lol a royal charter is not the equivalent of a corporation
You really need to get yourself educated on this matter. Most corporations used to only be able to form when they received a charter from the government. Some corporations still need to receive a charter from the government. While a charter is granted to other bodies it is granted to corporations and that includes royal charters. If you're saying the British East India Company was not a corporation then you can just GTFO.
You should. Tell me, what possible reason did we have for the 1958 Lebanon War?
What was the humanitarian intervention an excuse for exactly?
Hello? Yugoslavia?
So there wasn't a terrorist attack that killed 3,000 U.S. civilians? Are you asserting that it was a false flag operation? Are are you a twoofer?
I think there is a good deal of reason to question the official story, and evidence indicating it was in some manner aided by actors in our government. However, even without 9-11 an excuse would have been found.
Yugoslavia like Egypt was a part of the non-aligned movement.
So were India and Cuba. Are you really telling me you think the non-aligned movement actually represented a neutral third party?
He, also, nationalized U.S. assets.
Of course, the actions to eliminate U.S. corporate monopolies on their country's economy was a factor.
Not really following you here.
We supported groups that actively fought Portugal, a supposed ally.
So we were supposed to aid the militaristic dictatorship of Nasser? And if we had I'm sure you would be bitching about that as well.
We didn't care that he was a dictator.
Um we didn't oppose Nasser until he accepted arms shipments from the Soviets, I don't ever recall labeling him a Communist. Which nation did we label Communist that wasn't in fact Communist?
We were working with Nasser and Egypt long after he received arms from the Eastern bloc. The U.S. government treated any lean towards leftism as a lean towards communism and by that I mean any effort to end corporate imperialism or strengthen worker's rights was seen as a dangerous step towards communism. The establishment in the United States opposed communism long before the Soviet Union came into being and various other movements of a similar nature. One common trait is these were all anti-establishment movements that advocated greater rights for the people. It is quite interesting as one can liken the resistance to such movement with the resistance of the European monarchies to republican revolutionaries.
Japan had engaged in militaristic campaign of mass murder through Asia and the Pacific, that was their own way, are you out of your mind?
So are you saying the Japanese only know how to kill and rape without us white folk telling them otherwise?
Ya China's own way resulted in the largest genocide in the history of this planet sport.
China has committed no genocide and please do no distort Chinese history. Too many people fall for that Cold War propaganda garbage and it still floats around contaminating people's thoughts.
Totalitarian is completely different than authoritarian, modern North Korea in relation to modern South Korea proves the validity of the Kirkpatrick doctrine.
There is a difference of degrees.
Am I really going to have to point out the totalitarian regimes we have supported and the ones we still support to this day? I would think you know enough about history.
No there is the proven false assertion that Glaspie said something similar to that, it was competely false, and there have been no other members of the State Department accused of making such statements.
You keep thinking I'm talking about her, but this was a clear position put forward by the U.S. No serious effort was made to dissuade Saddam from going to war and indeed we were quite soft to him to the point where there was no reason he would think the U.S. had any intention of going to war.
So now the U.S. is responsible for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? WTF? You must be joking, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan to obtain a warm water point, we didn't instigate it.
At least one attack on a U.S. ship occurred in the Gulf of Tonkin by the North Vietnamese. Exaggerated yes? Manufactured? No.
Congratulations for demonstrating that you do not know the actual history of the Cold War. I do love how it seems only America's enemies are motivated by imperialistic designs. Must be some nice world you live in.
No there isn't actually, the inverse is actually true, the U.S. said in no uncertain terms that if Saddam invaded the U.S. would respond and we then gave him ample opportunity to withdraw his forces warning that if he did not it would result in a state of war between us.
Seriously, you need to do some research. The U.S. could not have been any less certain about the terms. We justified Desert Shield on the (false) basis that Iraq was planning to attack Saudi Arabia. The buildup to war in Kuwait saw propaganda, exaggerations, and deliberate fabrications get thrown out to justify invasion. Not to mention things we had previously had no problem with before were suddenly a serious reason to oppose Saddam. The whole thing was phony and the real purpose was no different than the two phony wars of the 1980's in Afghanistan and between Iran and Iraq. It was all about increasing American power, which necessarily includes weakening other powers.
Um the U.S. did everything to get Saddam to withdrawal before we engaged in hostilities. We even set a deadline for him to withdrawal and stated if he did not we would attack, he thought we were bluffing, we were not.
Issuing an ultimatum is not doing everything.
What training?
Only when it looked like Iran might suceed in conquering Iraq.
Wow, you really don't know anything about this stuff do you? How the hell can you take such a strong position when you don't even have such critical knowledge?
Really we had a say in Soviet Union arms distribution? Is there nothing we can't do?
The Soviet Union was far from alone in supplying Iraq with weaponry. The U.S. did provide Iraq weapons through other channels.
U.S. support to Saddam was minimal at best.
We didn't give him much of our weaponry, for good reason, but our support was critical in the war.