The "knocking it on its arse" terminology meant just as you (or maybe it was someone else; I forget) applied to the American navy in reference to
"killing" some of its ships in the exercises mentioned; the German navy did the same to the British navy in that battle. True, the Germans retreated
afterwards pretty much, but the point is it showed no navy is with fallacy or is invincible.
Think that was Devilwasp who said that. I did however, mention about the HMS Iron Duke "killing" a Destroyer of yours and a sub.
The RN, however, was not knocked on its arse. had the Germans stood and fought, they would have been massacred. They used hit and run tactics, and
when it became apparent they where being outmaneuvered by the larger RN fleet, they retreated to Williamshelm. Battle over, RN had total control.
Victory to UK.
And no, we did not "invade" Iraq by the way "invading" usually refers to; usually, when countries invaded other countries, they conquered and took
Invade: The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory
The U.S. did not do that with Iraq. And no, we did not bomb the hell out of Iraq, we bombed the hell out of Saddam's gov't buildings;
Yes it did. Unprecedented amounts of ordnance where used to destroy all Government buildings, civil infrastructure (power,water,telecoms), military
targets (the Iraqi army was massacred wholesale, 10,000+ casualties) and there where/are still many examples of "collateral damage".
Bombing the hell out of someone is what Germany did in WWII with their Blitzkrieg (spelling?) or the United States with the Japanese cities, which was
one purpose then to kill Japan's industrial output.
Blitzkrieg is a battlefield tactic. Smashing the enemy with combined arms, and using speed to punch through the line and surround the enemy.
Do not confuse the "Blitz" that we called the German bombing of the UK with Blitzkrieg, they are totally different.
And no, it is not the same thing Nazi Germany did. Nazi Germany had no enemies that they might have to contend with
Yes they did. The Communists for starters. And also, the dominat powers in Europe at the time, which Hitler felt had wronged Germany in 1918.
The entire world wanted nothing to with war
Not entirely true. There was another arms race prior to WW2, in which many industrialised nations readied themselves for it. The Soviets where hell
bent on spreading "people power" as well. In fact, they actually worked with the Germans in dividing Poland between them.
The United States DOES have potential threats that can threaten its sovereignty, such as Russia and China.
Get real. China won't go too war with you as you are economically entwined. And Russia needs to have a functioning Army first.....
And we do no go everywhere conquering or invading peoples; by "bending the rules," I simply meant you may have to go into some area, as I've
mentioned multiple times above, that is undefended if that area contains a valuable resource you need.
that was the exact reasoning behind the european land grab which led to imperialism. Beating someone to it.......
The United States opted to do #2, which can be "bending the rules" in the sense that you aren't supposed to just "go into a nation" like that in
a certain sense, but the U.S. and Britain DID knock out a human rights violator there,
So, we knocked out a human rights violator? Then why the hypocrisy (sp?) in dealing with Mugabe (good Food producer)?
Or Sudan (they have Oil)?
Or Saudi Arabia (they have oil too!)
Or North korea (they have WMD)?
Or Indonesia (oil)?
Or Bangladesh(not alot really)?
Or Burma (Jungle....can never have too much?)?
Or all the others?
The United Nations had given Saddam an ultimatum, which they did not follow through on.
Er, excuse me? They gave him an ultimatum to give up his WMD, which he didn't have! How can you use the lack of UN action as justification, seeing as
the lack of action was justified itself??
The U.S. and Britain didn't go in and enslave everyone, knock out the gov't, and take over the place.
No, I admit we didn't enslave
anyone...but the rest is true.
So in a sense, it wasn't really bending the rules there; now, if Saddam had been the nicest fellow on Earth and treated his people good, I could see
the United States maybe wanting a military influence like a base around that area or something, but going in and taking over would've been totally
wrong and THEN it would've been totally against U.N. charters.
Your contradictions astound me. Regardless of wether Saddam was "evil" or not, you cannot use that as an excuse, as highlighted above. Nor can you
use the pretext of preemption, as there was no WMD. Regardless, it was still against the UN charter. Iraq wasn't a threat to anyone, and was
by superior military forces for no good reason whatsoever.
Now if say the Soviet Union WAS out again to conquer the world and Saddam had decided to support the Soviets and cut off all oil to the U.S. and
Europe, then even if the Soviet Union had yet to do anything militarily, I say to hell with whatever U.N. "charters" say, go invade the country and
take control of the oil, so that your own country (and thus a good bit of the world) would be secure in the end, because otherwise if the Soviets got
the oil control, you could be in a world of trouble.
During the cold war (you are probably too young to know), Saddam was the US best friend in the ME, so you argument is mute, at best.
Regardless, it is up to the country to decide who it sells it oil too, not you, again, a right guaranteed under the UN charter that all countries will
be soveriegn and have the right to self determination.
Remember, in a military situation, waiting for the "first strike" doesn't necessairly mean LITERALLY waiting for it; sometimes it means certain
actions that mean if you don't do something about it, you are doomed.
What fictitious first strike are you talking about?
But if Iraq was just a big 'ole desert with tribal peoples minding their own business, I'd definitely say, go in and get the oil before someone else
does, just try not to ruin the lives of the people living there.
Thats called Imperialism. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt (look at Africa)
And Europe over imperialism??? Man, don't make me laugh. Europe would be the same as they were hundreds of years ago if they had the military power.
But then WWI kind of changed everyone and then WWII came and they got devastated again, and then 2 other superpowers came about, the United States and
the Soviet Union.
No they wouldn't. The British Empire was already under going change, and had actually granted independance to several colonies long before WW1.
Canada and Australia come to mind. After WW2, Europe had grown weary of fighting, and we grew up, and look how far we have come since.
America and Britain did what the UN was supposed to do with Iraq, no one "invaded" anyone
No they didn't, they acted illegally. And no it turns out, even those reasons where all false. The UN warned Saddam to give up WMD, which he had done
in 1991. The UN inspectors (freely) checked out Iraq, and when it came about that the inspectors would find nothing, Bush/Blair quickly launched their
invasion and the UN had to pull those inspectors out.
It was an invasion, it is even described as one on all
news channels, including your beloved Fox.
But people call America "imperialistic," which I don't get, as we are probably the least imperialistic of all empires to exist.
You contradict yourself again. First you state it is ok to invade a country to secure natural resources (imperialism) but then deny that you are doing
Imperialism: The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over
Seems like you are imperialistic to me sunshine.
Because of this, European nations don't like America having so much dominance in everything, so they want to lessen the gap. But you aren't
seriously telling me if Britain was still the empire it really was, that it wouldn't be at it with France again, taking stuff over
We gave our Empire up, as we weren't in that game anymore. Besides, we wouldn't have been "at it" with France, due to the Entente Cordial.
Needless to say, but if we still had the Empire, then there wouldn't actually be anything left to take over.
The thing with America is it somehow became an empire without having to go around literally taking everyone over.
Since the end of WW2, the US has played power games (mostly subversely) to extend its influence over other, lesser nations. This has included
supporting coup attempts, aiding rebellions, and sometimes actually invading and overthrowing one Government to replace it woth one that was just as
Whilst it may not have overtly invaded countries in all cases, it most certainly played dirty and made many lives a misery by supporting regimes that
where friendly to the US, but not very nice to their populations, just because it served US interest.
Look at Central America, Africa, SE Asia...