American Foreign Policy

[JustAsking]

I thought America's Foreign policy was "Shoot first, ask later"?

Yes, but we have a fancy name for it. It's called a "preemptive war".

 

[PussyWellington]

Headbang8, are you talking about Hitler's disastrous invasion of Russia--in winter? (Ha. Hitler invading Russia in winter is like the USA invading Iraq in forest camouflage.)

(Or like being a tornado chaser in the Midwest. Why chase them? They'll come right to you!)

NCbear (who thinks certain things are just common sense:smile

Unless it was your original intention -- to sacrifice your army. History could repeat itself in the Middle East

 

[Guy-jin]

The Russians had a non-aggression pact with the Japanese from 1941 until 1945 which allowed Russia to focus so many troops on the Western Front and simultaneously allowed Japan to dominate and decimate Asia and the Pacific.

America didn't have that luxury, and dedicated itself to defeating the enemy in the Pacific, counting on that offensive by the Russians to play the major part in defeating the Nazis that it did.

Anyone who credits any single country with "winning" World War II is being a fool, be it America, Russia, or any other country. That War was won by the Allies as a whole. It was this brilliant overall strategy by the Allies that won that war, knowing that the Russian offensive in the West and American offensive in the East were ultimately the keys to total victory, and taking advantage of the fact that both Japan and Germany had far overstepped their bounds and capabilities in their zeal to achieve world domination.

Anyway, headbang8, having lived in Japan myself and studied the post-war Japan, I am truly proud of how the Americans handled rebuilding that country and re-establishing it as a modern Democracy. Some of the ideas are truly astounding--leaving the Emperor in place, but reducing him to the status of a mortal human instead of a living deity was truly brilliant.

One of the most impressive decisions of that War, to me, was Henry Stimson telling Harry S Truman to take Kyoto off the list of atomic bomb targets because of how important a cultural center it was, and how important it would be to granting the Japanese people their cultural identity after the war. That kind of forward thinking no longer seems to matter to our administration. I would hope for a time when we can be led by men that enlightened in the future, albeit ones that would never consider using a nuclear weapon again.

 

[earllogjam]

Let's leave aside the role of the US in WWII in Europe; it can be argued that the Russians actually defeated Hitler. That point is moot.

In WWII and its aftermath, the USA was both courageous and generous. Having lived in both Germany and Japan, I know for a fact that citizens of both natons were astonished at how magnanimous Americans were in victory.

That's where it stops, unfortunately. Since then, the USA has served its own interests in foreign policy. And often, arguably, misjudged those interests.

What changed?

America is no longer the richest country in the world. That is what changed. Can't be magnanimous so easily with someone else's money I'm afraid.

 

[2322]

Oh lord.

First, as I've said, no country is altruistic. If a country makes a move in foreign affairs, it's to do so to further its own goals.

Russia has been an empire and look at what they did.

The United Kingdom was an empire and look what they did.

Let's add to that Italy, France, Germany, Sweden, Japan, Portugal, Mongolia, Spain, Greece, Egypt, and yes, even 3000 years ago, Iran and Iraq.

It's the way of the world. Every country sees to its own best interests. That is what, in elected democracies, you supposedly elect your leaders to do. If we drop a sack of rice in a hurricane or famine zone you can be damn sure those sacks are stamped with USA on the side, or, at least, people are made certain to know it's the USA coming to the rescue. To think that other countries in the world, even the littler democracies of Europe, do not act in their own selfish interests, is naive in the extreme.

The policy of the United States in the middle east is control of oil wealth first, a foil for Russia second. We moved into the middle east, into Iraq because one thing is very clear even if the government doesn't say so and that's that world's supply of oil is finite and most of the best crude in the world is in that relatively defensible area. When push comes to shove as peak oil approaches, other powerful nations will want to secure their piece of the pie and, because we ill have fortress Iraq, they're going to have to deal with the United States to get it. Without a major presence in the middle east, Russia (or even China) is free to move in and control the world's major source of oil. We're there now so that when the time comes, we will be able to secure oil for the United States and selected strategic allies like the UK, Canada, and Japan. We couldn't do that from Qatar and we can't directly take over Saudi. Iraq is the perfect strategic location and has oil of its own. Any other reason for the invasion, al Qaeda, Saddam is evil, WMDs, etc., is a side show.

When you look at how empires brace for change you see that they don't; even when they know change is approaching and is inevitable. They keep the status quo going and going and going until things just plain stop working. People complain that the US has no energy policy. That's not true. Iraq is our energy policy. It's just impolitic to say so. Rather than seriously devote technological resources to alternative energy, energy which the current giant energy companies might not be in on, we keep the status quo because the power structure of the country derives from that status quo.

Learn how the world works. Read Foreign Affairs, read The Economist and similar publications the powerful read. Read publications from the various other NGOs who influence government and then look at who funds all those NGOs. Look at the resumes of the people who do the policy making for the NGOs. Look at the campaign monies from PACs and who funds PACs. You will find out then who runs things. I do not mean to invoke any paranoia by stating the following, but also look at who is attending or has been asked to speak at Bilderberger Group (who do not publish their discussions) meetings and read the reports from the Trilateral Commission (who do publish their discussions). Assuming they're not talking about taking over the world or making the planet safe for alien reptile invasion , they're talking about world concerns. The difference between you and me, is that after they discuss these policies, they are in a position to make policy. Government people at all levels attend these meetings and they're the people who form policies.

Here's a list of some of the recent publications by the Trilateral Commission:

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] Energy Security and Climate Change
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] Engaging with Russia: The Next Phase
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] Nuclear Proliferation: Risk and Responsibility
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] The New Challenges to International, National and Human Security Policy
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] The "Democracy Deficit" in the Global Economy: Enhancing the Legitimacy and Accountability of Global Institutions
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Addressing the New International Terrorism: Prevention, Intervention and Multilateral Cooperation
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]An Emerging China in a World of Interdependence

Two titles you should note are:

[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] Advancing Common Purposes in the Broad Middle East
This was published in 1998. Guess what nation was singled out as presenting a particular thorn and a unique "opportunity"? Clue: It begins with, "I" and ends with "Q".
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Maintaining Energy Security in a Global Context
This was published in 1996 and clearly outlines the need for the westernized countries of the world to secure the world's central source of oil supply. It led to the report above.

If you know where to look, all this information is out there. You will see what the important people of the world are thinking about. I talked about this a while ago in another post but really, it's all pretty obvious if you know where to look and how to interpret what's going on.
[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[PussyWellington]

The United Kingdom was an empire and look what they did.

Let's add to that Italy, France, Germany, Sweden, Japan, Portugal, Mongolia, Spain, Greece, Egypt, and yes, even 3000 years ago, Iran and Iraq.

The difference is those empires built things - roads, schools, railways. Your foreign policy involves blowing shit up.

The policy of the United States in the middle east is control of oil wealth first, a foil for Russia second. We moved into the middle east, into Iraq because one thing is very clear even if the government doesn't say so and that's that world's supply of oil is finite and most of the best crude in the world is in that relatively defensible area. When push comes to shove as peak oil approaches, other powerful nations will want to secure their piece of the pie and, because we ill have fortress Iraq, they're going to have to deal with the United States to get it. Without a major presence in the middle east, Russia (or even China) is free to move in and control the world's major source of oil. We're there now so that when the time comes, we will be able to secure oil for the United States and selected strategic allies like the UK, Canada, and Japan. We couldn't do that from Qatar and we can't directly take over Saudi. Iraq is the perfect strategic location and has oil of its own. Any other reason for the invasion, al Qaeda, Saddam is evil, WMDs, etc., is a side show.

Really? If it was just about the oil you could have bought and paid for it. It would have been cheaper! It smells like a 'covert to _______or die' kind of crusade to me.

I think it's time you all asked yourselves what it means to 'be an American".

 

[Drifterwood]

Great post Jason, but could you elaborate on "the UK was an Empire and look what they did" ?

 

[2322]

Oh let's see.....

First, let's not disregard the fact the UK marched (or sailed) into foreign lands, erected a flag, and then proceeded to use military force to make people accept its rule. This was the British Empire, not the Commonwealth, not a United Kingdom, but an empire. Assuming for a minute that any of these sovereign nations actually wished to be invaded militarily in the first place...

If the British built schools, roads, and railroads, it was for the betterment of Britain, not the indigenous peoples. After the UK left all these colonies did they continue to build and maintain the infrastructure in all these places? No. Why? Because they built these things for themselves, not the people whose land they occupied. Schools indoctrinate, roads and railways allow for better passage of peoples, goods, and services, but also troops, materiel, and communications. With a good infrastructure in place, the easier and quicker it is to loot the country but also to control it. Getting troops where they need to go is a priority of any military commander.

The Opium Wars:

The UK smuggles, then uses military force against China, who had prohibited the importation of opium, to force the Chinese to import the narcotic. China eventually bans all importation of opium as an estimated 2,000,000 Chinese are addicted to cheap British opium from Bengal, but Britain needs to balance trade with China and thus militarily forces China to accept the importation and distribution of opium. Vastly unequal trade agreements then forced upon the Chinese government in the Unequal Treaties and Hong Kong is ceded to the UK. The economic and social effects were devastating to China, weakening it to the point of collapse in 1911.

The following says it far better than I can:

The India Famine:


When an El Nino drought destituted the farmers of the Deccan plateau in 1876 there was a net surplus of rice and wheat in India. But the viceroy, Lord Lytton, insisted that nothing should prevent its export to England. In 1877 and 1878, at height of the famine, grain merchants exported a record 6.4 million hundredweight of wheat. As the peasants began to starve, government officials were ordered “to discourage relief works in every possible way”(2). The Anti-Charitable Contributions Act of 1877 prohibited “at the pain of imprisonment private relief donations that potentially interfered with the market fixing of grain prices.” The only relief permitted in most districts was hard labour, from which anyone in an advanced state of starvation was turned away. Within the labour camps, the workers were given less food than the inmates of Buchenwald. In 1877, monthly mortality in the camps equated to an annual death rate of 94%.


As millions died, the imperial government launched “a militarized campaign to collect the tax arrears accumulated during the drought.” The money, which ruined those who might otherwise have survived the famine, was used by Lytton to fund his war in Afghanistan. Even in places which had produced a crop surplus, the government’s export policies, like Stalin’s in the Ukraine, manufactured hunger. In the North-western provinces, Oud and the Punjab, which had brought in record harvests in the preceding three years, at least 1.25m died.

1. Mike Davis, 2001. Late Victorian Holocausts: El Nino Famines and the Making of the Third World. Verso, London.
2. An order from the lieutenant-governor Sir George Couper to his district officers. Quoted in Mike Davis, ibid.

The Response to the Mau Mau Rebellion:

Three recent books - Britain’s Gulag by Caroline Elkins, Histories of the Hanged by David Anderson and Web of Deceit by Mark Curtis - show how white settlers and British troops suppressed the Mau Mau revolt in Kenya in the 1950s. Thrown off their best land and deprived of political rights, the Kikuyu started to organise - some of them violently - against colonial rule. The British responded by driving up to 320,000 of them into concentration camps(3). Most of the remainder - over a million - were held in “enclosed villages”. Prisoners were questioned with the help of “slicing off ears, boring holes in eardrums, flogging until death, pouring paraffin over suspects who were then set alight, and burning eardrums with lit cigarettes.”(4) British soldiers used a “metal castrating instrument” to cut off testicles and fingers. “By the time I cut his balls off,” one settler boasted, “he had no ears, and his eyeball, the right one, I think, was hanging out of its socket”(5). The soldiers were told they could shoot anyone they liked “provided they were black”(6). Elkins’s evidence suggests that over 100,000 Kikuyu were either killed by the British or died of disease and starvation in the camps. David Anderson documents the hanging of 1090 suspected rebels: far more than the French executed in Algeria(7). Thousands more were summarily executed by soldiers, who claimed they had “failed to halt” when challenged.


3. Caroline Elkins, 2005. Britain’s Gulag: The Brutal End of Empire in Kenya. Jonathan Cape, London.
4. Mark Curtis, 2003. Web of Deceit: Britain’s Real Role in the World. Vintage, London.
5. Caroline Elkins, ibid.
6. Mark Curtis, ibid.

7. David Anderson, 2005. Histories of the Hanged: Britain’s Dirty War in Kenya and the End of Empire. Weidenfeld, London.-Monbiot.com

Ireland

I could also raise the issue of Ireland with the infamous Black and Tans, Bloody Sunday, the juryless Diplock courts, or go even further to the Potato Famine of 1845-1849 where the British government forbade halting of food exports to the UK. The Brits ate Irish food while one million Irish people starved to death. The only Protestant group to give aid were the Quakers. In 1846, food exports from Ireland to the UK doubled!

The Peel government sent corn, whole corn, from the US to Ireland where it was sold to the starving for a penny a pound. The Irish had little idea of what to do with whole corn which needed to be ground twice to be made edible and few places had the mills to do so. Peel repealed (haha) the Corn Laws, which protected British corn by making imported corn artificially high, but it was too little too late. Russell, his successor, even more shockingly, implemented a series of public works which were built specifically to be of no use what-so-ever. In return for the labor, men would be given food by the British landowners whose land they worked. Ireland is still littered with follies built on the estates of their British keepers built by starving Irishmen from the period. If you became too weak or too ill to work, well then no food for you.


Do you not see that every empire of the time sees itself as benevolent? That news, history, and alleged facts are spun to please the people who will most consume that data? This is by no means a British peculiarity either. The US does it too, from the Indians to the Iraqis, we're a force for good. We overthrew Saddam, a bad bad man! We overthrew Noriega, a drug dealer! We've overthrown a whole host of nations and when Americans read about it, there's always some bogeyman in the corner, some despot, some Communist, some dreadful policy which is alleviated by the United States taking foreign action.

About the only western people I know who can freely point fingers without any blemish of their own are the Sammarese. Hell, even the Swiss fought in wars of aggression at one time.

 

[dong20]

Oh let's see.....

First, let's not disregard the fact the UK marched (or sailed) into foreign lands, erected a flag, and then proceeded to use military force to make people accept its rule. This was the British Empire, not the Commonwealth, not a United Kingdom, but an empire. Assuming for a minute that any of these sovereign nations actually wished to be invaded militarily in the first place...

None of this is disputed. It's a matter of historical record.

If the British built schools, roads, and railroads, it was for the betterment of Britain, not the indigenous peoples. After the UK left all these colonies did they continue to build and maintain the infrastructure in all these places? No. Why? Because they built these things for themselves, not the people whose land they occupied. Schools indoctrinate, roads and railways allow for better passage of peoples, goods, and services, but also troops, materiel, and communications. With a good infrastructure in place, the easier and quicker it is to loot the country but also to control it. Getting troops where they need to go is a priority of any military commander.

None of this is disputed, it's a matter of historical record.

The UK smuggles, then uses military force against China, who had prohibited the importation of opium, to force the Chinese to import the narcotic. China eventually bans all importation of opium as an estimated 2,000,000 Chinese are addicted to cheap British opium from Bengal, but Britain needs to balance trade with China and thus militarily forces China to accept the importation and distribution of opium. Vastly unequal trade agreements then forced upon the Chinese government in the Unequal Treaties and Hong Kong is ceded to the UK. The economic and social effects were devastating to China, weakening it to the point of collapse in 1911.

None of this is disputed, It's all a matter of historical record.

The same applies to all of what you say (with the exception of the item relating to Mau Mau which - while not disputing the facts was a rather more complex and a little less one sided situation than the citation suggests and of which recent events in Kenya are a reminder - also the side reference to the French in Algeria is somewhat disingenuous on the part of the author of the linked article).

There's nothing new here, to me at least. There are dozens more similar and worse horror stories, many of which are unknown or denied by the British, then and now. I suggested in another thread that this was worthy of discussion but America bashing is (for now) back in vogue, evidently.

The US, as I've suggested elsewhere didn't and hasn't persued an imperialist agenda in the way, inter alia, Britain did. I know a lot of people will disagree, but I've yet to see a truly persuasive argument.

Ideology has been America's main export. Yes, too often delivered by an iron first in a velvet glove. But again, none of this is news. Nations will act in their own self interest, how could we expect them to do otherwise? What matters is seeking to understand why and how this happens, the processes that lead to the sort of foreign policy mistakes that are made by all nations.

I think a key difference (certainly post cold war) is that the US was the only nation capable of extending significant global influence, and as such should have acted with better judgement than (based on the evidence) it did. But of course, hindsight is 20:20. :smile:

 

[Drifterwood]

Interesting, Jason, thanks.

I have a somewhat different perspective.

The British World Empire (as opposed to the earlier one that my country got beaten up by) had its roots in the Age of Discovery. England originally played a small part in this and didn't engage in the wholesale slaughter of civilisations as preferred by the Spanish.

After the English had seen to the Spanish fleet in the Armada incident, the waves opened up to the British. Two separate things happened imo, where people saw an opportunity for permanent settlement to exploit local resources, colonies were founded, like the ones in your own country. Elsewhere trading posts were established in the same way that the Greeks and Phoenicians had been doing 2500 years earlier in the Mediterranean. All gaps in the market as it were.

It's all about exploitation of opportunity and resources. In an age of revolution, your forefathers saw an opportunity to take those resources for themselves, and with the aid of the French became independent. After this you see a remarkable and ruthless imperial expansion across what has now become the United States. The genocides of the Native Americans is far beyond anything the British ever did. Other Colonies don't appear to have had the same set of radicals nor the aid of the French.

As mentioned, the other form of imperialism, is/was the establishment of trading posts. The British seem to have been particularly successful at this, as we still are in global business. The thing is, and this is the point I really want to make, that once you are successful, you become drawn into local affairs and the continued supply of the resources that you are exploiting becomes too important back home for you to relinquish. Hello Iraq, as you have said.

Gradually the British became more and more involved in the government of the non colonies, leading eventually to the height of the British Empire in the Nineteenth Century.

Yes there is a catalogue of put down rebellions and other abuses of power, but the most shameful incident in British History and the second lesson that comes from Empire, was the Irish potato famine. Why did the British with all their wealth from around the world, allow their neighbour to starve? The real answer is adherence to an ideology and that ideology was the "Free Market". Yes, we pretty much invented that as well.

I think the US is repeating both these errors.

 

[rob_just_rob]

How many foreign countries aided in Hurricane Katrina?

International response to Hurricane Katrina - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Canadian response to Hurricane Katrina - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Another example of an American rattling on about what a bunch of Americans he had nothing to do with did sixty years ago, while refusing to admit that America has ever received help from anyone else.

 

[lucky8]

the mexicans are more of a threat than the terrorists to our country

 

[dong20]

the mexicans are more of a threat than the terrorists to our country

A citizenry's biggest threat is usually it's own Government. I'm always amazed how many people don't realise that.

Keep your friends close...

 

[HazelGod]

I think the US is repeating both these errors.

I think you're right.

I'll even raise everyone's favorite spectre to which blame can most likely be assigned (in both the old UK and present US instances): career politics. The longer an individual remains in a public office, and the larger the percentage of a legislative body is comprised of tenured incumbents, the more they tend to become self-serving entities.

While the evidence is arguable, the correlation is clear to anyone who cares to observe the dynamics involved: corporations are primarily interested in the near-term objectives...the bottom line at the end of the financial quarter. Career politicians are primarily interested in the propagation of their current term of office through the next election season...and secondarily interested in elevating their office to some higher office. This means campaigning, and that means money. The two are natural bedfellows.

I won't bother diagramming the obvious avenues of collusion, and I won't bother detailing all the ways the electoral processes have been architected to virtually ensure the success of incumbents seeking re-election.

It's obvious that campaign finance restrictions are about as effective at curbing such corruption as lopping off the heads of the Hydra. The sensible tack would be to eliminate the demand for such corruption by killing the entire idea of career politics. Yep, I'm talking about term limits for legislators. I don't have any numbers to support a specific limit off the top of my head, but surely something similar to the Executive...less than a decade for any office. Maybe one term in the Senate, and three in the House...the specifics aren't as important as the idea itself. Make it almost like jury duty...go in, serve your term, get the fuck out.

If anyone has a better idea for making the majority of the fucknuggets in DC start altruistically representing their citizens and their nation, I'm all ears.

 

[Principessa]

The anti-americanism thread rumbles on.

But I am interested to know where you draw the line for your country's foreign policy in being a means to an end for the perceived self interest of the US.

I get the feeling that a lot of your citizens are ignorant of the realities of American activities, financial, political and military in order to secure American interests. This is true. I doubt I know half of them. :redface:

Do you really benefit from them? I would like to think we benefit from some of our foreign activities. By "we" I mean the American people not just Halliburton.

Would you vote for a government that would raise your taxes to make your economy less of a threat to the rest of the world or reduce your requirement for the world's natural resources?
I don't think we are an economic threat to anybody right now.
I am not so sure.

The dollar is barely worth the paper it's written on right now. How exactly are we a threat to the rest of the world? Would I support a tax increase in order to decrease the United States use and waste of natural resources so that perhaps we can slow down global warming?Yes, depending on the size of the increase. It would most likely need to be incremental and across the board.

There is no other place in the world that I would rather live than in the United States.

Really? cause if I win the Powerball I would split my time between the Jersey Shore and Tuscany, Italy.

 

[Drifterwood]

Stop the payback to the Corporations - i.e. low taxes and profits held offshore. You'll sort out your crippling National Debt and you can have freer politicians.

 

[dong20]

....I'll even raise everyone's favorite spectre to which blame can most likely be assigned (in both the old UK and present US instances): career politics. The longer an individual remains in a public office, and the larger the percentage of a legislative body is comprised of tenured incumbents, the more they tend to become self-serving entities.
....

It's obvious that campaign finance restrictions are about as effective at curbing such corruption as lopping off the heads of the Hydra. The sensible tack would be to eliminate the demand for such corruption by killing the entire idea of career politics. Yep, I'm talking about term limits for legislators. I don't have any numbers to support a specific limit off the top of my head, but surely something similar to the Executive...less than a decade for any office. Maybe one term in the Senate, and three in the House...the specifics aren't as important as the idea itself. Make it almost like jury duty...go in, serve your term, get the fuck out.

I agree with the sentiment wholeheartedly and I've thought about this before but I'm not convinced. Not in that I oppose term limits (I don't) so much as that very limit may work for and against the probability of ensuring the elected was both competent and motivated.

Too short a limit and it's possible that it's impossible to achieve meaningful change reducing the motivation to try (and may risk increasing the temptation to strip mine for personal gain once booted out), this may also lead to short term policies and overreaching. Too long and nothing has really changed.As you say, perhaps the notion that this isn't a job for life would be enough, maybe.

Perhaps combined with some form of enforceable KPIs - deliver what you say in a given period or you're out. Deliver it and you get a bonus, or a shot at an extra term!

A ban on all personal business activities whilst in public office is something I've long since favoured but again that also has its pitfalls. Pay the office well - enough to reduce the temptation to pork barrel.

The key problem with such plans is that however well intentioned, they come up against human nature.

If anyone has a better idea for making the majority of the fucknuggets in DC start altruistically representing their citizens and their nation, I'm all ears.

It's a start. It would certainly be a way of lighting a fire under the process of Government. Wait, I have a cunning plan...... :biggrin1:

 

[DC_DEEP]

First, as I've said, no country is altruistic. If a country makes a move in foreign affairs, it's to do so to further its own goals.

Russia has been an empire and look at what they did.

The United Kingdom was an empire and look what they did.

Let's add to that Italy, France, Germany, Sweden, Japan, Portugal, Mongolia, Spain, Greece, Egypt, and yes, even 3000 years ago, Iran and Iraq.

It's the way of the world. Every country sees to its own best interests. [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][/FONT]

I'm not sure, was this part of your post for my benefit? I'm in the "empires are bad" school of thought. Some good things occasionally result from empires, but it's almost NEVER good for the conquered. It just nearly makes me want to puke when I hear some idiot blustering, "them terr'ists only hates us cuz of our freedom." What a crock of shit. They hate us because we are occupying their countries and pillaging their resources.

A citizenry's biggest threat is usually it's own Government. I'm always amazed how many people don't realise that.

Keep your friends close...

That ties in to so many things I've posted in the past. Of course, the sheeple always begin to bleat about how unAmerican I am for saying it.

 

[headbang8]

International response to Hurricane Katrina - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Canadian response to Hurricane Katrina - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Another example of an American rattling on about what a bunch of Americans he had nothing to do with did sixty years ago, while refusing to admit that America has ever received help from anyone else.

Those links are astonishing, Rob. The USA refused help from France?

I might also add that Australian firefighters regularly attack California wildfires in their off season. My brother-in-law is one of them.

By the way, many thanks to those who answered the question about WWII on my behalf--you all did it better than I could have.

 

[rob_just_rob]

Those links are astonishing, Rob. The USA refused help from France?

Well, if they had let France help, they couldn't go on and on about how France was liberated in 1944 and never said thank you.