Aight... I'm purposly skipping the 5th and 6th pages for a reason... I CAN'T READ YOU'RE BLOODY POSTS! Are Nantuko Joe, Dan Hibiki, and Finnegan the only guys who know how to post here? I just can't deal with all this SSJKarma rambling and Yasback.. whatever the hell that's supposed to be.

Eyes hurting... ok, well anyone who's posted there can just ignore what I've got to say here since it's directed to Finnegan:

2 points here...

1. The US has had a policy of striking first since the Revolutionary War. I know this may sound forgien to you, but here me out:
- Revolutionary War: 1st attacks began before the Declaration of Independence was ever written... colonists attacked British who were marching off to round up milita supplies, and well, the collonists attacked. The US clearly made the 1st strike there.
- War of 1812: The US wanted to expand in Canada.. plain and simple. US aggresion lead to war, not this impressments (which btw the British aggreed to stop.. before the war even began).
- Mexican War: Again... started by the US. US agression to "defend" Texas, which "won it's independence" from Mexico by illegal US immigrants, provoked Mexico to defend its borders... and so the US won again.
- Civil War: Lincoln intended for Fort Sumter (not sure how it's spelled) to get attacked. He did this by sending supplies to it... after the fort was attacked, he assembled the US army and struck first in the Battle of Bull Run.
- Spanish-American War: After the Maine blew up near Cuba (where it had no right to be in the first place, and wasn't even attacked by Spanish), the US attacked the Spanish in Cuba and the Phillipines (once again, probably misspelled).
- Panama's revolution against New Granada: Not a single person was hurt... and the US "aid" to the nation arived ahead of schedule (before the revolution).
- Filopiane Revolt: US conquered the Philipines instead of "setting them free" as they so justly did to Cuba, and so... they made sure to do the exact same thing they fought the Spanish for doing a year or 2 ago.
- WWI: At what point was the US mainland invaded? Never. The US struck before Germany or Austria-Hungary could ever have a chance to (of which neither country had any intentions... it was just a huge diplomatic mistake, filled with military miscalculations).
- WWII: Pearl Harbor... which belonged to the US because what reason? A McKinley Tarriff increases the tax of imports to the US back in the mid/late 1800's, so some rich sugar cane farmers get together and overthrough the Hawaiin natives for cheaper sell of sugar (same reason for intervention in Cuba in Spanish-American War btw). Anyways, here the US was struck first... and all because they had thier Pacific Fleet stationed somewhere where the US shouldn't have owned in the first place.
- Viet-nam and Korean Wars: US troops stationed in these countries got under fire... but still, the US was not invaded in any way. Not really wars the US wanted to get involved in though, much unlike all of the previous wars. I guess this and WWII are the closest to the US mainland actually came to being "defended" as the reason the US was fighting the war.
- Persian Gulf War: Kuait = probably misspelled :biggrin: . But it was/is also a large supplier of oil, and once Saddam took it over, he had 25% of the world oil if I'm not mistaken? So... since the US had absolutely no threat towards itself, other then perhaps higher gas prices... it attacked first.

Anyways, if you havn't already guessed, the point I'm making here is the US has always, and will almost certainly continue to use it's "military defense" not to defend themselves, but to attack first. There's nothing wrong with the tactic... so far it hasn't failed, and seems to leave the opponent with no way to win. I just hate the fact that so many people believe in "defending out nation" when in effect they'd only be defending someone else's nation.

2. The Treaty of Versailles (is almost certainly misspelled), as you said... left Germany in ruins. It's most productive centers were bereft of it, it's colonial empire was gone, and it was demanded to pay homage to the nations which won... Which lead directly the rise of the Nazi regime as the political power in the nation. The irony here is not is Germany didn't cause this to happen by simply disobeying they Treaty, the Allies caused it by making the treaty so utterly impossible for Germany to adhear, that it caved into a depression that was unsurpassed in the world (to give some of the others reading this an idea, 1 dollar = 6 million german marks, at one point)... and there was no one left to fight the Nazi facism that dominated the nation. This should sound a bit like the Bolshevik revolution... since both were facist regimes that took over an economically poor nation and turned it into an industrial power house. But anyways... because of the treaty of Versailles, WWII's stage was set.

I agree that nations should follow treaties that are set, but the nations that force these treaties upon other nations should make certain that what they're asking of them is realistic. The UN inspecting for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is unrealistic, and was bound to fail, and I only have those people who wrote that part in the treaty to blame for what's happening now.



Edited By 2000warrior on Jan. 24 2003 at 01:30