Slashdot Mirror

so far as I know there have been no wars over the outcome of the 100m dash

OTOH, there has been a war over the outcome of a football match...

http://www.onwar.com/aced/nation/ink/india/findiachina1962.htm

You're right to be fair, it's not like America didn't have a surrender like stance when it came to the Suez situation in refusing to give support, much like the French refused to give support to the US over Iraq. France really hasn't shat on America anymore than America has shat on France.

Also: on september 1st, 1939, Germany invades Poland. On september 3rd, 1939, France, UK and other Poland allies declare war against Germany. On september 5, 1939, the US proclaim their neutrality in the conflict. The US joined the conflict not to defend their allies, but in reaction to an attack against themselves.

You're right to be fair, it's not like America didn't have a surrender like stance when it came to the Suez situation in refusing to give support, much like the French refused to give support to the US over Iraq. France really hasn't shat on America anymore than America has shat on France.

Also: on september 1st, 1939, Germany invades Poland. On september 3rd, 1939, France, UK and other Poland allies declare war against Germany. On september 5, 1939, the US proclaim their neutrality in the conflict. The US joined the conflict not to defend their allies, but in reaction to an attack against themselves.

Actually, Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay defeated the Paraguyan army in the War of the Triple Alliance 1864-1870. http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/tango/triple1864.ht m
Brazil also played a small part in the Allied victory of WWII - http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Bunker/3351/camp aigns/brzedit.html

Nowadays? As compared to when? 1920-1934?

The lines in Cyprus delineate a couple of British military bases. Oddly enough, I see no line seperating the Nortern, Turkish-controlled half of the island from the sovereign state of Cyprus.
Background info here: 1974 war.

Or how they kidnapped Japanese civlians.

Or how they starve their own population.

Or even how they test biochemical weapons on whole families - children and all: "The parents were vomiting and dying, but till the very last moment they tried to save kids by doing mouth to mouth breathing."

Fuck those bastards. We should nuke them

So yeah, they're crazy enough.

Of all the evil regimes to be apologetic for, North Korea is about as bad as it gets. Anyone who defends them is objectively defending evil.

According to the CIA world factbook, Iraq's GDP in 2002 was $58 billion. According to this page (first on a google search for gdp germany hitler) Germany's GDP during the war averaged at about $400 billion in 1990 dollars, or >700 billion in 2002 dollars.

AFAIK, while a good part of the world believed that Saddam had WMDs because of the propoganda and fabricated/faulty intelligence (some of which was known to be so), a better part of the world didn't, even when presented with said propoganda and f* intelligence.

A war is pre-emptive if the reasoning given for it is that it's pre-emptive. Look back at the news from before and at the beginning of the war--everyone then said that it was because it was pre-emptive.

The first major embarisment of the French in the American period was during the Franco-Prussian War.Germany for the first time in history united together and abosolutaly crushed the French, even taking captive their king. This proved the might of the newly created German state, and showed that without another Napoleon the French would never again be a top tier military power in the world. It was almost as embarasing as the Japan-Russian War for the Russians or the Italo-Ethiopian War for the Italians.

The first major embarisment of the French in the American period was during the Franco-Prussian War.Germany for the first time in history united together and abosolutaly crushed the French, even taking captive their king. This proved the might of the newly created German state, and showed that without another Napoleon the French would never again be a top tier military power in the world. It was almost as embarasing as the Japan-Russian War for the Russians or the Italo-Ethiopian War for the Italians.

Can you name the first time India started a war? It would really help if you read some history on what happened in '47, '65 and '71. Here are some starters:

• First Kashmir War 1947-1949
• What started the '65 war: Operation Gibraltar
• The causes of the 1971 war

As for why we invaded Panama, I don't know enough of the history of our involvement there to really say. I do find it quite unlikely that we dispatched oh 24,000 troops or so there just to secure General Noreiga.

If you want to understand my claim that USA is an imperial power, you should look into the Panama invasion. There is very little justification for it. The drug thingie was a pretext, just as WMDs in Iraq was a pretext. Here is a summary of the invasion. I don't know where you stand on the econopolitical spectrum, but read this article from Noam Chomsky, who I share many opinions with.

Now, I believe that principle effect of the defeat of the USSR in the Cold War was that the world is now a few feet father away from the brink of global thermonuclear war.

I'm not sure what your point is here. Do you really think the threat of a nuclear war is less? I personally think it is higher now. Anyway, this isn't relevant.

It is tragic that many lives were lost in the process but it was for the greater good.

I don't think I have much to say about that other than, I completely disagree with that view.

Utilitarians don't support tragedy, they support the greatest good for the greatest number of people. You can even make utilitarian arguments for the rightness of capital punishment. I don't swing that way but the point is that utilitarianism is not a very objective standard and I guess that's why you took some shots at me in the above blockquote.

Some people argue that utilitarianism is not liberal (I'm a leftist BTW). I guess I see why. If killing a whole hoarde of people on a bogus war, in the name of greater good, is utilitarian, I guess I don't support it.

Did U.S. isolationism after World War I lead to World War II?

You are the first person I have encountered, who has posited that. The vast majority of the people claim that the harsh policies imposed by the winners of WWI were the cause of WWII (along with the support of fascism by Britain and USA before the rise of Hitler). I don't know how non-interventionism enters into this. USA was involved in WWI. It was a major party that influenced the policies imposed on Germany. If WWI didn't happen, WWII would have been different.

In any case, WWII has nothing to do with interventionism. If anything, it is all about ideologies and conflicts between econopolitical systems. If fascism didn't gain power, Communism would have. If Communism didn't, anarchism may have. Or socialism. Or one of the countless other ideologies.

However, I find it hard to ignore the many cogent arguments that I have read that have pointed towards US isolationist policies as being a major cause of World War II.

I have never heard anyone say that before. Or maybe I don't really understand what you are saying. Are you talking about WWII as a war? Or are you talking about preventing a genocide like the Holocaust? They are two different things. WWII is a war, just like any others. I personally think it would have happened anyway. As I speculated above, if not with the fascists, then with the Communists. Also, a war may have broken out in Asia even if one didn't happen in Europe. Japan was practicing imperialism so it was very expansionist. How would USA stop the war with Japan?

Stopping something like the Holocaust, on the other hand, may have been possible although I don't think it would have happened. No one cared about the Jews back then. There were an "inferior" people and anti-Semitism was rampant. In fact, there were signs in Toronto saying "No Jews" (kind of like "No blacks" or "No dogs").

It makes me wonder what would happen today if we pulled out of all the places we are currently in. Would World War III be just around the corner?

Pulling out would make things better. You are already on t

The United States can't just announce one day that's it's extending its waters and now gets Cuba.

Well that's more or less what they did in the Cuban War. More exactly, they busted Spain out of it, and occupied the island for a few years (virtually making it a protectorate of the USA).

To use cryptology terms, international law is definitely weak against brute force attacks. The US can still extend their waters and claim ownership of Cuba - they'll just have to manage the international outroar (easy part) and destroy Fidel's army (much less easy part - Pigs Bay, Episode II anyone ?)

The problem is that as of now, there is no Cuban army on Sealand to protect it from English invasion and... Hey, wait, that's an idea ! I'm sure Uncle Fidel would happily accept to send Cuban troops to protect Sealand - just to annoy the Imperialists. Besides, it would be much easier to find Ruben Gonzalez's old tracks on Napster :o)

mail fidel.castro@gov.cu -s "Hi, could you send me one or two airborne divisions before mid-June, please ?"

Thomas Miconi