Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/22/06 12:19 AM, JoS wrote:

And that list comes from one of my textbooks for US Politics. Major deployments of U.S. military forces since World War II

1950-53 Korea
1958 Lebanon
1961-64 Vietnam
1962 Cuban Waters
1965-73 Vietnam
1965 Dominican Republic
1970 Laos
1970 Cambodia
1975 Cambodia
1980 Iran
1982-83 Lebanon
1983 Grenada
1989 Panama

But you said "Invasions" for those before. And you're including multiple countries that were involved in one single Vietnam War. You're failing to distinguish agressive military operations and peacekeeping/humanitarian operations. And didn't you say that there were 200 US military operations during the Cold war???

Your story keeps changing. Now its 13? Thats quit a few less than the '200 times' that you mentioned before.

You failed to acknowledge my previous post in which I totally owned you. So I'm going to post it again to prevent you from avoiding it.

At 10/21/06 10:51 AM, JoS wrote: ... During the Cold War the USSR only used their army 5 times.

Meanwhile the US used their military by some estimates 200 times during the Cold War. Here are just a few examples of military invasions during the COld War

Korea

The US didn't invade Korea moron. The US was already stationed in South Korea. Then the COMMUNIST North Koreans who were FUNDED and counselled by the Soviets, invaded South Korea. When the US actually went into North Korean land, it was long after the Communists started the war by invading the South.

Vietnam

The US didn't invade Vietnam. The US was invited by South Vietnam to protect them from the north Vietnamese and Viet Cong gorillas. The US didn't just invade randomly like you are suggesting. The US acted as a protector, it only invaded countries that were participating in the war or were being used as safe havens.

Libya

??? Are you talking about when the US had military bases in Libya when the former pro-western government ASKED us to? Or are you talking about the air strikes against Libya that the US conducted 30 years later after the Libyan state-sponsored terrorist groups bombed both the Rome and vienna airports and the German dance club??? Hardly an invasion.

Dominican Republic

Man you're an IDIOT. The US didn't INVADE the Dominican Republic. It was a rescue/humanitarian operation. The US landed Marines to evacuate American embassy staff members and to evacuate other foreign nationals. The US didn't fight, or take land the whole time. You forget the fact that the US supplied 8 million tons of food to the people then left without a drop of blood being shed.

By your standards, the US invaded Indonesia in 2004 after the tsunami just they landed Marines to give supplies and provide medical aide!!!

Grenada

That was a military intervention by an international coalition with only 1000 US special forces and specialized troops participating. You forget to mention the fact that the reason that Grenada was "invaded" was because it had been taken over by Communists who were supported by the Soviet Union and Cuba, so the US only invaded a country that had already been taken over. Not a unprovoked invasion.

Lebanon

The US didn't invade Lebanon you moron. The US participated in a UN peacekeeping operation to stop their civil war. There was an entire multinational force in Beirut, I bet your country participated as well.

Laos

That was just part of the Vietnam war. Laos was invaded by the North Vietnamese and was being used as a base of operations by the Viet Cong and North VIetnamese Army who acted with impunity. It wasn't really an 'invasion' because it was almost entirely an air bombardment not a ground invasion.

Iran

The US didn't invade Iran you fucking dipshit. Are you talking about the rescue mission trying to free American embassy hostages? You call 2 helicopters filled with 8 men each an invasion???

Cambodia

That was part of the Vietnam war. Just like Laos. Its not a seperate military engagement because it took place during the Vietnam war while figthing the same enemy. It was a different operation, same war, same theatre.

Panama

That is the only one in your entire list that can actually be considered an invasion. But once again, even though it ended up in the capture of Noriega, there were 35,000 Americans in Panama who Noriega claimed he would mass murder after he stated that he was in a state of war against the US. It amounted to a rescue mission and humanitarian mission.

So who was really out for world domination during the Cold War?

You're a freaking imbecile JoS!!!

First of all, its obvious you don't know what you're talking about and are distorting reality, or making things up as you go.

Now count all the times that Communist armies or other militant groups invaded countries and caused upheaval with full Soviet support rather than the Soviets actually fully participating with their own military! Just because the Soviet Union didn't have the ABILITY to use its own military as extensively as the US did, that doesn't mean that the Soviet Union didn't engage in or contribute to MANY, MANY military conflicts. Practically the whole genocide situation in Africa was fueled by Soviet arms-sales. But lets just forget that shall me??? Also forget the fact more than half of the 'invasions' that you claimed the US participated in was actually humanitarian, rescue, and/or peacekeeping missions.

At 10/21/06 06:57 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 10/21/06 02:23 PM, zzzzd wrote:
I disagree with people who have called america Imperialistic, They don't need to be, America is one of the biggest countries with some of the most resources. They may have been out for more power but not more land. The difference between Empires and super powers in my opinion.

I suggest you look up and read some books by Harvard historian Niall Ferguson who makes the argument that the US is indeed an Empire. However, he sees this as a good thing. To oversimplify, the international community exists in a state of anarchy and Empires help maintain order as well as economic & physical safetly and stability.

The American empire is more like the Roman empire rather than the european colonial ones that actually broke the world in the 19th and early 20th century (giving Imperialism a bad name). America does encourage democracy and promulgation of its governing institutions around the world (much like Rome) and allowing economic expansion for the citizens who toiled under its spheres of influence...

I'm Sorry But yea i disagree with the European Colonial Empires But you as an american can not as if they hadn't happened there would be no USA Or Any other country in North or South america except for THe natives.
And The Roman Empire was Amazing , It still did Kill Invade many countries and slaughter the people. Hopefully America is not like that.
Anyway I don't see how you can possibly Compare America to the Roman empire,

If your talking about whp's Encouraging Democracy then it's the Europoean Union, have a look at that. It's Using Soft Power to Encourage Democracy instead of Hard Power.

I am a proponent of the idea of America as Empire and faithfully served six active years in its Legions!

At 10/22/06 04:36 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: But you said "Invasions" for those before. And you're including multiple countries that were involved in one single Vietnam War. You're failing to distinguish agressive military operations and peacekeeping/humanitarian operations. And didn't you say that there were 200 US military operations during the Cold war???

My text doesn't list things like Chile, Nicaruaga and many othe rLatin American operations. You went to Cambodia once in 1975, the Vietnam war was over in 1973. So how could that be aprt of your Vietnam war if it was 2 years after? Also If you were just there to protect korea, why did General McArthur push past the North Korea border and go all the way to the 38th paralle, until the Chinese pushed him back. Im pretty sure peacekeeping and humanitarian operations don't involve taking more territory.

Your story keeps changing. Now its 13? Thats quit a few less than the '200 times' that you mentioned before.

Here are a few more then.
1962 over 5000 Marines go toThailand
1963 CIA leads a coup against elected leader of Iraq
1972 CIA coup in Chile
1981 El Salvador
1983-1989 Honduras
1989 Phillipines

Not to mention numerous incursions into Congo/Zaire.

At 10/21/06 10:51 AM, JoS wrote: Korea

The US didn't invade Korea moron. The US was already stationed in South Korea. Then the COMMUNIST North Koreans who were FUNDED and counselled by the Soviets, invaded South Korea. When the US actually went into North Korean land, it was long after the Communists started the war by invading the South.

No they were funded and assited by the Chinese. And Im pretty sure that the 38th paraelle you crossed put you into North Korea where the Chinese started to kick your ass. General McArthur tried to capture the whole penisula. There was no assitance from Chinese troops or Soviet air support untill you crossed that line, and Soviet airsupport was limited to defensive, not offensive.

Vietnam

The US didn't invade Vietnam. The US was invited by South Vietnam to protect them from the north Vietnamese and Viet Cong gorillas.

Except that there was no South Vietnam. The partion between the two halves was not a permanent one, it was only temporary untill a leader for both sides was chosen, and unfortunatly for you that leader was from the North. There was no invasion like you say there was. The treaty that had been agreed upon by the French was implemented.

Libya

??? Are you talking about when the US had military bases in Libya when the former pro-western government ASKED us to?

Actually you had several skirmishes with Libya, the bombing for the attacks was one, but you also shot down several of their planes and did other bombing attacks. It wasnt a one shot deal.

Dominican Republic

Man you're an IDIOT. The US didn't INVADE the Dominican Republic. It was a rescue/humanitarian operation.

23000 troops for a rescue mission? Does the rescue mission also involve changing of the the countries leadership?

By your standards, the US invaded Indonesia in 2004 after the tsunami just they landed Marines to give supplies and provide medical aide!!!

Did you send 23000 troops who end up assiting to overthrow the elader of Indonesia?

Grenada

That was a military intervention by an international coalition with only 1000 US special forces and specialized troops participating.

7000 and something like 31 ships.

Lebanon

The US didn't invade Lebanon you moron. The US participated in a UN peacekeeping operation to stop their civil war. There was an entire multinational force in Beirut, I bet your country participated as well.

The book lists Major Deployments of US troops, I will not dispute the fact it was a multi-national force. But none-the-less still a deployment of troops outside its borders.

Laos

It wasn't really an 'invasion' because it was almost entirely an air bombardment not a ground invasion.

Three times the amount of bombs dropped on Vietnam were dropped on Laos. And it doesn't matetr, Laos was still a soveirgn country that can do what eevr the fuck it wants.

Iran

The US didn't invade Iran you fucking dipshit. Are you talking about the rescue mission trying to free American embassy hostages? You call 2 helicopters filled with 8 men each an invasion???

Actually it was 8 helicopters and 6 transport planes. In 1988 you also launched strikes on Iranian naval and air forces.

Cambodia

That was part of the Vietnam war. Just like Laos. Its not a seperate military engagement because it took place during the Vietnam war while figthing the same enemy. It was a different operation, same war, same theatre.

once again its a soveirn ciountry. And this time you also sent in ground forces. Not to mention several other operations you carried out on them.

Panama

That is the only one in your entire list that can actually be considered an invasion. But once again, even though it ended up in the capture of Noriega, there were 35,000 Americans in Panama who Noriega claimed he would mass murder after he stated that he was in a state of war against the US. It amounted to a rescue mission and humanitarian mission.

Then was is Noriega sitting in a US prison?

So who was really out for world domination during the Cold War?

You're a freaking imbecile JoS!!!

First of all, its obvious you don't know what you're talking about and are distorting reality, or making things up as you go.

Practically the whole genocide situation in Africa was fueled by Soviet arms-sales.

The whole genocidal war between Iraq and Iran was supported by US arms sales, especially of chemical weapons to Iraq. The US sells more weapons than any other country. Uzebekistan is supported by the US and they continue to be one of the worst human rights abusers, and they get all the military aid they want. Israel gets tons of US military aid and they killed how many Lebanese citizens? The US trains some of the worst men in Latin America how to kill people, crush uprisings, torture etc and you dont bat an eye. Noreiga, you trained him.

Well it was Trotski who was vying for world domination (well, a worldwide Sovjet-Republic, really), and he misteriously disapeared while competing with Stalin for the leadership of the Russia...

Stalin actually wanted to keep the Sovjet territory limited. Of course, his 'heirs' made some slight changes to that agenda.

At 10/22/06 11:22 AM, JoS wrote: 1963 CIA leads a coup against elected leader of Iraq
1972 CIA coup in Chile

Those arent military deployments.

There was no assitance from Chinese troops or Soviet air support untill you crossed that line, and Soviet airsupport was limited to defensive, not offensive.

Kathryn Weathersby seeks to determine the role of the Soviet Union in the Korean War. Many years ago, Robert Simmons suggested that the particular timing of the Korean War reflected issues of nationalism and the strange, three-sided conflict between Pak, Kim, and Rhee, particularly as Pak watched Rhee's regime gradually, and with increasing effectiveness, destroy his base of support in the south. This revision of the earlier, more traditional Cold War historiography was a necessary tonic for the debate. Other scholars, benefiting from the opening of American, British, and Canadian archives, followed Simmons's lead. Weathersby, who has written extensively about the Soviet Union and the Cold War, discusses the opening of Soviet archives after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and how that wealth of material has reshaped and fine-tuned our understanding of the Soviet role in the Korean War. Kim Il-sung tried three times to secure Stalin's support for an invasion of the south, for North Korea was absolutely dependent on Soviet trade, technical expertise, and military assistance. Stalin acquiesced during Kim's third visit in late winter 1950, but he noted the Soviet Union would not send troops should the northern invasion fail, and he told Kim to secure Mao Zedong's blessing, since Stalin expected China to help, if only by freeing the several divisions of Korean troops in the People's Liberation Army. Mao agreed, although he was focused on ending the long civil war with Jiang Jieshi. The driving forces were still Kim and, perhaps, Pak, on whose assurances about the positive reaction of people in the south Kim depended. Scholars continue to argue whether Stalin's agreement stemmed from an aggressive view to expand the Soviet sphere, a defensive view where he feared an eventual war with the United States. But, in light of statements made by General Douglas MacArthur and U.S. Secretary of State Dean Acheson which excluded Korea (and the Asian mainland) from the U.S. defense perimeter in the Pacific, Stalin might have assumed there was little risk of U.S. intervention to save Rhee's regime in the south.

U.S. intervention clearly raised the stakes in the conflict. Stalin had largely kept Mao in the dark about the invasion and he made Kim promise to keep news of the invasion to a very small circle. Kim and Pak asked Stalin for aid and, when he refused, they turned to Mao to help stop the U.S.-led drive up the peninsula. The Chinese agreed to intervene, although the Soviets reneged on promised air cover for Chinese forward positions along the Yalu River, and Stalin overlooked accidental American bombings of Soviet air bases. Once the conflict settled into a stalemate in early spring 1951, Stalin favored an end. When he died in March 1953, his successors moved quickly to secure an end to the fighting.
So let me get this straight, the Soviets can encourage and support an invasion of a sovreign nation that they agreed had a right to exist in 1945 but the US cant prevent this country from being overrun by a planned and Soviet supported invasion? Please JoS. Your bias is showing.

Recently, the international debate over the origins of the Korean War has taken a third position­-that the war started at North Korea’s initiative with Soviet support. This point is clearly proven by several official documents. The theory goes that the North Korean army’s invasion of the South was preemptive and full-scale, and was meticulously planned and prepared for ahead of time. That is to say, Kim Il-sung, who misjudged that the U.S. military would not intervene and that South Korean communists would rise in revolt in concert with an invasion, invaded South Korea after convincing Stalin. When you comprehensively look at several historical materials, Soviet political and military control over North Korea just prior to the start of the Korean War was nearly perfect.

Just because of this, however, the revisionists have not disappeared, nor has there been founded a new school of research that could completely conquer them. The revisionists, even while acknowledging that the war began with a North Korean invasion of the South, maintain their claims in altered form, positing that since the war was fundamentally a “people’s liberation war,” it was meaningless to discuss an “invasion of the North” or “invasion of the South,” and that had the United States not intervened in the conflict, Korea would have been unified.
JoS, you are a revisionist with an extreme bias. You dont look at both sides and twist facts. This is not scholarly, it is bitch work. You dont need a degree to do bitch work.

The partion between the two halves was not a permanent one, it was only temporary untill a leader for both sides was chosen, and unfortunatly for you that leader was from the North.

There was never any election you liar. Stop making shit up.

Three times the amount of bombs dropped on Vietnam were dropped on Laos. And it doesn't matetr, Laos was still a soveirgn country that can do what eevr the fuck it wants.

And if that happens to involve them becoming apart of a war, lets just say for kicks it was Vietnam, the USA somehow cant involve themselves with Laos even though it had a gigantic supply trail going through it. The fuck, the DRV can do whatever it wants but you are putting handicaps on the USA during a WAR.

When doing "whatever the fuck you want" involves running supplies through your territory in favor of one side of a war over another you INVOLVE YOURSELF IN A WAR AND REAP THE CONSQEUENCES. This isnt fucking rocket science, JoS.

once again its a soveirn ciountry. And this time you also sent in ground forces. Not to mention several other operations you carried out on them.

And they ran supplies through it in favor of the DRV and the Viet Cong you INVOLVE YOURSELF IN A WAR. So the Communists can break all the rules but the big bad USA has to take it up the ass? The fuck. Honestly. I can confidently say this is all bullshit. If you want to push your bias that you try to hide with historical revisionism I have no reason to have to respect it or you.

The whole genocidal war between Iraq and Iran was supported by US arms sales, especially of chemical weapons to Iraq.

And the entire Arab Mid East. Jesus fucking Christ, JoS. What is with all this shit.

October, 1983. The Reagan Administration begins secretly allowing Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt to transfer United States weapons, including Howitzers, Huey helicopters, and bombs to Iraq. These shipments violated the Arms Export Control Act.
The Islamist regime of Iran, who called for a spread of revolutionary Islam, threatened the entire balance of power in the Mid East and threatened those nations. But hey, lets just pigenhole this conflict into a conflict that was just about arms sales. If it sounds as stupid and ridiculous as you are making it out to be it has to be true, no?

At 10/21/06 08:08 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 10/21/06 06:57 PM, TheMason wrote:

I am a proponent of the idea of America as Empire and faithfully served six active years in its Legions!

I'm starting to lose respect for you Mason. I don't think the US is an empire, nor do I wish that the US became one. I hope you were being incredibly sarcastic by saying that.

Sometimes being sarcastic can be used to support the idea it is making fun of.

The problem with us Americans is that we have the "Star Wars" syndrome that we reflexivly think "evil" when we hear the term "empire". Just as there are different stripes of capitalist and communist governments, there are different shades of empires.

Look at Rome, it spread the ideas of the Greeks (representative government and the rule of law for examples) across Europe. Yes it had its corrupt officials, Neros and Caligulas. But where would Western Civ be without it? Look at the Pax Romana in which major conflagrations were kept to a minimum for several centuries. True, Rome secured its will through military might. However, it made its occupations more palatable through the commerce that accompanied Roman forts and outposts.

This is the way it is today. When I was in Korea I thought about all the American money that was floating around and how one could buy anything with Dollars as well as the domestic Won. Every merchant and customer was aware of the exchange rate. This is not limited to Korea. I saw on CNN the other day that 2/3 of all dollars printed in the US leaves the country. Two-thirds! 66.7%! Goes to foreign countries!

We have bases in Germany and Japan, the two countries that we defeated in the war that thrust us to Imperial status! Now as part of our GWOT we have bases in parts of the former USSR, our Carthage! We have a military presence on EVERY continent! If you want to go to Antarctica it's a flight on a USAF C-130. Our navy rules the seas; the supercarrier is as hot a commedity as a nuke! No other country possess anything close to the 100,000 ton monsters we sail! (The closest only go upto about 37,000 tons.) On top of that we support not only the world's largest navy, but our Coast Guard is the world's 7th largest navy.

I heard from my old military supervisor who is now living in Korea, that President Roh when he announced the DPRK's test, told his people that since it was 1:30am in Washington the Seoul government was waiting for President Bush to wake up and "tell us what to do".

So we have the economic clout and the military clout of an empire. We have spread our culture across the globe through our entertainment industry. Sure we are not ruled by a fascist Sith Lord, but even Julius Ceaser ruled via popular support. Pericles of the Athenian empire was elected. Empires are not always like the one that existed
a long time ago,
in a galaxy far, far away...

At 10/21/06 08:22 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: Yeah right the Russian military wasnt involved in Korea and Vietnam. Thats about the stupidest shit ever.

I like the historical revisionism however. Keep up the good work.

Yah, that sure explains Korea and Vietnam and Afghanistan and even Cuba. Like I said, keep up the good work.

Actually Korea was Kim Il-Sung operating on his own (as Pyongyang has always done since about 1950). In the early days of the war the North had it won. The ROK (S. Korea) army was broken, and the small force of Americans were pushed into the Pusan Perimeter.

Meanwhile in New York...the UN security council met and for the first time actually voted to repel the invasion. Now the time from July 1950-1951 shows that neither China or the USSR dictated or even approved of Kim's actions. There are several ways this is shown:
1) The invasion at this time was all N. Korean forces.
2) The USSR and CCP were protesting the UN and had their delegations pulled from the meetings.

Now what is most telling is point #2; if they had planned or sanctioned the invasion then both Beijing and Moscow would have had representatives there to veto the authorization to create the UN coalition.

But then again, that is not to say China and the USSR weren't interested in the outcome of the war. China lost about 350,000-400,000 soldiers and the USSR lost about 200 (note: that 200 is not a typo, I did not leave off any digits).

But yes the USSR was about eventual world domination but through asymetrical means and not direct confrontation.

AAK

At 10/22/06 12:19 AM, JoS wrote:

At 10/21/06 06:47 PM, TheMason wrote: I would like to know what issue this article was in, I'd like to read it. I'm a subscriber, but my time to read has gone down and maybe I missed it...

Kennan's article was written abck in the 1950's I believe.

Okay, I wasn't clear on if it was that one, or something more recent. What year are you in school? Are you poly sci?

Both Vietnam and Korea were ntop fougth against a Soviet back regime, but a Chinese back regime. I dont really see how you can blame what the Chinese did on the Soviets.

At the time the two were still working in relative concert.

And that list comes from one of my textbooks for US Politics. Major deployments of U.S. military forces since World War II

1950-53 Korea
1958 Lebanon
1961-64 Vietnam
1962 Cuban Waters
1965-73 Vietnam
1965 Dominican Republic
1970 Laos
1970 Cambodia
1975 Cambodia
1980 Iran
1982-83 Lebanon
1983 Grenada
1989 Panama

This can't be the complete list because there is so much more than that. The US military has been engaged (not just deployed) outside of the US' borders since the birth of the country.

At 10/22/06 10:58 AM, zzzzd wrote:

At 10/21/06 06:57 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 10/21/06 02:23 PM, zzzzd wrote:

Anyway I don't see how you can possibly Compare America to the Roman empire,

Origins:
Rome was a small outpost that began expanding against older, more established empires and imported the basis for its intellectual and spiritual lives. This importation came from the Greeks, the 'Old World'.

USA came about as the result of the exploration of the 'Old World' powers and imported much of its intellectual and spiritual basis from these countries.

Culture:
Rome exported its culture, language and legal traditions with its troops and merchants.

USA English can be seen on billboards and TV in S. Korea. TV, movies and music are transmitted to other countries (US sitcoms are popular ways of teaching English). We have messianically spread the word of democracy since our ascendancy.

Civil War:
Rome fought a costly civil war, the Victor leaned to abolition and was assasinated after the cessation of hostilites. This war was fought on one side by a heavily landed gentry.

USA its civil war was the world's first modern war and was led by an abolitionist who assasinated after the cessation of hostilities. The Confederates were lead by a heavily landed gentry.

Establishment of Empire:
Rome defeated the Carthaginians to establish their dominance as a Mediterranean superpower and leader of the known world.

USA was instrumental in defeating mid-century fascism, establishing us as the leader of the free world. The we outspent and outmanuevered the USSR to establish our dominance as a world 'hegemon'.

Deployment of troops:
Rome at its height had about 350,000 legionares stationed overseas. At the time its military was the most advanced in the world but could be defeated by clever 'barbarians'.

USA has about 350,000 servicemen stationed overseas. As for the second part: Iraq, Somalia and Vietnam.

Currency:
Rome dinari was a universal currency.

USA after WWII the Marshall Plan, among other things, established that oil would be sold in dollars. Sixty years later 2/3 of the dollars the US prints is for export.

Decline:
Rome fell into moral decay as entertainment became more debauched (ie: the Gladatorial games, especially under Nero). This was followed by the rise of fundamentalism and the resurgence of spirituality.

USA Jerry Springer, Tom Cruise, UFC/WWE, Clinton followed by the rise of Christian evangelicals.

If your talking about whp's Encouraging Democracy then it's the Europoean Union, have a look at that. It's Using Soft Power to Encourage Democracy instead of Hard Power.

Nope; Europe, America and Western Civ are on the downward slope and will be replaced by a Eastern power (most likely India) which will create its own paradigm. The EU simply doesn't have the soft power or the clout to be anywhere near as effectual as Rome. That is why the colonial empires failed to reach the greatness of the Romans.

Again; much like the fall of the Roman Empire brought Western Civ down with it, so will the decline of the American Empire.

At 10/23/06 05:33 AM, TheMason wrote: Okay, I wasn't clear on if it was that one, or something more recent. What year are you in school? Are you poly sci?

3rd year Honours at trent University, Political studies and International Political economy (double major).

At the time the two were still working in relative concert.

But the USSR did not approve of NK actions.

This can't be the complete list because there is so much more than that. The US military has been engaged (not just deployed) outside of the US' borders since the birth of the country.

Its only major deployments.

Fun fact the US has only declared war like 5 times in its history. War of 1812, Mexican and Im drawing blanks on the others (and I dont think both of the World Was Congress declared war, it came from some other piece of legislation).

At 10/23/06 11:35 AM, JoS wrote:

At 10/23/06 05:33 AM, TheMason wrote: At the time the two were still working in relative concert.

But the USSR did not approve of NK actions.

Why not again? I missed the connection the first time. It was because the USSR and France still had great relations, right?

I heard Stalin was actually a stand-up guy, in person.

Fun fact the US has only declared war like 5 times in its history. War of 1812, Mexican and Im drawing blanks on the others (and I dont think both of the World Was Congress declared war, it came from some other piece of legislation).

Kinda makes ya wonder, doesn't it?

If the US hadn't had the Lusitania sunk, we never would've considered Laos fair game when they supplied the enemy.

I bet you believe the Germans were "wrong" to sink our ships when we supplied the brits with means to kill Germans.

JoS, I hope you know what you sound like.

At 10/23/06 01:10 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: JoS, I hope you know what you sound like.

A Communist or a Facist?

I dont neccisary believe everything I post, I enjoy stiring up the pot every now and then. its a nice break from all the threads about Iraq, Bush and crap, dont you think. Somethign fresh to debate about?

At 10/23/06 02:46 PM, JoS wrote:

At 10/23/06 01:10 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: JoS, I hope you know what you sound like.

A Communist or a Facist?

I dont neccisary believe everything I post, I enjoy stiring up the pot every now and then. its a nice break from all the threads about Iraq, Bush and crap, dont you think. Somethign fresh to debate about?

I think it's gotten to be an old theme also, but not one unworthy of debate. Given the life and times of each era, the involvement of superpowers during the Cold War could be construed to mean anything to anybody.

DAGing ain't bad, but people, myself included, can get thin-skinned when discussing American history and sacrifice in such a distorted light.

It's something fresh to discuss, but to what ends? The military involvement of the US is necessary if the world truly wants some sort of global governance, don't ya think?

The American empire is more like the Roman empire rather than the european colonial ones that actually broke the world in the 19th and early 20th century (giving Imperialism a bad name). America does encourage democracy and promulgation of its governing institutions around the world (much like Rome) and allowing economic expansion for the citizens who toiled under its spheres of influence...

True, true but there is a reason why Rome was burned to the ground and completly wiped off the face of the earth. Once you start over extending your borders and trying to bring in and assimalate too many people into the "empire" it not only becomes impossible to keep control of the situation, but the very people you were trying to "help" begin resenting and hating you and that very empire.

Again; much like the fall of the Roman Empire brought Western Civ down with it, so will the decline of the American Empire.

DAMN! Aparently I'm not the only Classics guy here......

I am a proponent of the idea of America as Empire and faithfully served six active years in its Legions!

Where have you been all my life Mason??!?

Pax Americana!

I don't think the US is an empire, nor do I wish that the US became one. I hope you were being incredibly sarcastic by saying that.

Under Augustus and Tiberius the Romans didn't think they were an empire, in fact Augustus proclaimed himself as savior of the Republic.......

maybe mull that over a bit.......

Anyway I don't see how you can possibly Compare America to the Roman empire,

Odd.....my professors have been making comparisons nearly every lecture.....for the past 3 years......

Let's see:

Rome: Representative Republic.
US: Representative Republic.

Rome: Defensive Imperialism during Republic. Invaded based on premise of outside threats (Spain, Carthage, Greece, and the Mid East/Pontus)

US: Invaded Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, all based on same principle. "First Strike Defense" is not a modern military policy people.....

Rome: most technologically advanced, spread culture and language throughout empire.

US: Most technologically advanced. English is widely taught worldwide. US culture dispersed over world.

And The Roman Empire was Amazing , It still did Kill Invade many countries and slaughter the people. Hopefully America is not like that.

Monty Python anyone? What did the Romans ever do for us?

~"All right ... all right ... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order ... what HAVE the Romans ever done for US? "

~"Brought Peace..."

For all the "invading" and "slaughtering" that Rome did, it was unbelievably tolerant of its subjects, making many millions Roman citizens as well........

Stop focusing on just the negative aspects of the Romans. They're the reason the US is a superpower, and I dare someone to counter that claim......

At 10/23/06 03:38 PM, drizzit06 wrote:
True, true but there is a reason why Rome was burned to the ground and completly wiped off the face of the earth.

Burned to the ground and wiped off the earth you say? Then what are these?
http://7sc.dyndns.org:1984/~alex/public/Ph otos/20040920%20Choir%20Tour%20to%20Rome/0 914%20Palatine,%20Forum,%20Colloseum,%20TC /P9140047%20The%20Circus%20Maximus.JPG

http://www.fuhsd.net..%20aerial%20view.jpg

http://www.utexas.ed..3/caracallabaths.jpg

Once you start over extending your borders and trying to bring in and assimalate too many people into the "empire" it not only becomes impossible to keep control of the situation, but the very people you were trying to "help" begin resenting and hating you and that very empire.

I dunno about that. Roman citizenship was like winning the lotto. Everyone wanted it, and few got it. The Latins even started a revolt over citizenship rights. And the Greeks of the east called themselves "Romans", even after the decline of Rome itself.

Contrary to popular opinion, Rome never "Fell". It was barely even sacked. Which is why the Colosseum, Circus Maximus, Baths of Caracalla, and other remnants remain.

If you want to see a city ACTUALLY burned to the ground, good luck, cause (duh) there ain't much surviving evidence of those towns. Try Carthage or Corinth.

The Romans were especially harsh to the Corinthians (after 4 wars with the greeks and being nice, guess they finally got fed up). They killed the population, sold the rest to slavery, and literally burnt the town to its foundations.

At 10/23/06 04:55 AM, TheMason wrote: Actually Korea was Kim Il-Sung operating on his own (as Pyongyang has always done since about 1950).

I dont buy that. Nothing happened in the Communist world without Stalins approval. Nothing. And North Korea was to dependent on the other Communist nations to go it alone.

If Stalin didnt want an invasion, an invasion wouldnt have happened. It might have been North Koreas idea but Staling ultimately held all the strings.

At 10/23/06 05:17 PM, FAB0L0US wrote:

At 10/23/06 04:55 AM, TheMason wrote:

I dont buy that. Nothing happened in the Communist world without Stalins approval. Nothing. And North Korea was to dependent on the other Communist nations to go it alone.

If Stalin didnt want an invasion, an invasion wouldnt have happened. It might have been North Koreas idea but Staling ultimately held all the strings.

Simply not true, the DPRK was in a much stronger position than China was; they actually had better weapons and equipment in 1950...that is until it was destroyed in the pincer of the Pusan breakout and the Inchon landing.

But no it was not sanctioned by Moscow...if it had been they would not have sat out the crucial UN vote to establish a coalition force. The DPRK had the war won until the US was able to raise a coalition to push them back eventually up to the Yalu river. If it was under Stalin's control why wasn't his diplomats participating in the Security Council where they could have vetoed the coalition, shoring up his victory? The proof is in the pudding.

Furthermore, declassified USSR documents and recent historical research that has been made possible since the fall of the USSR show this to be the case: that Moscow was not involved with starting the invasion.

Kim Il-Sun had a history of going it alone. In the 1960s he started something known as the Silent War in which he tried to assasinate the S. Korean President, ambushed ROK army and then US army personnel patroling the DMZ...captured the USS Pueblo in international waters outside of the DPRK...shot down an american spy plane...this was all during the late 1960s and early 1970s against the backdrop of Vietnam. Many thought this was controlled by Moscow...but new declassified documents from China, USSR and E. Europe show that Kim was acting on his own...without instruction by the Comintern.

In short, the DPRK has always been a rogue state and has gone its own way from ideology to military campaigns; similar to Tito's Yugoslavia without the outright indignation and isolation by Moscow...

At 10/23/06 11:35 AM, JoS wrote:

At 10/23/06 05:33 AM, TheMason wrote:

3rd year Honours at trent University, Political studies and International Political economy (double major).

MS from Troy University.
BS from U of S. Carolina.
About three hours from my BS in History.

Are you a member of Pi Sigma Alpha?

At the time the two were still working in relative concert.

But the USSR did not approve of NK actions.

Very true...but what I was saying was about China and the USSR...this was right before their big schism... This is evidenced by the fact that China had very poor weapons and equipment in 1950. The DPRK was better equipped! (China was using captured weapons from WWII and their civil war w/ the nationalists...) Then we start seeing Chinese piloted MiG-15s...

:: Fun fact the US has only declared war like 5 times in its history. War of 1812, Mexican and Im drawing blanks on the others (and I dont think both of the World Was Congress declared war, it came from some other piece of legislation).

No it was a declaration of war in both World Wars. In the first one about 20 congressmen voted against it. The first female Rep (Jeanette Rankin [sp?]) voted against it, and then lost her seat. Then by 1941 she had regained the seat and was the ONLY vote against a declaration of War...and again lost her seat. She was still protesting the Vietnam war when she was in her 80s/90s...

But they were declaration of wars...this was way before the war powers act...

At 10/21/06 08:49 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 10/21/06 08:46 PM, mofomojo wrote: Ridiculously long and pathetic rant.

Don't ever speak again, ever.

That was a very good comeback... not <.<' great I feel like Borat now...

At 10/23/06 03:42 PM, Imperator wrote:

Again; much like the fall of the Roman Empire brought Western Civ down with it, so will the decline of the American Empire.

DAMN! Aparently I'm not the only Classics guy here......

I am a proponent of the idea of America as Empire and faithfully served six active years in its Legions!

Where have you been all my life Mason??!?

Pax Americana!

I've been right here friend! You've just been doing a terrific job with the classical history; lets me focus on the current history/events!

AAK

At 10/23/06 09:00 PM, TheMason wrote: I've been right here friend! You've just been doing a terrific job with the classical history; lets me focus on the current history/events!

That's so mushy and heart-warming at the same time, it just brings a tear to my eye. I think I'm not the only person who feels left out with all of the detailed historical references going around though, ah well sucks for me.

At 10/23/06 09:12 PM, EnragedSephiroth wrote:

At 10/23/06 09:00 PM, TheMason wrote: I've been right here friend! You've just been doing a terrific job with the classical history; lets me focus on the current history/events!

That's so mushy and heart-warming at the same time, it just brings a tear to my eye. I think I'm not the only person who feels left out with all of the detailed historical references going around though, ah well sucks for me.

<arrogance>No, see by reading you can gain knowledge...through knowledge your chains of ignorance will be broken...pick up a book or just listen to those of us who obviously know what we're talking about.</arrogance>

At 10/23/06 09:30 PM, TheMason wrote: <arrogance>No, see by reading you can gain knowledge...through knowledge your chains of ignorance will be broken...pick up a book or just listen to those of us who obviously know what we're talking about.</arrogance>

Lol there's a funny psychology behind the fact you openly stated "arrogance" yet it somehow made your statement seem... not-so arrogant :/ I can't pull that kind of thing off, I think. I've actually wanted to become a mason for a couple years now because I happen to like foundations I've read outside the Masonic temple a few blocks away from my house. My uncle also happens to drive a truck which says "ToB1Ask1" so I asked him but he's not one... it was the previous owner ;\

At 10/23/06 03:52 PM, Imperator wrote: The Romans were especially harsh to the Corinthians [. . .] They killed the population, sold the rest to slavery, and literally burnt the town to its foundations.

That's because the Romans did war Right.

At 10/23/06 09:34 PM, EnragedSephiroth wrote:

At 10/23/06 09:30 PM, TheMason wrote:

Lol there's a funny psychology behind the fact you openly stated "arrogance" yet it somehow made your statement seem... not-so arrogant :/ I can't pull that kind of thing off, I think. I've actually wanted to become a mason for a couple years now because I happen to like foundations I've read outside the Masonic temple a few blocks away from my house. My uncle also happens to drive a truck which says "ToB1Ask1" so I asked him but he's not one... it was the previous owner ;\

Thanks for the compliment ES!

Some lodges hold special outings that are open to non-Masons so people such as yourself can join. Does the lodge down the street post their scheduled communications (meetings)? If so I'd suggest goint there about 15 minutes before hand talking to a Brother as he enters the lodge. I'd wait outside to make sure you're not breaking any local ettiqute. Identify yourself as someone who would like to B1. They'll give you a petition and guide you from there...

My Grandfather was a mason, but my other one hated them (kind of caused problems when my parents married).

I remember the one that hated them saying “a man’s a man, and being part of a secret club doesn’t make him more of one…”

To be honest…I don't know jack shit about them or what they do.

At 10/23/06 10:59 PM, ImmoralLibertarian wrote: My Grandfather was a mason, but my other one hated them (kind of caused problems when my parents married).

I remember the one that hated them saying “a man’s a man, and being part of a secret club doesn’t make him more of one…”

To be honest…I don't know jack shit about them or what they do.

Well, we have a saying: taking good men and making them better.

The goal of Masonry is basically self improvement. We teach things through religious allegory. This is not limited to one creed; but we take from Judiaism, Christianity and Islam. We do believe in God; and that is a prerequisite for membership.

We work for the community and charity. Have you ever heard of the Shriners? A Shriner's Hospital for poor and needy children? They are part of Masonry: you have to be a Mason to be a Shriner.

Yes we do have our little secret rituals and handshakes; but nothing that would be objectionable in a church. The thing about the "secret society" thing is that it creates fraternal bounds between the members.

Not really sure what else you'd like to know, but if you have a question just ask.

No…not really.

I knew that did good things for their communities, which is why I never had a personal problem with them.

Thanks for the info anyway.