipedia

If Imperialism is no longer a goal, then why are there 700 or more military bases around the world?

You have proven that you don't even read posts here, go back and look at post #19 in response to your ISIS claims. Then go back and read post #7 in response to your statement that this is not a classroom and I need to post the writing, when in fact I did and you acknowledged it or seemed to but now you seem to have forgotten. I do not need to rewrite it just because someone doesn't read what is written here.

Signor Ferrari (or the character writer) was lying. Watch a documentary film titled, 'The Greatest Story Never Told' by Dennis Wise.

Watch what you support, on youtube:
'Hellstorm: the genocide of Germany'

When you stated "imperialism is no longer a goal" you proved that you did not read (or did not comprehend) the posts above yours on this page! I will restate it since it is right there:


On the new imperialism:
The reason the old type of colonialism disappeared is because International Finance wanted to control and regulate and harvest the other nations like large plantations, through unequal currency exchange rates, and creating a structure of debt enslavement to each nation's government, along with the use of sanctions rather than physical coercion to accomplish the same thing: colonialism or imperialism. It is more efficient than physical colonialism and along the same principle of the Hazard Circular of 1862:

"Slavery is likely to be abolished by the war power, and all chattel slavery abolished. This I and my European friends are in favor of, for slavery is but the owning of labor and carries with it the care of the laborers, while the European plan, led on by England, is that capital shall control labor by controlling wages. The great debt that capitalists will see to it is made out of the war must be used as a means to control the volume of money; to accomplish this the bonds must be used as a banking basis. We are now waiting for the Secretary of the Treasury to make this recommendation to Congress. It will not do to allow the greenback, as it is called, to circulate as money any length of time, as we cannot control that. But we can control the bonds, and through them the bank issue" (Hazard Circular of 1862).


For those who are interested in understanding:
Read, 'The Creature From Jekyll Island' by Griffin
'Why Is Your Country At War and What Happens to You After the War' by Charles Lindbergh
'The Secrets of the Federal Reserve' by Eustace Mullins
'Confessions of an Economic Hitman' by John Perkins

They changed the title of Secretary of War to Secretary of Defense when FDR had the position, as a propaganda tactic, to make it look like offensive actions of Imperialism were actually defensive actions.

 

[Elvis Obama]

Recycle the metal. Keep some of the ships and planes to protect from piracy and such. Disband the military bases in foreign lands. Keep all of the nuclear weapons in a ready state. Keep a much smaller number of people as professional military strategists, trained in the knowledge of warfare.

No one will dare attack a nation with thousands of nuclear weapons and guns in the hands of every adult. The point isn't that the entire structure of the military needs to be removed, just the vast majority of it.

I'm still searching for a point to all this. I have no interest in reading the 2nd Amendment Primer. This is not a classroom. There is no assigned reading. If you can't make you point by yourself, or through publicly accessible links, forget it.

As best I can tell, you want the following:

1- American should follow the same foreign policy now that it did in the late 18th Century.
2- We should abandon all treaty obligations. NATO go bye-bye.
3- We should melt down our military. Might this result in a reduction on the price of razor blades?
4- We should all be armed to the teeth. Muskets? Cannons? Trebuchets? Nuclear weapons?
5- America is currently an empire, and therefore is morally compromised. We must abandon imperialist designs.

As food for thought goes this is a light snack, at best.

Jefferson avoided "foreign entanglements" because the US was too weak. They would have destroyed us. The embargo was a radical policy decision which brought us to the brink of dissolution, but we simply didn't have the firepower to go toe-to-toe with the big boys. This was in no way a "founding principle" of this nation. It was simply a pragmatic response to the prevailing world conditions.

Imperialism is no longer a goal, except for ISIS and other backwards morons with Napoleonic complexes. Power is derived from many sources. Isolationism is no longer a practical policy, as Signor Ferrari taught us. Part of our power derives from the power of others, and it is in our interests to make sure that those entities remain healthy, wealthy and wise (or as close to wise as we humans are capable of being).

So, what's the point of all this?

I already quoted from the 'Second Amendment Primer' on the first page so you don't have to read it, to understand the point, please go back and look in case you missed it along with the point. I suggested reading it for those who are interested in such subjects. If you aren't interested in the subject and understanding, then why are you commenting here?

Armed to the teeth with machine guns and ammo, like Switzerland citizens. That is sufficient. To protect Americans from other governments and the U.S. government. Then, have nuclear warheads under the control of the drastically reduced military.

This "light snack," is apparently the first time in your life you have been shown another way, in regards to the status quo on Imperialism and America. I understand, it is like the film Matrix, when it was stated that they normally don't unplug those who have already been programmed into adulthood, because the mind cannot tolerate other programs or lines-of-thought, and the system programming breaks down, like Neo at first. My thoughts and book suggestions are not for you if that is the case; they are for those who are interested in alternative thoughts and learning.

"The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities." - George Washington

"President Thomas Jefferson extended Washington's ideas about foreign policy in his March 4, 1801 inaugural address. Jefferson said that one of the "essential principles of our government" is that of "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." - wikipedia

"In 1823, President James Monroe articulated what would come to be known as the Monroe Doctrine, which some have interpreted as non-interventionist in intent: "In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken part, nor does it comport with our policy, so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded, or seriously menaced that we resent injuries, or make preparations for our defense." - wikipedia

"After Tsar Alexander II put down the 1863 January Uprising in Poland, French Emperor Napoleon III asked the United States to "join in a protest to the Tsar."[6] Secretary of State William H. Seward declined, "defending 'our policy of non-intervention—straight, absolute, and peculiar as it may seem to other nations,'" and insisted that "[t]he American people must be content to recommend the cause of human progress by the wisdom with which they should exercise the powers of self-government, forbearing at all times, and in every way, from foreign alliances, intervention, and interference." - wikipedia

Read United States non-interventionism on wikipedia

If Imperialism is no longer a goal, then why are there 700 or more military bases around the world?

You have proven that you don't even read posts here, go back and look at post #19 in response to your ISIS claims. Then go back and read post #7 in response to your statement that this is not a classroom and I need to post the writing, when in fact I did and you acknowledged it or seemed to but now you seem to have forgotten. I do not need to rewrite it just because someone doesn't read what is written here.

Signor Ferrari (or the character writer) was lying. Watch a documentary film titled, 'The Greatest Story Never Told' by Dennis Wise.

Watch what you support, on youtube:
'Hellstorm: the genocide of Germany'

When you stated "imperialism is no longer a goal" you proved that you did not read (or did not comprehend) the posts above yours on this page! I will restate it since it is right there:


On the new imperialism:
The reason the old type of colonialism disappeared is because International Finance wanted to control and regulate and harvest the other nations like large plantations, through unequal currency exchange rates, and creating a structure of debt enslavement to each nation's government, along with the use of sanctions rather than physical coercion to accomplish the same thing: colonialism or imperialism. It is more efficient than physical colonialism and along the same principle of the Hazard Circular of 1862:

"Slavery is likely to be abolished by the war power, and all chattel slavery abolished. This I and my European friends are in favor of, for slavery is but the owning of labor and carries with it the care of the laborers, while the European plan, led on by England, is that capital shall control labor by controlling wages. The great debt that capitalists will see to it is made out of the war must be used as a means to control the volume of money; to accomplish this the bonds must be used as a banking basis. We are now waiting for the Secretary of the Treasury to make this recommendation to Congress. It will not do to allow the greenback, as it is called, to circulate as money any length of time, as we cannot control that. But we can control the bonds, and through them the bank issue" (Hazard Circular of 1862).


For those who are interested in understanding:
Read, 'The Creature From Jekyll Island' by Griffin
'Why Is Your Country At War and What Happens to You After the War' by Charles Lindbergh
'The Secrets of the Federal Reserve' by Eustace Mullins
'Confessions of an Economic Hitman' by John Perkins

They changed the title of Secretary of War to Secretary of Defense when FDR had the position, as a propaganda tactic, to make it look like offensive actions of Imperialism were actually defensive actions.

I repeat, what's the point? Been shown another way? Are you kidding?

Yes, I'm just an Duracell battery plugged into the vast machine. Of course, I'm not the one who wants to revert to 18th Century foreign policy. Some people might not look at that as a realistic vision for the future. I'm sorry that you don't like the end of US isolationism. There is no doubt that the less people interact, the less friction and animosity there is in the world. That's always been true, but those darned cavemen refused to stay in their caves. Personally, I'm glad they did. Those caves are very drafty. Yes, we've made mistakes on our upward march, horrible mistakes. Atrocities. It has always been thus. If you see no moral progress in human history, you are unrealistic. We need to measure our progress by how far we have come, as well as how much farther we need to go.

 

[Kalki]

The point is right here:

youtube:
Hellstorm the genocide of Germany

If you call that progress, then I am sorry for you. Are you kidding?

I wouldn't have suggested the Matrix if you offered valid arguments for why what I proposed is wrong or undesirable, but you didn't, just knee-jerk reactions to the idea of not committing mass murder when you are the one not getting terrorized.

Principles never change. 18th century principles are just as valid in the 21st century.

The only reason you disagree is because you were not the one in Berlin in 1945 or Baghdad in 2003. If it was you and yours you would be singing a different tune. That is what makes this so sad. Someday those who support mass murder may get a chance to understand why it is considered wrong by ordinary humans, but that can only happen when they get to live it and experience it.

 

[Elvis Obama]

The point is right here:

youtube:
Hellstorm the genocide of Germany

If you call that progress, then I am sorry for you. Are you kidding?

I wouldn't have suggested the Matrix if you offered valid arguments for why what I proposed is wrong or undesirable, but you didn't, just knee-jerk reactions to the idea of not committing mass murder when you are the one not getting terrorized.

Principles never change. 18th century principles are just as valid in the 21st century.

The only reason you disagree is because you were not the one in Berlin in 1945 or Baghdad in 2003. If it was you and yours you would be singing a different tune. That is what makes this so sad. Someday those who support mass murder may get a chance to understand why it is considered wrong by ordinary humans, but that can only happen when they get to live it and experience it.

Do I consider the Holocaust as an example of advancement in morality. Are you kidding?

Do you believe there has been no advancement in moral philosophy and governance in the history of humanity? I'll give you a clue. One of those moral advances was the United States of America.

It's difficult to have a serious discussion with someone who advances impossible ideas with the claim that they will reduce death, then says if you disagree you're a mass murderer. If the US ditched (and thereby destroyed) NATO, and pulled inward, clutching a six gun, the result would be world chaos. These are not serious policy proposals, and as theory goes they're worthless. I do acknowledge that you actually do believe these things. I cannot begin to fathom the mindset that could find these ideas interesting or worthwhile.

 

[protectionist]

Incomplete list of Imperialism and mass murder, and assorted military actions of the U.S.

1775–83 – American Revolutionary War
1776–77 – Second Cherokee War
1776–94 – Cherokee–American wars
1785–95 – Northwest Indian War
1786–87 – Shays' Rebellion: a Western Massachusetts debtor's revolt
1791–94 – Whiskey Rebellion
1798–1800 – Quasi-War
1799–1800 – Fries' Rebellion
1801–05 – First Barbary War
1806 – Action in Spanish Mexico
1806–10 – Action in the Gulf of Mexico
1810 – West Florida (Spanish territory)
1812 – Amelia Island and other parts of east Florida, then under Spain
1812–15 – War of 1812
1813 – West Florida (Spanish territory)
1813–14 – Marquesas Islands (French Polynesia)
1814 – Spanish Florida
1814–25 – Caribbean
1815 – Algiers
1815 – Tripoli
1816 – Spanish Florida
1816–18 – Spanish Florida
1817 – Amelia Island (Spanish territory off Florida)
1818 – Oregon
1820–23 – Africa
1822 – Cuba
Monroe Doctrine
1823 – Cuba
1824 – Cuba
1824 – Puerto Rico (Spanish territory)
1825 – Cuba
1827 – Greece
1831–32 – Falkland Islands
1832 – Attack on Quallah Battoo: Sumatra, Indonesia
1833 – Argentina
1835–36 – Peru
1835–42 – Florida Territory
1838 – The Caroline affair on Navy Island, Canada
1838–39 – Sumatra (Indonesia)
1840 – Fiji Islands
1841 – McKean Island (Drummond Island/Taputenea), Gilbert Islands
1841 – Samoa
1842 – Mexico
1843 – China
1843 – Africa
1844 – Mexico
1846–48 – Mexican–American War
1849 – Smyrna (İzmir, Turkey)
1851 – Ottoman Empire
1851 – Johanna Island
1852–53 – Argentina
1853 – Nicaragua
1853–54 – Japan Commodore Matthew Perry
1853–54 – Ryūkyū and Bonin Islands
1854 – China
1854 – Nicaragua
1855 – China
1855 – Fiji Islands
1855 – Uruguay
1856 – Panama
1856 – China
1857–58 – Utah War
1857 – Nicaragua
1858 – Uruguay
1858 – Fiji Islands
1858–59 – Ottoman Empire
1859 – Paraguay
1859 – Mexico
1859 – China
1860 – Angola, Portuguese West Africa
1860 – Colombia, Bay of Panama
1861–65 – American Civil War
1863 – Japan: July 16, Naval battle of Shimonoseki
1864 – Japan
1865 – Panama
1865–77 – Southern United States – Reconstruction
1866 – Mexico
1866 – China
1867 – Nicaragua
1867 – Formosa (island of Taiwan)
1868 – Japan
1868 – Uruguay
1868 – Colombia
1870 – Battle of Boca Teacapan
1870 – Kingdom of Hawaii
1872 – Korea: Shinmiyangyo
1873 – Colombia (Bay of Panama)
1873–96 – Mexico
1874 – Honolulu Courthouse Riot
1876 – Mexico
1878 – Lincoln County, New Mexico
1882 – Egyptian Expedition
1885 – Panama (Colón)
1888 – Korea
1888 – Haiti
1888–89 – Samoan crisis
1889 – Kingdom of Hawaii
1890 – Argentina
1890 – South Dakota
1891 – Haiti
1891 – Bering Sea
1891 – Itata Incident
1891 – Chile
1892 – Homestead Strike
1892 – Wyoming
1893 – Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom
1894 – Nicaragua
1894–95 – China
1894–96 – Korea
1895 – Colombia
1896 – Nicaragua
1898 – Nicaragua
1898 – Spanish–American War
1898–99 – Samoa
1898–99 – China
1899 – Nicaragua
1899–1913 – Philippine Islands: Philippine–American War
1900 – China
1901 – Colombia (State of Panama)
1902 – Colombia
1902 – Colombia (State of Panama)
1903 – Honduras
1903 – Dominican Republic
1903 – Syria
1903–04 – Abyssinia (Ethiopia)
1903–14 – Panama
Jacob Schiff finances the Japanese.
1904 – Dominican Republic
1904 – Tangier, Morocco
1904 – Panama
1904–05 – Korea
1906–09 – Cuba
1907 – Honduras
1910 – Nicaragua
1911 – Honduras
1911 – China
1912 – Honduras
1912 – Panama
1912 – Cuba
1912 – China
1912 – Turkey
1912–25 – Nicaragua
1912–41 – China
1913 – Mexico
1914 - Ludlow massacre
1914 – Haiti
1914 – Dominican Republic
1914–17 – Mexico: Tampico Affair
1915–34 – Haiti
1916 – China
1916–24 – Dominican Republic
1917 - Jacob Schiff finances the bolsheviks
1917 – China
1917–18 – World War I
'Why Is Your Country At War and What Happens To You After the War' by Charles Lindbergh, is confiscated by authorities and the printing press destroyed.
1917–22 – Cuba
1918–19 – Mexico
1918–20 – Panama
1918–20 – Russian SFSR
1919 – Dalmatia (Croatia)
1919 – Turkey
1919 – Honduras
1920 – China
1920 – Guatemala
1920–22 – Russia (Siberia)
1921 – Panama and Costa Rica
1921 - Battle of Blair Mountain
1922 – Turkey
1922–23 – China
1924 – Honduras
1924 – China
1925 – China
1925 – Honduras
1925 – Panama
1926–33 – Nicaragua
1926 – China
1927 – China
'Propaganda' by Edward Bernays published.
1932 – China
1932 – United States: "Bonus Army"
1933 – Cuba
1933 - Haavara Agreement signed
1934 – China
'War Is A Racket' by Smedley Butler published
1938 - Sudetenland massacres of ethnic Germans
1939 - Danzig massacres
1940 - Henry Morgenthau Jr establishes the oil embargo of the Japanese to push them into war with America, the Japanese retaliate.
1940 – Newfoundland
1940 - Bermuda
1940 - St. Lucia
1940 - Bahamas
1940 - Jamaica
1940 - Antigua
1940 - Trinidad
1940 - British Guiana
1941 – Greenland
1941 – Netherlands (Dutch Guiana)
1941 – Iceland
1941 – Germany
1941–45 – World War II
'The Greatest Story Never Told' by Dennis Wise film footage.
'Hellstorm: the Genocide of Germany' by Thomas Goodrich film footage.
Morgenthau Plan agreed to among allied nations
1945 – China
1945–49 – Occupation of part of Germany
1945–55 – Occupation of part of Austria
1945–52 – Occupation of Japan
1944–46 – Temporary reoccupation of the Philippines
1945–47 – U.S. Marines garrisoned in mainland China
1945–49 – Post-World War II occupation of South Korea
1946 – Trieste, (Italy)
1948 – Jerusalem (British Mandate)
1948 – Berlin: Berlin Airlift
1948–49 – China
1950–53 – Korean War
1950–55 – Formosa (Taiwan)
1953 - Operation Ajax
1954–55 – China
1955–64 – Vietnam
1956 – Egypt
1958 – Lebanon
1959–60 – The Caribbean
1959–75 – Vietnam War
1961 – Cuba
1962 - Operation Northwoods
1962 – Thailand
1962 – Cuba
1962–75 – Laos
Robert McNamara lies about the Gulf of Tonkin incident to get support to bomb Vietnam.
1964 – Congo (Zaïre)
1965 – Invasion of Dominican Republic
1967 – Israel: The USS Liberty incident
1967 – Congo (Zaïre)
1968 – Laos & Cambodia
1970 – Cambodian Campaign
1972 – North Vietnam
1973 – Operation Nickel Grass
1974 – Evacuation from Cyprus
1975 – Evacuation from Vietnam
1975 – Evacuation from Cambodia
1975 – South Vietnam
1975 – Cambodia: Mayaguez incident
1976 – Lebanon
1976 – Korea
1978 – Zaïre (Congo)
1980 – Iran
1980 – Sinai Operation Bright Star
1981 – El Salvador
1981 – Libya
1982 – Sinai
1982 – Lebanon
1982–83 – Lebanon
1983 – Egypt
1983 – Grenada
1983–89 – Honduras
1983 – Chad
1984 – Persian Gulf
1985 – Italy
1986 – Libya
1986 – Libya: Operation El Dorado Canyon
1986 – Bolivia
1987 – Persian Gulf
1987 – Persian Gulf: Operation Nimble Archer
1987–88 – Persian Gulf: Operation Earnest Will
1987–88 – Persian Gulf: Operation Prime Chance
1988 – Persian Gulf: Operation Praying Mantis
1988 – Honduras
1988 – USS Vincennes shoot-down of Iran Air Flight 655.
1988 – Panama
1989 – Libya
1989 – Panama
1989 – Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru
1989 – Philippines
1989–90 – Panama
1990 – Liberia
1990 – Saudi Arabia
1991 – Iraq and Kuwait: Gulf War
1991–96 – Iraq
1991 – Iraq
1991 – Zaire
1992 – Sierra Leone
1992–96 – Bosnia and Herzegovina
1992 – Kuwait
1992–2003 – Iraq: Iraqi no-fly zones
1992–95 – Somalia
1993–95 – Bosnia: Operation Deny Flight
1993 – Macedonia
1994 – Bosnia: Banja Luka incident
1994–95 – Haiti
1994 – Macedonia
'The Creature From Jekyll Island' by G. Edward Griffin is published.
1995 – Bosnia: Operation Deliberate Force
1996 – Liberia
1996 – Central African Republic
1996 – Kuwait
1996 – Bosnia
1997 – Albania
1997 – Congo and Gabon
1997 – Sierra Leone
1997 – Cambodia
1998 – Iraq: Operation Desert Fox
1998 – Guinea-Bissau
1998–99 – Kenya and Tanzania
1998 – Afghanistan and Sudan
1998 – Liberia
1999–2001 – East Timor
1999 – Serbia: Operation Allied Force
2000 – Sierra Leone
2000 – Nigeria
2000 – Yemen
2000 – East Timor
2001 – China Hainan Island
2001–present – War in Afghanistan
2002 – Yemen
2002 – Philippines
2002 – Côte d'Ivoire
2003–2011 – War in Iraq
2003 – Liberia
2003 – Georgia and Djibouti
'Confessions of an Economic Hitman' by John Perkins published.
2004 – Haiti
2004 – Georgia
2004 - Djibouti
2004 - Kenya
2004 - Ethiopia
2004 - Yemen
2004 - Eritrea
2004–present: North-West Pakistan
2005–06 – Pakistan
2006 – Lebanon
2007 - The Mogadishu Encounter
2007 – Somalia: Battle of Ras Kamboni
2008 – South Ossetia, Georgia
2010–present - Yemen
2010–11 – Iraq Operation New Dawn
2011 – Libya
2011 – Pakistan Operation Neptune Spear
2011 – Somalia Drone strikes
2011–present – Uganda
2012 – Jordan
2012 – Turkey
2012 – Chad
2013 – Mali
2013 – Somalia
2013 – Korean crisis
2013 – Somalia
2014–present – Uganda
2014–present - Iraq
2014 - present - Syria
2014 - Yemen
2015 - Iran Strait of Hormuz
2015–present - Cameroon

The nation of America was founded on the policy of non-interventionism, there was some necessity of military intervention such as at Tripoli in 1801 due to piracy. However, the policies radically changed with the Monroe Doctrine and we can see that America is indisputably an Empire or hegemony.

Why do people support mass murder? The founders of America were against what America has become, this is why they established the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights and believed in non-interventionism and foreign entanglements.

Read, 'The Second Amendment Primer' by Les Adams, to gain insight into the founder's vision.

How many of the nations that have received mass murder from the U.S. government, have bombed America? Why do you support the policies of empire and mass murder? What right do Americans have to commit mass murder on others?

200 million people were mass murdered by governments in the 20th century alone. Why are the people who hate the Natural Human Right of the 2nd amendment, in support of the mass murders of the U.S. government?

Why are the people who support the founders visions as expressed in 'The Second Amendment Primer' by Les Adams, in support of mass murder of others and violating their human rights? The founders of America would be rolling in their graves to see people in America today, loudly expressing the desire to intervene in other nation's and mass murder them. How did the Republican party leadership manipulate the people under their control? Same with the Democrats?

What the US did long ago is generally irrelevant. TODAY in 2016, the USA is the # 1 VICTIM of imperialism, led by Mexico, China, India, Guatemala, Nigeria et al, leading the world in remittances$$$ dollars pillaged out of our economy >> $123 Billion/year. $23 Billion/year to Mexico alone + tens of Billions$$ more stolen via welfare payouts to Mexicans via the anchor baby racket and false documentation. The Vikings would be envious.

Remittance Flows Worldwide in 2012

 

[Kalki]

The point is right here:

youtube:
Hellstorm the genocide of Germany

If you call that progress, then I am sorry for you. Are you kidding?

I wouldn't have suggested the Matrix if you offered valid arguments for why what I proposed is wrong or undesirable, but you didn't, just knee-jerk reactions to the idea of not committing mass murder when you are the one not getting terrorized.

Principles never change. 18th century principles are just as valid in the 21st century.

The only reason you disagree is because you were not the one in Berlin in 1945 or Baghdad in 2003. If it was you and yours you would be singing a different tune. That is what makes this so sad. Someday those who support mass murder may get a chance to understand why it is considered wrong by ordinary humans, but that can only happen when they get to live it and experience it.

Do I consider the Holocaust as an example of advancement in morality. Are you kidding?

Do you believe there has been no advancement in moral philosophy and governance in the history of humanity? I'll give you a clue. One of those moral advances was the United States of America.

It's difficult to have a serious discussion with someone who advances impossible ideas with the claim that they will reduce death, then says if you disagree you're a mass murderer. If the US ditched (and thereby destroyed) NATO, and pulled inward, clutching a six gun, the result would be world chaos. These are not serious policy proposals, and as theory goes they're worthless. I do acknowledge that you actually do believe these things. I cannot begin to fathom the mindset that could find these ideas interesting or worthwhile.

It is difficult to have a serious discussion when you do not first become informed, and study your opponent's position; if you would have bothered watching the documentary film 'The Greatest Story Never Told' by Dennis Wise, and suggested texts here and cited references in that film, you would know that the holocaust is not based on actual historical or factual figures, nor would the imprisonment and work camps for Jews have happened if International Finance did not declare war on Germany. Do an internet search for '6 million jews world war one', the 6 million number is from the Talmud and not based on historical facts, and it was written in various jewish texts for over 40 years prior to the outbreak of WWII - how prescient? The 6 million number then resurfaced in the jewish writings in the 1960s. None of the texts written about WWII had the 6 million number in the 1950s, until one jewish publication in France in 1959. Churchill and others writing afterwards, never wrote about 6 million jews in WWII in the 1950s literature. Then read the following official policy of the Nazis towards Jews prior to the declaration of war on Germany:

Haavara Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Raul Hilberg and Norman Finkelstein (the foremost Jewish-scholars in the world, on holocaust studies) have been telling the Jewish community that if they don't want people to deny the holocaust they should use actual facts and not fanciful figures (6 million) from the Talmud.

"Hitler will have no war, but he will be forced into it, not this year but later" ('Les Annales', June 1934 by Emil Ludwig.

"Whenever an American or a Filipino fell at Bataan or Corregidor or at any other of the now historic spots where MacArthur's men put up their remarkable fight, their survivors could have said with truth: 'The real reason that boy went to his death, was because Hitler's anti-Semitic movement succeeded in Germany'" (The American Hebrew, July 24, 1942).

"The millions of Jews who live in America, England and France, North and South Africa, and, not to forget those in Palestine, are determined to bring the war of annihilation against Germany to its final end." (Central Blad Voor Israeliten in Nederland, September 13, 1939)

"Our fight against Germany must be carried to the limit of what is possible. Israel has been attacked. Let us, therefore, defend Israel! Against the awakened Germany, we put an awakened Israel. And the world will defend us" ('Epitres aux Juifs by Pierre Creange 1938).

"Judea declares War on Germany" (Daily Express, March 24, 1934).

"The fight against Germany has now been waged for months by every Jewish community, on every conference, in all labor unions and by every single Jew in the world. There are reasons for the assumption that our share in this fight is of general importance. We shall start a spiritual and material war of the whole world against Germany. Germany is striving to become once again a great nation, and to recover her lost territories as well as her colonies. But our Jewish interests call for the complete destruction of Germany" (Mascha Rjetsch by Valadimir Jabotinsky, January 1934).

How is the CIA arming of ISIS an "advancement"? How is the PNAC and its predecessor the Oded Yinon Plan an "advancement"? How was the mass murder of Iraq an "advancement"? How are sanctions an advancement? 500000 Iraqis starved to death in the 90s due to sanctions and Madeleine Albright suggested those deaths were worth it.

The U.S. government is morally bankrupt and every impartial, informed, and objective person knows it.

The authorities have indoctrinated the masses into thinking that if the U.S. doesn't continue its imperialism and mass murders and sanctions, the world will descend into chaos.

WWII would never have happened if the U.S. did not get involved in WWI. Every informed and impartial scholar acknowledges this. Here is the Jewish perspective which does not include information on the U.S. involvement in WWI leading to this: "Germany entered World War I on August 1–2, 1914 (Av 9-10, AM 5674), which caused massive upheaval in European Jewry and whose aftermath led to the Holocaust." - wikipedia

If you were the victim of American imperialism you would be singing a different tune. How objective and impartial of you.

Your argument is that if America was not committing mass murder, someone else would be, therefore we should support mass murder when America does it. This is analogous to stating that America should be committing murder so other people do not commit murder. In other words, your argument is that America should do evil, to prevent others from doing that evil. This is a very strange "moral" position: "Do evil, so others do not."

The standard moral position is "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Your position is "do unto others what you would not want them to do unto you." But it is even stranger in that your "paragon's of virtue" taught you: "Do evil, so others do not." This is very strange, and disturbing even.

You have already proven by your statements that you are not against mass murder, so why do you pretend to be against the holocaust?

Where is your concern for the other 54 million people who were murdered in WWII? They don't matter? Their lives are not important? Where are your statements of 'Never Again' in regards to the other 54 million who were mass murdered in WWII, most of them were innocent civilians and that does not account for the mass robbery and rapes and trauma and violence that was nonfatal. This is a double standard and hypocrisy, but not surprising from someone who advocates the ethical maxim of: Do evil, so others do not.

"They raped every German female from eight to 80" (Berlin: The Downfall 1945 by Antony Beevor).

 

[Kalki]

protectionist, if you don't like remittance flow, then inform people on the movement to repeal the 'Immigration Act of 1965' by Emanuel Celler and Jacob Javits.

 

[Elvis Obama]

The point is right here:

youtube:
Hellstorm the genocide of Germany

If you call that progress, then I am sorry for you. Are you kidding?

I wouldn't have suggested the Matrix if you offered valid arguments for why what I proposed is wrong or undesirable, but you didn't, just knee-jerk reactions to the idea of not committing mass murder when you are the one not getting terrorized.

Principles never change. 18th century principles are just as valid in the 21st century.

The only reason you disagree is because you were not the one in Berlin in 1945 or Baghdad in 2003. If it was you and yours you would be singing a different tune. That is what makes this so sad. Someday those who support mass murder may get a chance to understand why it is considered wrong by ordinary humans, but that can only happen when they get to live it and experience it.

Do I consider the Holocaust as an example of advancement in morality. Are you kidding?

Do you believe there has been no advancement in moral philosophy and governance in the history of humanity? I'll give you a clue. One of those moral advances was the United States of America.

It's difficult to have a serious discussion with someone who advances impossible ideas with the claim that they will reduce death, then says if you disagree you're a mass murderer. If the US ditched (and thereby destroyed) NATO, and pulled inward, clutching a six gun, the result would be world chaos. These are not serious policy proposals, and as theory goes they're worthless. I do acknowledge that you actually do believe these things. I cannot begin to fathom the mindset that could find these ideas interesting or worthwhile.

It is difficult to have a serious discussion when you do not first become informed, and study your opponent's position; if you would have bothered watching the documentary film 'The Greatest Story Never Told' by Dennis Wise, and suggested texts here and cited references in that film, you would know that the holocaust is not based on actual historical or factual figures, nor would the imprisonment and work camps for Jews have happened if International Finance did not declare war on Germany. Do an internet search for '6 million jews world war one', the 6 million number is from the Talmud and not based on historical facts, and it was written in various jewish texts for over 40 years prior to the outbreak of WWII - how prescient? The 6 million number then resurfaced in the jewish writings in the 1960s. None of the texts written about WWII had the 6 million number in the 1950s, until one jewish publication in France in 1959. Churchill and others writing afterwards, never wrote about 6 million jews in WWII in the 1950s literature. Then read the following official policy of the Nazis towards Jews prior to the declaration of war on Germany:

Haavara Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Raul Hilberg and Norman Finkelstein (the foremost Jewish-scholars in the world, on holocaust studies) have been telling the Jewish community that if they don't want people to deny the holocaust they should use actual facts and not fanciful figures (6 million) from the Talmud.

"Hitler will have no war, but he will be forced into it, not this year but later" ('Les Annales', June 1934 by Emil Ludwig.

"Whenever an American or a Filipino fell at Bataan or Corregidor or at any other of the now historic spots where MacArthur's men put up their remarkable fight, their survivors could have said with truth: 'The real reason that boy went to his death, was because Hitler's anti-Semitic movement succeeded in Germany'" (The American Hebrew, July 24, 1942).

"The millions of Jews who live in America, England and France, North and South Africa, and, not to forget those in Palestine, are determined to bring the war of annihilation against Germany to its final end." (Central Blad Voor Israeliten in Nederland, September 13, 1939)

"Our fight against Germany must be carried to the limit of what is possible. Israel has been attacked. Let us, therefore, defend Israel! Against the awakened Germany, we put an awakened Israel. And the world will defend us" ('Epitres aux Juifs by Pierre Creange 1938).

"Judea declares War on Germany" (Daily Express, March 24, 1934).

"The fight against Germany has now been waged for months by every Jewish community, on every conference, in all labor unions and by every single Jew in the world. There are reasons for the assumption that our share in this fight is of general importance. We shall start a spiritual and material war of the whole world against Germany. Germany is striving to become once again a great nation, and to recover her lost territories as well as her colonies. But our Jewish interests call for the complete destruction of Germany" (Mascha Rjetsch by Valadimir Jabotinsky, January 1934).

How is the CIA arming of ISIS an "advancement"? How is the PNAC and its predecessor the Oded Yinon Plan an "advancement"? How was the mass murder of Iraq an "advancement"? How are sanctions an advancement? 500000 Iraqis starved to death in the 90s due to sanctions and Madeleine Albright suggested those deaths were worth it.

The U.S. government is morally bankrupt and every impartial, informed, and objective person knows it.

The authorities have indoctrinated the masses into thinking that if the U.S. doesn't continue its imperialism and mass murders and sanctions, the world will descend into chaos.

WWII would never have happened if the U.S. did not get involved in WWI. Every informed and impartial scholar acknowledges this. Here is the Jewish perspective which does not include information on the U.S. involvement in WWI leading to this: "Germany entered World War I on August 1–2, 1914 (Av 9-10, AM 5674), which caused massive upheaval in European Jewry and whose aftermath led to the Holocaust." - wikipedia

If you were the victim of American imperialism you would be singing a different tune. How objective and impartial of you.

Your argument is that if America was not committing mass murder, someone else would be, therefore we should support mass murder when America does it. This is analogous to stating that America should be committing murder so other people do not commit murder. In other words, your argument is that America should do evil, to prevent others from doing that evil. This is a very strange "moral" position: "Do evil, so others do not."

The standard moral position is "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Your position is "do unto others what you would not want them to do unto you." But it is even stranger in that your "paragon's of virtue" taught you: "Do evil, so others do not." This is very strange, and disturbing even.

You have already proven by your statements that you are not against mass murder, so why do you pretend to be against the holocaust?

Where is your concern for the other 54 million people who were murdered in WWII? They don't matter? Their lives are not important? Where are your statements of 'Never Again' in regards to the other 54 million who were mass murdered in WWII, most of them were innocent civilians and that does not account for the mass robbery and rapes and trauma and violence that was nonfatal. This is a double standard and hypocrisy, but not surprising from someone who advocates the ethical maxim of: Do evil, so others do not.

"They raped every German female from eight to 80" (Berlin: The Downfall 1945 by Antony Beevor).

You are extremely offensive. I've already proved I love mass murder and the holocaust? You do not discuss, you pontificate. You throw out these crackpot theories like they're facts and brand those who disagree with you as mass murderers. I'm done with you. Good luck remaking the world in your bizarre image.

 

[Kalki]

"When a country obtains great power, it becomes like the sea: all streams run downward into it. The more powerful it grows, the greater the need for humility. Humility means trusting the Way, thus never needing to be defensive.

A great nation is like a great man: when he makes a mistake, he realizes it. Having realized it, he admits it. Having admitted it, he corrects it. He considers those who point out his faults as his most benevolent teachers. He thinks of his enemy as the shadow that he himself casts.

If a nation is centered in the Way, if it nourishes its own people and doesn't meddle in the affairs of others, it will be a light to all nations in the world" (Tao Te Ching 61).

 

[Kalki]

Elvis, I didn't say you were a mass murderer, I said you have proven you support mass murder by the statements you made, although you are correct, and I will grant you that when you implied: that those who support mass murder are just as guilty as those who committed it. - This is likely why you are offended, because you know it is true given that it was implicit in your statement, that those who support mass murder are no different than those who committed it.

Don't be angry with me for analyzing your statements and showing you the basis of them which leads directly to the maxim which you, knowingly or unknowingly, advocated, of: Do evil, so others don't. - I did you a favor by showing you the premise of your position. The question for you to ask yourself, is do you want to continue this life with that sort of ethical maxim? Ask yourself this, not me.

I wonder when the karmic retribution of America will come?

This isn't to remake the world. I know the world is heading straight into damnation and even worse suffering than the 20th century when 200 million people were mass murdered by government. It is to help instruct those few open minds, who are free mentally, on how to avoid being entangled into the false dogmas and propaganda lies from the authorities and those who control the public dialogue.

For those few virtuous ones left in kaliyuga: Read:

'Propaganda' by Edward Bernays
'Falsehoods in Wartime: Propaganda Lies of the First World War' by Arthur Ponsonby
'War Is a Racket' by General Smedley Butler
'Confessions of An Economic Hitman' by John Perkins
'Why Is Your Country At War and What Happens To You After the War' by Charles Lindbergh
'The Creature from Jekyll Island' by G. Edward Griffin - which contains secrets too, about the propaganda lies to commit mass murder in war.

 

[oldsoul]

oldsoul, please read the quotes I added from the founders, on the previous page, you are misunderstanding, and missing the entire point. Of course, America would nuke the attackers. All that would be required is to nuke the capital and the main cities of the nation doing the attacking and the attack would stop in short order.

Red:
Apparently you have a very limited understanding of the consiquences of such an action. Yes, it would likely stop the attacks. However, what of the "fall-out", both literal, and figurative (geopolitical). Do you really think that the allies of Iran, that have nuke, would not retaliate in kind, should we nuke them? This is not a viable option. Ever heard of "peace through the threat of mutual destruction"?

Blue:
If I am missing the point, then I can live with that. I have no desire to continue a conversation with someone who beleives nuking our enimies is a viable option. Nuclear weapons should never be used, they are a stratigic weapon to be used as a derterance, IMO. I would rather lose my country than have it use these horrific weapons. The bombs we dropped on Japan, effectively ending the war, where mere toys compared to what we have today. To suggest there is even a conceivable situation where these weapons would be used, is insane, IMHO.

 

[Kalki]

oldsoul, you are proving my point, if you read my writings in this thread you will see I already stated that "no one will dare attack a nation with thousands of nuclear weapons and guns in the hands of every citizen."

If you are against horror in wartime, then watch a documentary film on youtube titled: 'Hellstorm: the genocide of Germany.

Do you support the film footage in that documentary? But not the use of nuclear weapons? What is the difference between firebombing entire cities filled with elderly, women, children, and babies and innocent people, and the use of nuclear bombing? There is no difference. The Allied nations firebombed entire cities in Germany and Japan, and you are talking about the horrors of nukes?

Do you support the following but not nuclear weapons use? Why?

"They raped every German female from eight to 80" ('Berlin:the Downfall 1945' by Antony Beevor).

 

[Kalki]

Here is a poem from the nobel laureate Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, the author of, among many famous books, a text titled, 'Two Hundred Years Together'.

"The little daughter’s on the mattress,
Dead. How many have been on it
A platoon, a company perhaps?
A girl’s been turned into a woman,
A woman turned into a corpse.
It's all come down to simple phrases:
Do not forget! Do not forgive!
Blood for blood! A tooth for a tooth!"

The above poem is a true story of what happened to millions in Germany and Eastern Europe. This could never have happened if the U.S. had stayed out of WWI.

This what the American Imperialists have done by their support. Watch, 'Hellstorm: the genocide of Germany' on youtube.

 

[protectionist]

Here is a poem from the nobel laureate Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, the author of, among many famous books, a text titled, 'Two Hundred Years Together'.

"The little daughter’s on the mattress,
Dead. How many have been on it
A platoon, a company perhaps?
A girl’s been turned into a woman,
A woman turned into a corpse.
It's all come down to simple phrases:
Do not forget! Do not forgive!
Blood for blood! A tooth for a tooth!"

The above poem is a true story of what happened to millions in Germany and Eastern Europe. This could never have happened if the U.S. had stayed out of WWI.

This what the American Imperialists have done by their support. Watch, 'Hellstorm: the genocide of Germany' on youtube.

"American imperialists" is an outdated expression. Imperialism is now (except for ISIS) carried out by way of emigration into the victim nation, and plundering its economy by remittances and welfare. America is the # 1 victim of imperialism in the world today.

 

[Kalki]

protectionist, if you watch the films that were suggested in this thread, and do some research you will begin to see how that happened. Once you understand it the first thing you will do is change your avatar and the way you express it. The only way you will defeat remittances is by repealing the Immigration Act of 1965.

In regards to your last sentence, well, I disagree. We both live in different worlds, that is plain to see. I cannot support what America has done for the last 100 years. I have no patriotism towards the Willy. I despise the Willy and what it represents. If those fools would have resisted the government back in 1917 rather than serving as cannon fodder for International Finance, the problems of remittances would not exist; the so-called greatest generation served the same power that wrote the Immigration Act of 1965 and that same power supports open borders, that same power that got the Willy boys to commit mass murder for them in Europe.

You live in a world of denial if you think the U.S. is not imperialist. Sanctions are imperialist. You are watching America die, and the reason it is dying is likely through its own karma of murdering millions in the name of global domination. Those boys who died in the armed forces were serving the side of evil, but they did not know. The U.S. military serves International Finance and their ilk.

Who has used sanctions the most, and has the power to use sanctions? The Secretary of Treasury of the USA. They have been using sanctions since at least the time of WWI. America is the one who is proposing the use of sanctions at the U.N. as well. Notice this portion on the mark of the Beast:

"and he provides that no one will be able to buy or to sell, except the one who has the mark, either the name of the beast or the number of his name" (Revelation 13:17).

I do not advocate Judeo-Christianity, but it is interesting to me that so many American Christians do not recognize that the U.S. government is the entity that behaves the most like the Beast of Revelations. But Americans are always looking outwards at those evil Nazis or Muslims or whoever, when it may be that they are the ones serving evil.

This is not to suggest that Christianity is more than mythology, nor is to suggest that America is the Beast, rather it is to suggest that America (or the U.S. government) behaves like that which was determined to be evil in the Christian doctrine. The irony is that so many Christians believe in the supremacy of America and support economic sanctions - which their own text has labeled as the "Beast- behavior".

In other words, I am suggesting to you that you are serving masters who are working towards your own annihilation.

 

[protectionist]

protectionist, if you watch the films that were suggested in this thread, and do some research you will begin to see how that happened. Once you understand it the first thing you will do is change your avatar and the way you express it. The only way you will defeat remittances is by repealing the Immigration Act of 1965.

In regards to your last sentence, well, I disagree. We both live in different worlds, that is plain to see. I cannot support what America has done for the last 100 years. I have no patriotism towards the Willy. I despise the Willy and what it represents. If those fools would have resisted the government back in 1917 rather than serving as cannon fodder for International Finance, the problems of remittances would not exist; the so-called greatest generation served the same power that wrote the Immigration Act of 1965 and that same power supports open borders, that same power that got the Willy boys to commit mass murder for them in Europe.

You live in a world of denial if you think the U.S. is not imperialist. Sanctions are imperialist. You are watching America die, and the reason it is dying is likely through its own karma of murdering millions in the name of global domination. Those boys who died in the armed forces were serving the side of evil, but they did not know. The U.S. military serves International Finance and their ilk.

Who in the world, has used sanctions the most, and has the power to use sanctions? The Secretary of Treasury of the USA. Notice this portion on the mark of the Beast:

"and he provides that no one will be able to buy or to sell, except the one who has the mark, either the name of the beast or the number of his name" (Revelation 13:17).

I do not advocate Judeo-Christianity, but it is interesting to me that so many American Christians do not recognize that the U.S. government is the entity that behaves the most like the Beast of Revelations. But Americans are always looking at those evil communists or evil muslims, when it may be that they are the ones serving evil.

This is not to suggest that Christianity is more than mythology, nor is to suggest that America is the Beast, rather it is to suggest that America behaves like that which was determined to be evil in the Christian doctrine. The irony to me is that so many Christians believe in the supremacy of America and support sanctions - which their own text has labeled as a "Beast" behavior.

I couldn't disagree more, and the facts back me up. You seem to ignore that World War III is well underway, and who is fighting it. Consider the past 15 years, not the 20th century. Right now, US troops must be in Afghanistan to mitigate Pakistan nuclear warheads, and the original reason of al Qaeda bomb-making schools. Now ISIS is there as well.

To talk about American imperialism is 2016, is idiocy. The only question about US military force is why isn't it out there in force, with Russia and France, knocking the hell out of ISIS ? >> to serve the American people, whom ISIS is coming here now to nuke the hell out of us. If American liberals don't get their heads out of their asses FAST, the USA will soon be a memory.

Not interested in America-hater trite. US is # 1 victim of imperialism in 2016. $123 Billion/year in remittances. If I had my way ALL immigration, from anywhere, would stop, with very few exceptions, and mass deportations reminiscent of the 1954 Operation Wetback would be enacted. I'm looking for Operation Wetback II.