Iranian war

This is very typical. Why it is that liberals are so prone to resort to name calling and other insults? Is it the inability to think or is it that they just feel they have to say something when they have nothing to say?

This is very typical. Why it is that liberals are so prone to resort to name calling and other insults? Is it the inability to think or is it that they just feel they have to say something when they have nothing to say?

So, after excluding Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq 2003, WWII, and conflicts to prevent Communism, what are we left with?

Russia (Russian Civil War - Formation of Soviet Union)

Korea (Korean War)
Vietnam (Vietnam War)
Cuba (Bay of Pigs)

Iraq (2003)
Afghanistan
Somalia

Iraq (Desert Storm)

And U.S. Military strikes:
Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and probably a heap of other countries

And Coups and similar:
Guatemala (CIA overthrows of their government and funds dictator's armies)
Iran (CIA overthrows elected Prime Minister)

Brazil (CIA helps overthrow the government and funds opposition groups)
Chile (CIA funds opposition then overthrows the government)
Grenada (Overthrow their government)
Nicaragua (Helps install a military junta)
Panama (Attempt to capture Gen. Manuel Noriega)
Honduras (Helps install a military junta)
Colombia (Funds and trains death squads)

And this leaves out propping up dictators.

On the back of this, it's rather hard to argue that the U.S. is a peace loving, good guy country.

The point of this by the way, is not to say the U.S. is evil, or that most the people of the U.S. are even bad. The point is, before pointing fingers at other countries, saying they should be pre-emptively 'hit' -, you should look at the rampant bullying / economically driven 'foreign policy' (including many invasions) that your country engages in.

If any country around the world deserves a pre-emptive strike before they attack...by any measure you wish to use, the U.S. would surely be near or at the top of the tree for the most likely country to attack another country.

By the way, such also leaves out:
- in a south america that was dominated by 'pro U.S.' presidents, the first two presidents to be elected on anti-american sentiments somehow, both shortly after election, had their planes fall out of the sky within a 2 month period of each other (Panama & Ecuador, 1981). Torrijos wanted to nationalise the Panama Canal (controlled by the U.S.), or failing that, had plans with the Japanese to build an even larger canal.
- in Pakistan, where anti-U.S. sentiment is rampant (the U.S. keeps it as a strategic ally), only an anti-U.S. president (Zia) has died in office (1988)... funnily enough, in a plane crash
Any assassination allegations are of course speculation, but it doesn't take a long bow to draw conclusions between the similarities (planes crashing) / the common factor (Pro or Anti U.S. in 'significant' countries), and U.S. behaviour of running coups and propping up dictators for it's benefit.

The term 'significant' by the way, means different things. Pakistan is significant in U.S. foreign policy because of it's location and surrounding geo political alliances. Panama and Ecuador were significant in terms of U.S. influence/stranglehold on south american politics.

You didn't date these so I am unsure which event most of them are referring to, but they appear to be ordered chronologically, and therefore the events listed above the Russian Civil War seem to refer to events from more than 100 years ago.

Actually it is very easy. In all of the events that you listed that occur within the past 100 years, we were clearly and unambiguously the good guys.

Yes, from more than 100 years ago. The point of the list is, all of listed invasions by the U.S. have occurred, and those invasions kept on coming, to present date. Hence the inclusion of ones that had no economic benefit - because they still contribute to the history (and therefore pattern) of U.S. invasions of other countries.
Even if you removed the ones you wanted to, it shows the U.S. has a very, very clear history of invading other countries.

As I mentioned - there were many excuses made, none of them particularly good. Everything you mentioned about the cold war was done for one purpose - to ensure american power and influence, and therefore riches.

Your government didn't care how many foreigners had to die or suffer for american power and influence. So no, your government, which shows it has a penchant for invading other countries, and makes other peoples suffer... really are the good guys.

But yes, they can argue 'we're the good guys' - hell, any half decent PR person can spin anything to sound good, and the U.S. is really good at it...but it doesn't change the underlying equation of:

A. who acted
B. who suffered for those actions, and
C. who benefited from that suffering.

The answer to A & C in most examples is quite clear - America (Iraq & Somalia aside). The answer to B is 'other peoples'. In other words, the bare facts, repeated in U.S. invasions over and over again, removed of all the spin, show the truth. The U.S. has benefited from other peoples suffering, caused by their invasions - over, and over, and over again.

In terms of some on that list being old (even if they show a pattern that continues today), and in terms of all your excuses relating to 'this happened during the cold war' (30 years ago) - such is also a shot at your wanting to start a new war over decades old (30 years ago) 'wrongs'.

And again - this is not calling the American peoples evil. Some simply don't look in their own back yard before they call for pre-emptive war against 'aggressive' countries (which U.S. shows it sits atop)...with the only real grievance they have against the country they want to attack being decades old.

Do you think Trump would start an Iranian war to increase his chances of being reelected to the presidency?

Police officers have a clear history of shooting at bank robbers.

We were trying to save the world from being conquered by an evil dictatorship.

Our stopping the Soviets from conquering the world is the only reason why you're free today.

You're quite the spin doctor aren't you. Ever considered life in a PR firm?

Seriously? It's behaviour as a 'police officer', has been to:
- protect mob bosses (the dicatators it props up)
- remove Mayors (elected presidents) and replace them with mob bosses (dictators)
- only enforce laws in only in very selective circumstances (oil countries, countries it can bully, countries with a benefit in it for them), turning a blind eye to all law breakers (eg. Africa for the vast majority of its time, + the dictators it props up)
- only enforce laws where there was a payoff in it for them (see above),

- enforce laws because another police officer (in this picture, Russia) was trying to take over it's territory, and it enforced 'laws' to keep the members of it's 'protectorate' in line

- and for some members of it's protectorates (deemed by itself to be members of its protectorate) it was good enough that they committed a petty crime so the U.S. broke their legs (this is an word painting representing the proportional reaction to the alleged offence) and took their wallet...

....oh wait, that sounds so much more like a mob boss than a police officer.

As I said - your words are all spin. The truth, seen the a pattern over and over again, when it comes down to it, removed of all excuses, is:

A. who acted
B. who suffered for those actions, and
C. who benefited from that suffering.

The answer is still the same, the U.S. benefits from it's invasions (A & C), while it makes others suffer (B). Sure it's allies benefit as well. That doesn't make it right - that just makes the allies as silently or explicitly complicit in this greed equation (that the U.S. engages in).

Rofl. You can't say that while propping up evil dictators. Well, you can say that, but it's incredibly hypocritical.

The same equation can be applied to it's coups, and the dictators it props up. The pattern is clear. The U.S. doesn't befits, others suffer.

You still buying that line? You have no proof whatsoever that it would ever have occurred.

All you have is supposition,

even while you regularly spout that you only deal with the facts, you always spout the truth, you don't interpret things in ways beneficial to you, yadda, yadda, bullshit yadda.

You really are quite a hypocrite in this thread.

As I said - your words are all spin. The truth, seen the a pattern over and over again, when it comes down to it, removed of all excuses, is:

A. who acted
B. who suffered for those actions, and
C. who benefited from that suffering.

The answer is still the same, the U.S. benefits from it's invasions (A & C), while it makes others suffer (B). Sure it's allies benefit as well. That doesn't make it right - that just makes the allies as silently or explicitly complicit in this greed equation (that the U.S. engages in).

In relation to all of your previous post - all you could do was focus on communism, to the exclusion of all the other invasions that the U.S. has carried out that were not in the slightest related to communism.

You say you have truth on your side, yet in terms of a simple equation (quoted), you purposefully avoided / ignored a vast swathe of history that shows the U.S. invades other countries, causes suffering in those countries, and benefits from that suffering, over, and over, and over again.

Given how many examples outside of the cold war have been mentioned in the course of this conversation, your avoidance of all the other invasions only be deliberate avoidance, so perhaps you are not just a hypocrite, but a wilfully blind hypocrite.

As an aside, I'm not buying your 'we saved you from communism' propaganda. Try someone more gullible.