Anyone else alittle paranoid of knife attacks?

Off-topic
#162

no, try read some primary sources. Like what guys like Lincoln or Grant thought about that war.

Grant call the war unholy. That the US had no legal claim to the area south of the Nueces river. not only did the US army go into the disputed area, it went south of it, into an area that was in every legal way part of mexico. (chapter 3 of his memoirs)
Grant was with the army at the border and mention that “we where sent to provoke a fight(…)” and he calls his own army the “invaders” (chapter 6 )

The treaty of Velascodo was not rectified by Mexico. Santa Anna was not in charger of mexico when he signed it. And had no legal power to do to. And even if the Independence of Texas had been accepted, the treaty do not defined the border of Texas.

The US provoked the war to justify the land grab… land it had no legal right to. It was nothing but “Might makes right.”

Actively supporting your own citizens when they move across the border. Then use the large number of your citizens as an excuse to interfere in the internal matters of another sovereign state… as I said, pretty similar to what Russia have been doing.

1 Like
#163

this is not the same thing as less guns less people killed, as you said in your original statement.

#164

The white is what the british did not invade.

However, im not going to say america is perfect either, and we are alot younger then you, we have invaded 70 countries since our creation in 1776. You however only about twice as old as we are, and have invaded far more then 140 countries. out of the total of 196 countries, the UK has invaded 174 of them.

#165

Wrong again the treaty clearly established the Texan border and Santa Anna was the dictator of Mexico at the time so he had every right to sign it. The U.S Calvary men were shot at near the Rio Grande river which in the treaty states is Texas territory. When tension increased Mexico claimed Texas as their own and fired the first shots of the Mexican American war. The United States still paid for the land after they won. They could have easily kept all of Mexico but let them remain their own country. Im also willing to bet that many people in Mexico today wish the U.S would have kept all of Mexico because they wouldn’t have been born into a cesspool.
You literally just keep saying land grab over and over. The U.S won the war and there for took their choice of land which was justified. Many Mexicans in those areas already wanted to apart of the United States because the government of Mexico refused to protect them against raids of indians and it was a very corrupt oppressive government. There were many Mexicans fighting on the Texans side of the revolution. So spewing America is an evil land grabber instead of stating facts doesn’t help your case in this argument. As for Grant thats cool that he thought it was an un holy war. But then its ok for him to go around burning the south to the ground during the civil war and not caring for the lives of his men. He would literally just throw his men at the enemy and didn’t give a shit as long as he won the battle. So i would say that Grant had no place to call something un holy.

#166

Half of those on that list are garbage. We invaded north korea in a coalition of a bunch of different European countries and were in cooperation with the south Korean government. Many of those countries on that list we merely helped rebellions without sending actually troops there. The majority of invasions we have done have been in self defense that list was naming countries in Europe that we were liberating during World War 2. The number is closer to 30-40.

#167

That picture is absurd.

E.g.: Can you document a case of British invasion to Czech Republic, Slovakia or Eritrea (which are no more than about 25 years old and are on your map). Even Czechoslovakia or Kingdom of Bohemia was never invaded by Britain of course. It wouldn’t make sense for Britain to invade a landlocked country which had similarly powerful land army for most of their history.

Of course Britain was in war with Austria-Hungary and Kingdom of Bohemia was defacto part of Austria-Hungary. But that does not mean Britain invaded Czech Republic.

And can you explain how is it possible that Britain invaded Ukraine and did not invaded Belarus? Belarus or Ukraine were never separate countries till the fall of Eastern Bloc. Or can you explain when did Britain actually invaded Italy? Not counting the invasion of romantic poets and young aristocrats in 19th century. :smiley:

Etc. etc. etc. In fact Britain invaded just few countries. Technically Britain was in war with many more countries and their colonies (e.g. Brazil - perhaps during Anglo-Spanish war in Tudor times when Spain and Portugal was personally united?)

This map is one of the most absurd pictures internet ever produced. :smile:

#168

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article32946.htm

http://mentalfloss.com/article/13019/there-are-only-22-countries-world-british-haven’t-invaded
http://www.humanosphere.org/basics/2013/08/map-of-the-day-where-the-brits-never-invaded/

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/nov/06/british-invaded-90-per-cent-world

Well i hope these sources are enough for you to prove out “absurd” claim.

#169

well alright Mr. I am awesome at geography!

#170

Perhaps you forgot Philippines, the Monroe Doctrine and your attitude to Latin American countries afterwards (including terrorist campaign against Cuba, invasions to or share on war in Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras, Salvador, Grenada, Panama and others, Operation Condor and the coup d’etat in Chile and many more) share on many African civil wars (Congo, Rwanda, Angola, coup d’etat against NKrumah) coup d’etat in Greece, share on the terrible Indo-Pakistani war in Bangladesh, support for Suharto, the Indochine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, trying to destabilize democratic and afterwards theocratic Iran, crimes of USS Vincennes, invasion to Lebanon, invasion of Cambodia that directly led to the establishment of the Pol Pot’s regime, war against Yugoslavia, war against Serbia and unlawful creation of Kosovo etc.

#171

No, they are not. Please answer my examples of countries Britain never invaded. I would then supply you with other examples of countries Britain never invaded.

This research those articles are based on is absurd.

Edit: It’s funny that you quote the Guardian article that explain how is the original study misleading and not true. :smiley:

#172

Terrorists actions on cuba?? We helped Cuba gain its independence from spain so not sure which terrorist actions you are talking about. We also helped the philippines gain their independence from spain then annexed them afterwards but we gave them their independence after word war 2. Most of the countries you listed we helped rebellions along against spain and other European powers. Yes we had our own reasons for doing so like building the panama canal but the people wanted their independence so i dont see why we are evil for helping them along. There are a lot of nice countries in south and central america that are doing fine. So i would say our involvement left them pretty unharmed.

#173

Do you know the origin of the term “banana republic” and the history of Chiquita / United Fruit Company and similar companies?

Yes, it’s true you have helped many coutries to get rid of spanish/french/british colonial overlord. The US of A were able to dominate those countries economically and therefore politically afterwards and tried to suppress every attempt to break free from the USA yoke by any means including murders, wars and others. Ask Victor Jara or Pablo Neruda their opinion on USA foreign policy.

Or ask Noam Chomsky.

#174

indeed i have not ever been however i dont like to take what the media says as 100% fact and i went through a phase of studying north korea and watched maybe 10 documentaries and peoples personal films from trips to north korea also a few good websites on north korean culture , how the government is run etc etc and every single one comes back to the same conclusion that the north korean’s are very nice people even to americans just very brainwashed people alongside that .
indeed my nation has shed blood much of it but at the times of our great empire the world was a very different place , countries were not as they were today we in fact crafted the world today , we came in and ended many tribal war with an iron fist yes but in the long run the British empire was a force for good much of africa’s and india’s infrastructure was built by us many of your countries cities were named by us and named after english cities . we did alot of good but to achieve our goals of modernizing the places we went we had to crush the people dragging the nations down ,
i am by no means saying the empire was lovely and rosey , it was an empire after all and you can only achieve one by killing and boy did we do alot of it . and of course the only reason we built up the infrastructure was so goods flow quicker and we make more cash but in the end everyone was a winner .

the slave issue has always made me laugh how people make it out to be the english and the americans were the only ones that took slaves , it was rather common to enslave the people you have defeated in battle everyone did it , and most of the slaves both our nations took were infact purchased from rich blacks

#175

at least Britain was always honest about our intentions to dominate people , where america likes to “free” people then tie them down to mass of economic debt making them usa’s slaves o and you also like installing some lovely pro-USA governments making them your puppets ,

us brits did it in style to the sound of the grenadier guards drums and rifles

1 Like
#176

id also love to hear you well educated untravelled view on Palestine and israel

#177

Who i is going to win? man shooting his rifle randomly into the grass, or the snake thats hiding there? my point is is that to install our government into those who did not have it was purely because we are trying to keep the ideology of Capitalism alive. Its just like religion, where the christians and all the others want the most followers, all the government systems want to be the dominant government structure.
Along with that, style has nothing to do with it, intentions had nothing to do with it, now your just trying to say we are sneaky little thieves, and you, a country who has literally been the school yard bully of the world ever since it came into existence, who has conquered and killed probably tens of millions of people over the course if its lifetime, is better because your fucking honest about it. thats one of the most pathetic things i have ever heard come out of anyones mouth. And America is no fucking better, ill admit, but the fact that your so full of false pride that you cant even admit that your a fucking bully country too, is ridiculous.

1 Like
#178

exactly but why hide behind "we are liberating you " why not just say it nice and clearly " we are invading you to install our way of life , pick a side "

1 Like
#179

please refer to my last edited comment before commenting any further.

#180

I really don’t care about what the brits did. Not something I have commended on.

I havn’t at anypoint written that what the US did was any different from other western imperialistic wars.

#181

Never mind, i understand what you were trying to say now. And if you really look into alot of the “Proxy Wars” America was involved in were over ideological differences, like communism.

© 2015 Warhorse Studios www.warhorsestudios.cz