reply to post by Chamberf=6
That is like saying "So you don't believe in God, but you believe in Christians?"
I simply recognize the fact the despite myself not believing in a greater (and lesser) deity, does not mean that others feel the same. Whether you
want to believe it or not, there are people that worship death and destruction as opposed to life and harmony.
Slayer, my point exactly.
So since they have not attacked a country with their military, the point trying to be made, is that they are not warmongers.
The US military on the other hand has been invading countries for the last century like it was a full time job (even putting in over time and working
off the clock)
Here are some common themes to US interventionism in the world,
Quoting external site:
Some common themes can be seen in many of these U.S. military interventions.
First, they were explained to the U.S. public as defending the lives and rights of civilian populations. Yet the military tactics employed often left
behind massive civilian "collateral damage." War planners made little distinction between rebels and the civilians who lived in rebel zones of
control, or between military assets and civilian infrastructure, such as train lines, water plants, agricultural factories, medicine supplies, etc.
The U.S. public always believe that in the next war, new military technologies will avoid civilian casualties on the other side. Yet when the
inevitable civilian deaths occur, they are always explained away as "accidental" or "unavoidable."
Second, although nearly all the post-World War II interventions were carried out in the name of "freedom" and "democracy," nearly all of them in
fact defended dictatorships controlled by pro-U.S. elites. Whether in Vietnam, Central America, or the Persian Gulf, the U.S. was not defending
"freedom" but an ideological agenda (such as defending capitalism) or an economic agenda (such as protecting oil company investments). In the few
cases when U.S. military forces toppled a dictatorship--such as in Grenada or Panama--they did so in a way that prevented the country's people from
overthrowing their own dictator first, and installing a new democratic government more to their liking.
Third, the U.S. always attacked violence by its opponents as "terrorism," "atrocities against civilians," or "ethnic cleansing," but minimized
or defended the same actions by the U.S. or its allies. If a country has the right to "end" a state that trains or harbors terrorists, would Cuba or
Nicaragua have had the right to launch defensive bombing raids on U.S. targets to take out exile terrorists? Washington's double standard maintains
that an U.S. ally's action by definition "defensive," but that an enemy's retaliation is by definition "offensive."
Fourth, the U.S. often portrays itself as a neutral peacekeeper, with nothing but the purest humanitarian motives. After deploying forces in a
country, however, it quickly divides the country or region into "friends" and "foes," and takes one side against another. This strategy tends to
enflame rather than dampen a war or civil conflict, as shown in the cases of Somalia and Bosnia, and deepens resentment of the U.S. role.
Fifth, U.S. military intervention is often counterproductive even if one accepts U.S. goals and rationales. Rather than solving the root political or
economic roots of the conflict, it tends to polarize factions and further destabilize the country. The same countries tend to reappear again and again
on the list of 20th century interventions.
Sixth, U.S. demonization of an enemy leader, or military action against him, tends to strengthen rather than weaken his hold on power. Take the list
of current regimes most singled out for U.S. attack, and put it alongside of the list of regimes that have had the longest hold on power, and you will
find they have the same names. Qaddafi, Castro, Saddam, Kim, and others may have faced greater internal criticism if they could not portray themselves
as Davids standing up to the American Goliath, and (accurately) blaming many of their countries' internal problems on U.S. economic sanctions.
Quoted from: academic.evergreen.edu...
Also from there I found a quote that I think aptly sums up where these conversations are going, and how to stop them from occurring should you feel
violence is not the answer (just like we teach our kids):
"Every country, every ethnicity, every religion, contains within it the capability for extreme violence. Every group contains a faction that is
intolerant of other groups, and actively seeks to exclude or even kill them. War fever tends to encourage the intolerant faction, but the faction only
succeeds in its goals if the rest of the group acquiesces or remains silent."
So I am attempting to speak up as I continue to hear the war drums for Iran beating...