Do you think the United States is a peacekeeper or an invador? (Iran, Iraq)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Everything we do militarily since the end of the cold war is to keep us on top of the world garbage heap and keep potential challengers from climbing high enough to become an actual threat to our dominance. We are not invaders necessarily because we don't stay indefinitely and declare invaded countries to be a new part of our our own (although we obviously have no qualms about looting a country for resources), but we certainly aren't peacekeepers either. If we were, we'd have gone into Darfur, Rwanda, East Timor and a dozen other countries where horrible, evil acts have been perpetrated but otherwise had no strategic purpose for us being there. As it stands, we only went into the countries that served the overiding purpose of keeping the status quo as it is.
I'm glad people like you are not in power. If you were, the USA probably would have surrendered to the British during the Revolution or the Mexicans in the Mexican American War.
You see America's greatness in it's imperialism and territorial acquisitions. It has a history of killing anyone who opposes it, either directly, as happened in what is now the United States, or indirectly, as it has done all over the world, usually providing the weapons and training.
The British would have lost to anyone who was able to resist imperialism. The Mexicans lost Texas, California and parts of the Southwest even before all of the Native Americans were finished being killed off or rounded up and put in concentration camps.
Yes, I do. I am a student of history. History tells us that either you conquer or be conquered. I want my country to be the conqueror.
You're a poor student of history if you don't recognize that empires that overextend themselves with costly and unnecessary wars almost always end up collapsing.
You're a poor student of history if you don't recognize that empires that overextend themselves with costly and unnecessary wars almost always end up collapsing.
The US is engaged in just two small regional wars right now and providing security for South Korea. That is hardly what I would describe an over-extension. If the US wages another two front war in Europe and in the Pacific, then I would start to be worried.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.