Isn't that strange? [Archive]

spier

08-20-2003, 04:40 PM

The Russians got into their Vietnam right after we got out of
ours? Isn't that strange?

We supported Bin Laden and the Taliban for years, and viewed
them as freedom fighters against the Russians? Isn't that strange?

As late as 1998 the US was paying the salary of every single Taliban
official in Afghanistan? Isn't that strange?

There is more oil and gas in the Caspian Sea area than in Saudi Arabia, but
you need a pipeline through Afghanistan to get the oil out. Isn't that
strange?

UNOCAL, a giant American Oil conglomerate, wanted to build a 1000 mile long
pipeline from the Caspian Sea through Afghanistan to the Arabian Sea. Isn't
that strange?

UNOCAL spent millions of dollars on geological surveys for pipeline
construction, and very nicely courted the Taliban for their support in
allowing the construction to begin. Isn't that strange?

All of the leading Taliban officials were in Texas negotiating with UNOCAL
in 1998. Isn't that strange?

1998-1999 the Taliban changed its mind and threw UNOCAL out of
the country and awarded the pipeline project to a company from Argentina.
Isn't that strange?

John Maresca VP of UNOCAL testified before Congress and said no pipeline
until the Taliban was gone and a more friendly government was established.
Isn't that strange?

1999-2000 The Taliban became the most evil people in the world. Isn't that
strange?

Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American
officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go
ahead by the middle of October. Isn't that strange?

9/11 WTC disaster.

Bush goes to war against Afghanistan even though none of the hijackers
came from Afghanistan. Isn't that strange?

Bush blamed Bin Laden but has never offered any proof saying it's a
"secret". Isn't that strange?

The Taliban offered to negotiate to turn over Bin Laden if we showed them
some proof. We refused; we bombed. Isn't that strange?

Bush said: "This is not about nation building. It's about getting the
terrorists." Isn't that strange?

We have a new government in Afghanistan. Isn't that strange?

The leader of that government formerly worked for UNOCAL. Isn't that
strange?
Bush appoints a special envoy to represent the US to deal with that
new government, who formerly was the "chief consultant to UNOCAL". Isn't
that strange?

The Bush family acquired their wealth through oil? Isn't that strange?

Bush's Secretary of Interior was the President of an oil company
before going to Washington. Isn't that strange?

George Bush Sr. now works with the "Carlysle Group" specializing
in huge oil investments around the world. Isn't that strange?

Condoleezza Rice worked for Chevron before going to Washington. Isn't
that strange?

Chevron named one of its newest "supertankers" after Condolezza. Isn't that
strange?

**** Cheney worked for the giant oil conglomerate Halliburton before
becoming VP. Isn't that strange?

Halliburton gave Cheney a multi-million dollar farewell gift when he left
Halliburton. Isn't that strange?

Halliburton is in the pipeline construction business. Isn't that strange?

There is $6 Trillion worth of oil in the Caspian Sea area. Isn't that
strange?

The US government quietly announces Jan 31, 2002 we will support the
construction of the Trans-Afghanistan pipeline. Isn't that strange?

President Musharref (Pakistan), and Karrzai, (Afghanistan -Unocal) announce
agreement to build proposed gas pipeline from Central Asia to Pakistan via
Afghanistan. Isn't that strange?Yes.

FallenAngel

08-20-2003, 05:01 PM

yes its strange...

...but I hope this doesn't turn into a conspiracy theory. The camps in Afghanistan trained those who conducted the bombings of our embassies in Africa and the USS Cole. So they were already on the **** list...I think 9/11 just upped the time table.

atnadastra

08-20-2003, 05:23 PM

What's really strange is the total lack of documentation to support the above claims.

But, I'm sure you'll be following up your post with links to concrete evidence, won't you, spier?

Argyll

08-20-2003, 05:28 PM

or the documentation to rebuke it?

budanski

08-20-2003, 05:32 PM

Well, when you make the claims, the burdens on you.

California Joe

08-20-2003, 05:37 PM

I think he's a commie pinko or Colin Powell. Just sayin'.

Your pal, Newt.

Argyll

08-20-2003, 05:40 PM

what about counterclaims too?
The he said ,she said,ball is rolling once again,and let the rhetoric begin!.
You know,a lot of this stuff about claims,counterclaims,prove it,no you prove it starts to get tiresome.....nobody wins the argument,until the next post comes along.............but it sure as hell is fun!!! :lol:

budanski

08-20-2003, 05:51 PM

Always a pleasure playing political 'Ping Pong' with ya. :D

Argyll

08-20-2003, 06:03 PM

:lol: :hug:

budanski

08-20-2003, 06:17 PM

http://noisedesignlab.com/buddy/tinman.jpg

[AFSOC]

08-20-2003, 06:36 PM

WHat a great article

SOG

08-20-2003, 07:56 PM

the whole "isnt that strange" **** at the end of every statement really sucked and clouded my judgement.

it all sounds nice an good like the other theories iraq shipped out all its wmd as "supplies" on a US carrier thus allowing us to stay our presence in iraq longer. or the guy who flew a plane into building on 911 who was originally captured by israel for a bus bombing then was let go when the US co-herced israel into signing a temp agreement and thus in a prisoner exchange said terrorist was released and continued terrorist activities that acumulated into 911. this was proved false too. there were actually two terrorists same name different age but man it sure got air time and even a few months ago a guy was spewing it on coast to coast (art bell) and everyone believed him.

id need at least some docs to real news sites not some editorial conspiracist combobulated theory. im not saying its not true but if you want people to actually believe you instead of just people who want to believe you, pony up.

god now to get this out of my system:
"isnt that stupid"
"isnt that stupid"
"isnt that stupid"
"isnt that stupid"
"isnt that stupid"
"isnt that stupid"
"isnt that stupid"

okay, i dont think i have that retarded phrase in my head anymore. isnt that strange..... PHUK!

warchild1/27scout

08-20-2003, 08:08 PM

hell all the dead terrorists walked right into that one, huh? is'nt that strange? :lol:

StarvingStudent47

08-20-2003, 10:05 PM

Isn't it strange how ultra-leftists say we aided the Taliban against the Soviets in the 1980s, when the Taliban Regime only came to power in the second half of the 1990s? Isn't that strange?

springwheat

08-20-2003, 10:46 PM

Whats strange is I am missing a sock after doing laundry. I know they were all accounted for when I started.

usa320

08-20-2003, 10:51 PM

i fell asleep halfway through... rofl

vryhpyammoadded

08-20-2003, 11:36 PM

Cool, now my SUV can suck cheap gas for 30 more years! Maybe I'll buy another bigger one with a V8?

6 Trillion huh? I need to get a job in the oil biz. Then I can buy another SUV for the wife! ;)

Yipppy!

usa320

08-21-2003, 12:44 AM

Isn't It Strange

That no one gives a flying rats ass. rofl :backhand:

spier

08-21-2003, 01:20 AM

What's really strange is the total lack of documentation to support the above claims.

But, I'm sure you'll be following up your post with links to concrete evidence, won't you, spier?
Sure, just point out what you doubt.

I saw somebody calling me leftist. I can see why you would say that, but that is only because you are all cons; posting con material in con forums just isn't fun. I only posted that for the hell of it.

Almost forgot: rofl at all of you, a more predictable herd is hard to find.

Trigger

08-21-2003, 01:48 AM

WHat a great article
Yeah, great as in 'Great Big Bag of Steaming Turd' ®Ol' Dirty Chops
and in this case It's GRRRREAT!

Isn't it strange that people like spier continue to spew the same tired conspiracy theories and bitch and moan and whine about the same old stuff, yet they never seem to have a solution to offer.

Isn't it strange that of all places, spier chose this forum to display his case of internet diharrea?

Isn't it strange that no one gives a flying F*** about what you have to say?
...No, that isn't strange at all.

Ngati Tumatauenga

08-21-2003, 01:55 AM

What was predictable spier?

That you were asked for evidence/sources to back up your quote, or

That we didn't take for granted that your post was the Gods honest truth...

[AFSOC]

08-21-2003, 02:14 AM

Trigger

08-21-2003, 02:21 AM

Gods SoN wrote:

Why do you take offense to other people's opinions?
I take offense when the opinions are expressed for the sole purpose of irritating the forum in general.

Gods SoN wrote:

We supported Bin Laden and the Taliban for years, and viewed
them as freedom fighters against the Russians?
Please, oh please, oh please get a friggin' calendar and a history book and look up 'Taliban'. Then look up 'Russians'.

...What does JFK have to do with this topic?... :cantbeli:

StarvingStudent47

08-21-2003, 02:22 AM

I saw somebody calling me leftist. I can see why you would say that, but that is only because you are all cons; posting con material in con forums just isn't fun. I only posted that for the hell of it.

Almost forgot: rofl at all of you, a more predictable herd is hard to find.

Well, predict this--I'm the one who called you a "leftist," and I'm a card-carrying Democrat who is intending to vote for Wesley Clark in 2004.

None of this changes the fact that the Taliban only came to being a decade after the Soviet-Afghan War ended, so the statement "The USA aided the Taliban in the Soviet-Afghan War" is inaccurate.

Argyll

08-21-2003, 02:30 AM

Isn't it strange that so far nobody has provided us with the material to debunk this? rofl
Isn't it true that there's at least 90% truth within there ;)
Isn't it true that there are elements of truth behind every theory?
Isn't it strange that superman wears his underwear on top of his trousers?

Trigger

08-21-2003, 02:35 AM

Isn't is strange that it's perfectly legal for people to work for oil companies and make money?
Isn't it strange that it's perfectly normal for others to be jealous of other people making money?
It is strange about superman and his underwear. I wonder if it chafes more like that.

Argyll

08-21-2003, 02:42 AM

Especially on hot days!!! :lol:

Seiyuuki

08-21-2003, 02:52 AM

Why do you take offense to other people's opinions?

That stuff is correct and real, no sense in denying it.......................why would you?

We supported Bin Laden and the Taliban for years, and viewed
them as freedom fighters against the Russians?

Thats true, I really dont see what ya'll are complaining about most of the info is true and accurate. The United States government is full of corruption I hate to say. Too many corrupt politicians..

Its people like JFK who were elected but then assassinated because the man wanted a CHANGE for the good of the USA.

The truth is hidden from the public..........

Yeah...like the US government is only one full of corruptions and only US politicians are corrupt.

Let me guess...another Oliver Stone's fan? JFK was far from being the next Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt or (insert admirable and great former President before JFK here).

Profiles in Courage by John F. Kennedy...HE DIDN'T EVEN WRITE THE BOOK...won an award for the book and took credit for it without a words about his "ghostwriter."

"Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country."

"It is now the moment when by common consent we pause to become conscious of our national life and to rejoice in it, to recall what our country has done for each of us, and to ask ourselves what we can do for our country in return."
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

Can you say...PLAGIARISM

[AFSOC]

08-21-2003, 02:57 AM

Trigger do you even know about the Russian War in Afghanistan?

How Bin Laden fought the Russians off there land, it was the Americans who aided them to defeat the Russians. YOU LOOK AT FUKKING history book and look that up.

None of this changes the fact that the Taliban only came to being a decade after the Soviet-Afghan War ended, so the statement

Dude for all we know is that the Taliban was already there just not acting, maybe they were warlords like everyelse is in Afghanistan.

Why did i bring up JFK? CUZ JFK was real he wasnt a corrupt leader like ones today. He served the people of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA he fought for freedom and rights in the COUNTRY, he wanted to make CHANGE. Is our current president doing that today? Is he making changes for the country to make it a better place, to make it the place that the ones before us invision?

Think for second.............on how many people in the country that are suffering of poverty, drugs, racism etc.

Wesley Clark in my opinion would make a great leader....[/url]

Kriz

08-21-2003, 03:27 AM

It's strange that the article has such a crappy layout, or was I the only one who saw that ? Maybe I'm strange :roll:

front

08-21-2003, 03:33 AM

Take it easy "Gods Son". Your avatar is the 82nd Airborne patch for a reason.

All the theories (conspiracy or otherwise) will flow on for years. The majority of the people who are constrained, within a nation, by the "Iraq" border are now free of that that brutal thug. A minority do not think they should be.

Fine. They are going to have to live with that fact... UN/Amercian/Arab League occupation/liberation/emancipation... or not.

"How Bin Laden fought the Russians off there land"

My friend? More Soviet soldiers died of disease as from enemy action:

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/fmsopubs/issues/roadwar/roadwar.htm

The Soviets fought themselves out of Afghanistan as did the British a hundred years earlier (if they were even let).

http://www.rugreview.com/afgwar/3foto8.gif

Take a breather. :-)

cheers

front

Fargin

08-21-2003, 03:49 AM

Ngati Tumatauenga

08-21-2003, 04:06 AM

Every 'good' lie has an element of truth in it.

No one has provided any evidence to debunk it.

No one has provided any evidence to prove it.

Fargin, define the 'truth' for me.

spier

08-21-2003, 09:01 AM

What was predictable spier?

That you were asked for evidence/sources to back up your quote, or

That we didn't take for granted that your post was the Gods honest truth...I was more thinking about how you all started insulting me, instead of trying to dissect the article.

Here some of the things I thought could be disputeable, confirmed(since you people weren't able to point out anything specific. :roll:) :

Thursday, December 4, 1997 Published at 19:27 GMT
World: West Asia
Taleban in Texas for talks on gas pipeline
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/west_asia/37021.stm

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/1998/09/980912-afghan.htm

On second thought, I am not that bored..

Fargin

08-21-2003, 09:11 AM

Fargin, define the 'truth' for me.

I can't. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=truth)

But I know the difference between trying to get people to listen to me and to not. I know how to start a dialouge, how to act in a debate and how to express myself so my opponents actually listen.

Saranof

08-21-2003, 09:47 AM

Isn't it strange how ultra-leftists say we aided the Taliban against the Soviets in the 1980s, when the Taliban Regime only came to power in the second half of the 1990s? Isn't that strange?

...and isn't it strange that the US government supports 85% av the worlds oppressive states according to the UN and Amnesty?
But of course, the UN is just a big commie convention, and so we can trust Bush and co istead rofl

Jooglae

08-21-2003, 10:26 AM

It was the time of Cold War, and to those who supported market economy and capitalism, it really didn't matter wheter a leader was a democratic one or not. As long as he(or she) was an ally of the U.S., being a dictator or prosecuting, torturing, and executing thousands of your own people for no particular reason was simply overlooked. So was the case of the States. It supported corrupted, pro-US governments in Southeast Asia, Korea, Chile, Panama, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and other various nations worldwide. It was really unevitable for the US government then, but now the old policy backfires.

One bad thing with the diplomacy of the current administration, I believe, is that they have a double standard in judging who are their friends or enemies. Samuel Huntington and Chomsky all said it: if it was in the case of Israelis, it would be a self-defensive action. Had it been Libyans or Lebanese, it would be an irrefuttable act of terror. This is what Arabs think that really bites.

I don't know about the the 2nd Iraq war....But I am one of those people who believe that the real reason was the oil. After all, why would you risk so much for so little?

ShotOver

08-21-2003, 10:34 AM

People that write those stories are the same people that think Elvis is still alive, Saddam Hussain is George Bush's younger brother and John wayne is living in mexico on a cow ranch.

:|

Argyll

08-21-2003, 10:58 AM

You mean Elvis is Dead?
No way man,I'm gutted,I was only talking to him and Bob Marley the other day........that Bob Marley is a character and a half!!

Haiw

08-21-2003, 11:20 AM

Trigger

08-21-2003, 12:07 PM

Gods SoN wrote:

YOU LOOK AT FUKKING history book and look that up.

Dude for all we know is that the Taliban was already there just not acting, maybe they were warlords like everyelse is in Afghanistan.

Think for second.............on how many people in the country that are suffering of poverty, drugs, racism etc.

Careful now, you're starting to slip back into theGHOST/Tupac mode....

You make it so easy.

Grimjack

08-21-2003, 12:09 PM

Hey Saranof isn't it strange your country doesn't ever take a side?!They just make money off both sides,and sit around and talk about how great the EU will be with them leading it. I'll tell you what,I'll be in Amsterdam this coming March.Why don't you meet me so I can break my foot off in your ass.That goes for the rest of you punch drunk Swedes.

ibstolidude

08-21-2003, 12:10 PM

As far as the article in question - take it or leave it...some can be proved (true ofr false), some can never be proved (true or false), but

GodSon -

The name of the taliban alone is cause enough for understanding from where the "movement" came. The name means - students - named for the groups/movement of students/ refugees from the afghan wars living in Pakistan. They first became a force in Afghan politics in 1994, when the country was in the throes of a civil war between north and south. Many Afghans welcomed a new movement that seemed honest, devout, and eager to impose order, an end to the decades of war - still to day the most common reason many of the "simple people" of afghanistan have forsaken the old government - they seek a return to a degree of normalacy.

It is a common misconception that is often used to critise the US policies, when in fact the US did little to directly support the Taliban's goals..it is wonderful to think that the monstrous apetite of the US's involvment/meddling on other countries came back to bite them, but the reality does not support it in THIS case...although many faliures to curtail the regime or to take steps to prevent the events and failures of US policies in Afghanistan were not taken/failed and warrant great critisism, many people prefer to make up their cases and instead claim the US created the Taliban.

Too many people try and claim "you don't know history if you don't agree with me." The reality is much different.

I posted the following previously about the Taiban's rise to power:
"It was impossible for the US to support the Taliban during the 80's as the Taliban rose to power in Kabul in 1996.
Anticipating the cop-out of" the US supported those that became the Taliban" -The majority of the leaders and upper ranks of the Taliban was comprised of Afghans who originally grew up in refugee camps in Pakistan and were taught this fiery brand of fundamentalist Islam in Madrases. -hence the name "Talib" - "student"
If any US situation created, which aided in the creation of the Taliban, it would be the US withdrawal of support from Afghanistan when at the time of percieved Soviet failure.. as the soviets withdrew (89) (and strong US aid subsided) the soviet placed government (Nagil Bila) continued until overthrown in 1992.. the country fell back into a "warlord" system that in essence was a series of fiefdom's lacking a central government of power...these faction began fighting for the central government control... it was a digression of a hundred years, the economy was shot, the infastructure was destroyed ... the warlords fell into seeking vegencance upon each other and claiming/spreading their own area's of influence. Ethnic division bred into this internal wafare.

Fighting subsequently continued among the various mujahidin factions, giving rise to a state of warlordism that was an opportunity the Taliban took. The Taliban was comprosed of the Pashtun ethnic group which comprised 45% of the population - the next closest group the Tajiks 24%. Backed by foreign sponsors ( arab money and the Pakistani intelligence services that helped train them), the Taliban developed as a political force and eventually seized power. The Taliban were able to capture most of the country, approx 90% at it's peak. They took Kabul in 1996 - gained the seat of power and began a rule impossing Sharia—Muslim law—.

There was certainly a failure of US policy during the end of the Soviet occupation, but lets call apples, apples and oranges, oranges...the US did not back the Taliban movement. The arguement could be made that our efforts to arm the Mujahedin throught the use of the Pakistani Intelligence service as a"proxy", resulted in the growth of the PIS which went on to aid the Taliban, but to claim the US supported the Taliban is just plain false.

The entire mess of a country results from the arbitrary design of borders without regard to ethnic groups during the end of the British occupation in 1919."

If you would like to argue that the US weapons that were given tot hte Mujihadeen during the 80's were used against the US...not quite. Certainly some of the weapons survuved, the majority of weapons used against the US forces were soveit siezed, Iranian made, Pakistani, Chinese ordandance, or improvised... there has yet to be a case of coalition aircraft being hit with US stinger missles/ utilizing carbon copy batteries. In case you have not been to afghanistan see the UserSubmitted section for what an Afghan ammo dump looks like - little of what we left lasted the 10+ years until our return.

The Taliban which was not supported by UBL until after their existance and struggle to power began; sought funding from Saudi Arabi and Pakistan....eventually UBL who's beliefs in strict muslim law mimiced the taliban's rhetoric..began a realationship with the Taliban..to include offering monetary support, some leadership, and described by many as an iconic figure. With his involvement and "leadership" (yes Mullah Omar was the leader) also began to trickle in to the Taliban ideology the beliefs the UBL holds towards the west. Other than that foriegn aid the Taliban chief iternal forms of support were from drug trade and smuggling taxations.

Certainly the US has a slew of policies that need revision and critique, but to make false claims and then critique others for their lack of history knowledge does not help... **If we wish to lambast the US on the issue then perhaps the reoccuring "fingerprint" of Saudi Arabia should be discussed and the lack of US concern of this continued appearance.**??

GAFE

08-21-2003, 12:13 PM

I do not know about you guys, as americans you don´t really care what are you leaders doing to maintain the american way of life, or just make more money, who cares right? people die every day anyway, countries have abused other countries etc, look at Rome, its the US today, and what can we do and will do, nothing really. As a soldier you go and kill if you are told to do so, you guard, you help, you say how hi. But as a soldier you should also know.

http://www.hereinreality.com/carlyle.html

http://www.dyncorp-sucks.com/carlyle.html

Doesn´t hurt.

Trigger

08-21-2003, 12:20 PM

Well said ibstolidude woot

Grimjack

08-21-2003, 12:25 PM

Are you kidding Gafe?If it wasn't for the U.S. your country would be worse then it is now. Don't bite the hand that feeds you,and keeps you safe.Yeah viva mexico,you can't even drink the damn water!

ibstolidude

08-21-2003, 12:25 PM

seems to suit your country just fine...
http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/mexico/1997-0214-newsday-scandals.html
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/mexico/usa/soldier_3000.html
now shal we couple that with the number of arrests of Senior Defense forces officials on drug traffiking charges...
The same drug trafficking the Mexican government has sought assistance to curtail?
the same drug traffickers the mexican governments refers to as Narc- terrorists?

My point isn't "you country also lies and cheat" because ALL GOVERNMENTS lie and cheat...such is the nature of humans.

But to take such a narrow view of the world of politicals is foolish.. I note that theDyncorp site failed to mention that they contract for almost ALL services with almost anyone in the world....the are a predominant outsource group for Internet Technologies and Networking...but I guess that didn't fit your needs.

lefador1

08-21-2003, 12:28 PM

I'll tell you what,I'll be in Amsterdam this coming March.Why don't you meet me so I can break my foot off in your ass.That goes for the rest of you punch drunk Swedes.

LOL, may recommend you just concentrate on getting some weed action while in Amsterdam that will mellow out all that bottled aggression.

In case you'd never notice before, Sweden has been a neutral nation for the past century or so.... LOL rofl blaming them for not taking sides now is a bit ridiculous really.

ibstolidude

08-21-2003, 12:30 PM

Very funny post!

Saranof

08-21-2003, 12:30 PM

People that write those stories are the same people that think Elvis is still alive, Saddam Hussain is George Bush's younger brother and John wayne is living in mexico on a cow ranch.

:|

...except that we do have the facts on our side.
The people living in a story world are the people thinking that the US only does good, and that everone who thinks otherwise is a "freedom hateing, towelheaded falafelchomping commie" :roll:

lefador1

08-21-2003, 12:32 PM

Are you kidding Gafe?If it wasn't for the U.S. your country would be worse then it is now. Don't bite the hand that feeds you,and keeps you safe.Yeah viva mexico,you can't even drink the damn water!

Well our SouthWest used to be known as NorthWest Mexico is not like we are "feeding" them for free is it? And we are protecting the Mexicans from whom exactly, ze Germans?

Grimjack

08-21-2003, 12:49 PM

He219

08-21-2003, 12:53 PM

Isn't it strange that we added color (http://www.moneyfactory.com/newmoney/main.cfm/currency/interactivebill) to the 'Greenback'.

http://www.moneyfactory.com/newmoney/images/currency/money_sm.gif

:)

Isn't This (http://www.jibjab.com/cartoons/political/ar_movie01_home.htm) strange...

usa320

08-21-2003, 01:11 PM

Its people like JFK who were elected but then assassinated because the man wanted a CHANGE for the good of the USA.

Of course the FBI assasinated JFK... :roll:

IGNORAMUS...Stop depriving a village somewhere of their idiot.

GAFE

08-21-2003, 01:35 PM

The Carlyle Group
The Washington Post
The Baltimore Chronicle
The New York Times
CNN
CNN Money

Escuse me, why don´t you READ. As for US feeding Mexico, sure, we feed you too, with all that dope.

Protection? from who? from you I would say.

And yes Governments do anything to maintain power Etc, now, was I really ofending the states by stating the truth, if you could call that, yeah, my country is full of drug trafickers, so what, the US is as Bad, who lets in all those drugs anyway?

The US had done as much good as much bad, so what, it´s not an attack, it´s the way you operate to survive.

And tell you something, one thing the americans have is an efective army, thats why we train there, we have also trained in Guatemala, Israel, and germany. Suits my country? and war because of the cartel taking over? yeah right, the person who wrote that is a JOURNALIST and FORMER DEFENSE guy who probably wanted to sell his book.

And i am NOT a US hater. "Oh but you are posting anti US stuff" aha, so what, what does the DAM first amendment say anyway.

Oh, The more you READ, criterion builds up enough not to be an ASS at other people for posting up OPINIONS.

Anyway, you guys take care, you have a country to run.

a. enders

08-21-2003, 01:36 PM

Interesting little thing.Love to see the evidence to back it up,same goes for those trying to debunk it. :|

And JFK was assassinated in a joint CIA/Mafia operation.They imported five or six shooters and got them out.And it all had a little to do with Cuba... ;)

spier

08-21-2003, 01:36 PM

LOL! Yeah maybe I should score some. But anyways,I'm talking about Swedens past not just now. You guys never take a side. You're worse then the Swiss. As for protecting Mexico,yeah maybe the germans(you know how they like to fight)or maybe the french(heh heh yeah right).I'm not blind to the wrong my country does,but it seems most people are blind to the good we do.It's easy to forget when someone isn't reminding you.Take lend lease for example.We just wrote it off,and I'm glad we did after all we were in it together.It doesn't really matter I guess,you haters are going to hate no matter what we do. One of these days the U.S. wont be there for one of you whiners,then what? You'll pay the fiddler one way or another.Or how about this, don't take lend lease as an example.
Even as Churchill and Hopkins talked, Roosevelt was announcing the financial solution; the United States would build what Britain needed and then lease it to her, on a rental basis, with payment to be delayed until after the war. But before this Lend-Lease arrangement came into force, Britain must pay all the debts she could in gold, and by the sale of British commercial assets in the United States. It was a hard bargain, depriving Britain of what was left of her economic strength. ?Basically, all the wealth that the British Empire had accumulated was shipped off to the US. Generous, eh?

pinkeye

08-21-2003, 01:48 PM

Timeline of Competition between Unocal and Bridas for the Afghanistan Pipeline

The Principal Players: Unocal | Bridas (Bridas has since merged with BP Amoco Argentina)

1992
January Gas exploration rights for Yashlar block in eastern Turkmenistan awarded to Argentine firm; Bridas Production profits to be split 50-50 between Bridas and Turkmenistan government.

1993
February Bridas awarded Keimir Oil and Gas Block in western Turkmenistan. 75-25 split in profits, in favor of Bridas.
March President Niyazov of Turkmenistan hires Alexander Haig (former U.S. National Security Adviser) to lobby for increased U.S. investment in Turkmenistan. and for a softening of position on pipelines through Iran.

1994
September Bridas prevented from exporting oil from Keimir Block.
November Working group established to study gas pipeline routes. Taliban capture Kandahar.

1995
January Keimir Block deal is renegotiated. Bridas's share of profits reduced to 65 percent. Oil exports allowed.
March Benazir Bhutto, Prime Minister of Pakistan, and Turkmen president Niyazov conduct feasibility study of Afghan pipeline.
April Turkmenistan and Iran to build first 180 miles of proposed pipeline via Iran to Turkey. United States oppose financing pipeline through Iran. Turkmen officials in Texas at invitation of Bridas. While there, they also meet meet Unocal officials.
August Oil and gas discovered by Bridas at Yashlar. Bridas representatives meet Taliban for first time.
October President Niyazov signs agreement in New York with Unocal/Delta.
December Ban on Bridas's oil exports from Keimir imposed by Turkmenistan for second time.

1996
February Agreement between Afghan government and Bridas signed. Suit filed by Bridas in Texas against Unocal/Delta for interference in its business in Turkmenistan.
March U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan, Tom Simmons, urges Bhutto to give exclusive rights to Unocal. Bhutto offended and demands apology.
May Turkmenisatn, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, and Afghanistan agree that Turkmenistan should name the consortium to build the pipeline. Opening of 100-mile railway route linking Turkmenistan and Iran.
August Unocal/Delta and Turkmenistan's Turkmenrosgaz along with Russia's Gazprom enter into agreement for pipeline project.
Septmeber Unocal says it will give aid to to Afghan warlords once they agree to form a council to supervise the project. Taliban take Kabul.
October Unocal expresses suport for Taliban takover, saying it makes pipeline project easier. Unocal later says it was misquoted.
November Bridas signs agreement with Taliban and Gen. Dostum to build pipeline.
December Turkey to buy Turkmen gas through Iran.

1997
January Turkmenistan signs exploration agreement with Mobil and Monument Oil. U.N. Under Secretary General Akashi criticizes oil companies and warlords for pipeline projects.
February Taliban in Washington to seek recognition. Taliban meet with Unocal. Taliban travel to Argentina as guests of Bridas. Upon return, Taliban meet with Saudi Intelligence chief, Prince Turki al-Faysal, in Jeddah.
March Unocal sets up office in Kandahar; Bridas does likewise in Kabul.
April Taliban announce criteria for awarding contract: The company that starts work first wins.
Unocal President John Imle baffled by statement.
June Unocal says peace is necessary for construction of pipeline, otherwise the project could take years. Bridas officials meet Taliban and say that they are "interested in beginning work in any kind of security situation."
July Pakistan, Turkmenistan, and Unocal sign new contract extending Unocal's deadline by one year to start project by December 1998. In a policy shift, United Staes says it will not object to Turkmenisatn-Turkey pipeline through Iran.
August Shell's Alan Parsley meets Niyazov and promises help on Turkmenistan-Turkey pipeline. Taliban say Bridas offer better terms and expect to enter into agreement with them.
September Turkmenistan opens tenders for oil companies to take up new concessions along the Caspian. Niyazov, 57, has heart operation in Munich—concern grows about his health, and who would replace him should he die. Bridas sells 60 percent of the company's stakes in Latin America to Amoco. The two agree to form a new company to run operations jointly. Taliban delegation in Argentina to discuss pipeline deal with Bridas.
October Taliban delegation visits Ashkhbad and agrees to set up tripartite commission with Pakistan and Turkmenistan to explore Unocal pipeline project. Centgas Pipeline Ltd. formed in Ashkhabad: Unocal owns 46.5 percent, Delta Oil owns 15 percent, Turkmenistan's national gas company owns 7 percent, Itochu Oil owns 6.5 percent, Inpex owns 6.5 percent, Crescent Group owns 3.5 percent, Hyundai Engineering owns 5 percent. Taliban undecided which consortium to join.
November Taliban in United States to visit Unocal and U.S. State Department officials.
December Turkmenistan and Iran inaugarate 120-mile-long gas pipeline between the two countries.

1998
January Bridas awarded US$50 million by International Court of Arbitration in Paris for money owed by Turkmen government for refined products provided to Keimir refinery.
February Gazprom pulls out of Unocal consortium, shares re-distributed, giving Unocal 54 percent.
March Unocal says pipeline on hold as unfeasible because of Afghan war. Turkmenistan anxious for work to begin soon. Unocal asks Pakistan to extend deadline to October 1998. Deadline cannot be met, says Unocal, because of Afghan civil war.
June Objections to Afghan pipeline deal by some shareholders at Unocal's annual meeting. Unocal says it has spent US$10-15 million on the project since 1995 and intends to give US$1 million to Afghan charities in 1998.
August After U.S. missile strikes against Afghanistan, Unocal suspends pipeline project and asks American staff to leave.
September Environmentalists in California ask Attorney General to dissolve Unocal for crimes against humanity, the environment, and for its relationship with the Taliban.
October A Texas judge dismisses Bridas's US$15 billion suit against Unocal for preventing them developing gas fields in Turkmenistan. Judge says dispute covered by Turkmen and Afghan law, not Texas law.
November Unocal withdraws from a US$2.9 billion pipeline project to bring natural gas from Turkmenistan to Turkey.
December Citing low oil prices, concerns over Osama bin Laden, and pressure from women's groups, Unocal withdraws from Afghan pipeline consortium. Unocal also announces a 40 percent drop in capital spending for 1999 because of low oil prices.

1999
January Turkmenistan's foreign minister visits Pakistan; says pipeline project still alive.
February Carlos Bulgheroni, co-chairman of Bridas, visits Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, and Russia for talks with leaders.
March Turkmenistan's Foreign Minister Sheikh Muradov meets with Mullah Omar in Kandahar to discuss pipeline.
April Pakistan, Turkmenistan, and Taliban sign agreement to revive pipeline project.
May Taliban delegation signs agreements with Turkmenistan to buy gas and electricity.

This timeline owes a heavy debt to Ahmed Rashid's excellent study, Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil, and Fundamentalism in Central Asia (Yale UP, 2000). Wherever possible, the information has been cross-checked against Unocal and BP Amoco Argentina's archives of press releases, Pratt's Oil Digest, Oil and Gas Magazine, Pravda, Moscow's Interfax News Agency, the ITAR-TASS news agency, the U.S. Department of Energy

pinkeye

08-21-2003, 01:48 PM

The Taliban, Unocal and a Pipeline
Brooke Shelby Biggs, Pacific News Service
October 12, 2001

Whenever the US takes military action in the Middle East, critics are quick to ask: Is this really about oil?
Clearly, that question is moot with respect to the current air strikes against Afghanistan. But Central Asia experts point out that energy politics did help set the stage for the current crisis, and that at least one US oil company has provided aid to the Taliban regime in pursuit of a business deal.

Ever since the fall of the Soviet Union, Western energy interests have hungrily eyed the massive, untapped oil and natural gas reserves in the former Soviet republics of Central Asia. It's estimated that roughly 15 billion barrels of oil and about 9 trillion cubic meters of natural gas lie beneath the soil of Afghanistan's neighbors, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. One calculation puts the potential value of Central Asian fossil fuels at $3 trillion.

Afghanistan itself is not known to have major energy reserves. Instead, the country's most valuable natural resource is its location: It sits smack between the oil and gas fields of its neighbors and potentially huge markets in Pakistan, India, and beyond. So in the mid-1990s, while Russia, China, Iran, and several European nations squabbled over pipelines through Russia and Iran, California-based oil and gas giant Unocal was looking at another route -- from Turkmenistan straight through Afghanistan to Pakistan or India. To build such a pipeline, however, the company would have to dance cheek-to-cheek with the Taliban, who were then rising to power.

Unocal's strategy was straightforward enough: in 1996, the company cobbled together a coalition of six energy companies and the government of Turkmenistan, and went head to head with an Argentinian rival, in a race to win Afghanistan's blessing for a $2 billion gas-pipeline project.

Unocal has long been criticized for doing business in countries with repressive governments, and the company wasn't afraid to pursue the Taliban. "We're an oil and gas company. We go where the oil and gas is," Unocal spokesman Mike Thatcher told MotherJones.com.

According to one business analyst's report, Unocal courted both the Taliban and the rival Northern Alliance, but paid special attention on the Taliban. In 1997, the Unocal vice president in charge of the pipeline project was quoted as saying that his company had provided "non-cash bonus payments" to members of the regime in return for their cooperation.

"We basically had to 'pre-sell' them on the idea of this pipeline," says Thatcher. "Some of them didn't understand the idea of profit motive. We had to educate them."

The approach seemed to work. By late 1997, a Taliban delegation visited Unocal's offices in Sugarland, Texas to meet with company executives. A few days later, the Taliban's minister of mines met with the State Department's top official for South Asia. The visit, which came just a month after then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright chastised the regime for its human-rights record, was arranged by Unocal.

"US interest in the lucrative gas pipeline... gives the appearance that while democracy and women's rights are defended in public, commercial interests may really drive US policy toward the Taliban," the Washington Times' Toni Marshall and Tom Carter opined at the time.

Ahmed Rashid, a journalist who has written extensively about Central Asia, says that US willingness to look the other way in the interest of profit helped the Taliban and other authoritarian regimes in the region gain legitimacy. "[T]his game has continued," he told the radio program Living on Earth, "and has unfortunately resulted in probably destabilizing Central Asia."

So did Unocal ever strike a deal with the Taliban? That depends on whom you ask. According to the US Department of Energy, "In January 1998, the Taliban signed an agreement that would allow a proposed 890-mile, $2-billion, 1.9-billion-cubic-feet-per-day natural gas pipeline project led by Unocal to proceed." Other reports put the date of the deal even earlier. But Unocal now denies that a firm agreement was ever reached.

All the company had, according to Thatcher, was a "letter of support" signed by representatives of both the Taliban and the Northern Alliance. "It wasn't a binding business deal," he says, "just a piece of paper that basically said they liked the idea of the project."

But even with a symbolic nod from the Taliban, the pipeline never got off -- or into -- the ground. In August 1998, the US launched retaliatory air strikes in Sudan and Afghanistan in retaliation for the bombing of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Investors bailed out of the pipeline project in droves; several months later Unocal quit CentGas, saying it was unwilling to collaborate with the oppressive regime, at least until it was recognized as a legitimate government by the West.

Still, in 1999 reports from Pakistan suggested that Unocal was considering rejoining Centgas. Unocal vehemently denied the reports, and Thatcher insists the company has no plans for pipelines in Afghanistan.

"There is compelling economic logic for a pipeline there," he says. "We're not going to do it, but sooner or later, someone will."

budanski

08-21-2003, 02:01 PM

Afghanistan itself is not known to have major energy reserves. Instead, the country's most valuable natural resource is its location: It sits smack between the oil and gas fields of its neighbors and potentially huge markets in Pakistan, India, and beyond.

Wouldnt it be better to directly invade Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan for the oil instead of going for a "potential" market in the "WEALTHY" nation of Afghanistan? Aw cmon, if it were all about the oil there, BP(british petroleum) which happens to be the THE LARGEST oil company in the world, would've had their hands in it as well. My bad, they already do. :P

ibstolidude

08-21-2003, 03:32 PM

I'm not quite sure I understand where the point of this article is aimed?

Whenever the US takes military action in the Middle East, critics are quick to ask: Is this really about oil?

- I should hope so, it is the predominate point of US strategic interests, after all governments are self promoting they should atleast promote the interests of their people.

Ever since the fall of the Soviet Union, Western energy interests have hungrily eyed the massive, untapped oil and natural gas reserves in the former Soviet republics of Central Asia. It's estimated that roughly 15 billion barrels of oil and about 9 trillion cubic meters of natural gas lie beneath the soil of Afghanistan's neighbors, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. One calculation puts the potential value of Central Asian fossil fuels at $3 trillion.

sounds like smart business.

So in the mid-1990s, while Russia, China, Iran, and several European nations squabbled over pipelines through Russia and Iran, California-based oil and gas giant Unocal was looking at another route -- from Turkmenistan straight through Afghanistan to Pakistan or India.
- glad to see world economy and free enterprise at work.

"We're an oil and gas company. We go where the oil and gas is," Unocal spokesman Mike Thatcher told MotherJones.com.

- not my first choice for morality, but it is a free enterprise.

In 1997, the Unocal vice president in charge of the pipeline project was quoted as saying that his company had provided "non-cash bonus payments" to members of the regime in return for their cooperation.

- also called - Baksheesh - for those not familiar with Afghan culture you pay a little bride for EVERY thing, from a tire change to a hot tip, to meeting with a local official...it is they way afghan business is done.

By late 1997, a Taliban delegation visited Unocal's offices in Sugarland, Texas to meet with company executives. A few days later, the Taliban's minister of mines met with the State Department's top official for South Asia. The visit, which came just a month after then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright chastised the regime for its human-rights record, was arranged by Unocal. - not uncommon and considering my onpinion of Madeleine HALF-bright not surprising.

"US interest in the lucrative gas pipeline... gives the appearance that while democracy and women's rights are defended in public, commercial interests may really drive US policy toward the Taliban," the Washington Times' Toni Marshall and Tom Carter opined at the time. - not sure hoe one can assume this event of a company seeking business drove the US foreign policy considering US aid to the country was actually cut, and even the article quoted here will go on to talk about the air strikes in 98. - so obviously it didn't shape the policy too much becasue we turned around and bombed them.

Investors bailed out of the pipeline project in droves; several months later Unocal quit CentGas, saying it was unwilling to collaborate with the oppressive regime, at least until it was recognized as a legitimate government by the West.
- so essentially common sense won out in the end and the investors decided against it. Sounds like a they did a good thing.

In my eyes it is most unfortunate that the pipeline was unable to work! Think of the political and economic opportunities we would have had should it have succeeded!!
This would have created a situation that the Pakistani's, the Turkmens, the Afghans as well as several international companies all had a stake in the country of afghanistan. It would have produced jobs in a country that has none, and provided captial to a needed economy.
More importantly it would have forced greater pressure to have been brought to bear on the Taliban Government under the threat of US actions post 9/11. The US operations would have disrupted a whole micro-economy and would have force the countries neighbors to place more plolitical pressure on the situation.
- prior even to that the threat of a higher US/Europe taxation on oil that passed throught the proposed pipeline could have been used help curb Britians #1 source of opium and a major European producer.
- think of the political pressure an alliance in which a US or any western company holds the key to the Afghan economy!! That would have been outstanding in order to offer an alternative to the "welfare government" that relied on smuggling and drug trafficking, and the support of terrorists in order to support themselves. It is a shame we didn;t offer them this alternative sooner.
- ** as I posted earlier the greatest US tragedy of Afghanistan isn't some cocked up story of creating the Taliban (which we didn't) but the withdrawal of US support post Soviet failure...it is unfortunate we did start these ventures immediately after the 92 communist government fell, and created a stituation that the Talibs never could have taken a hold in.

pinkeye

08-21-2003, 04:29 PM

Whenever the US takes military action in the Middle East, critics are quick to ask: Is this really about oil?

- I should hope so, it is the predominate point of US strategic interests, after all governments are self promoting they should atleast promote the interests of their people.

so does this mean you believe that oil was the determining factor in the bush administration's invasion of iraq?

Ever since the fall of the Soviet Union, Western energy interests have hungrily eyed the massive, untapped oil and natural gas reserves in the former Soviet republics of Central Asia. It's estimated that roughly 15 billion barrels of oil and about 9 trillion cubic meters of natural gas lie beneath the soil of Afghanistan's neighbors, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. One calculation puts the potential value of Central Asian fossil fuels at $3 trillion.

-sounds like smart business.

but at what cost? while corporations and governments grow richer, the people of central asia and other areas continue to live in grinding poverty, which in part explains the appeal of religious fundamentalism. corporations are not known to share the wealth, and, to boot, they cause extensive environmental destruction in such areas, among other problems. this must end.

So in the mid-1990s, while Russia, China, Iran, and several European nations squabbled over pipelines through Russia and Iran, California-based oil and gas giant Unocal was looking at another route -- from Turkmenistan straight through Afghanistan to Pakistan or India.

- glad to see world economy and free enterprise at work.

again, free enterprise with no restrictions, no safeguards?

"We're an oil and gas company. We go where the oil and gas is," Unocal spokesman Mike Thatcher told MotherJones.com.

- not my first choice for morality, but it is a free enterprise.

By late 1997, a Taliban delegation visited Unocal's offices in Sugarland, Texas to meet with company executives. A few days later, the Taliban's minister of mines met with the State Department's top official for South Asia. The visit, which came just a month after then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright chastised the regime for its human-rights record, was arranged by Unocal. - not uncommon and considering my onpinion of Madeleine HALF-bright not surprising.

"US interest in the lucrative gas pipeline... gives the appearance that while democracy and women's rights are defended in public, commercial interests may really drive US policy toward the Taliban," the Washington Times' Toni Marshall and Tom Carter opined at the time.

- not sure hoe one can assume this event of a company seeking business drove the US foreign policy considering US aid to the country was actually cut, and even the article quoted here will go on to talk about the air strikes in 98. - so obviously it didn't shape the policy too much becasue we turned around and bombed them.

Investors bailed out of the pipeline project in droves; several months later Unocal quit CentGas, saying it was unwilling to collaborate with the oppressive regime, at least until it was recognized as a legitimate government by the West.
- so essentially common sense won out in the end and the investors decided against it. Sounds like a they did a good thing.

-In my eyes it is most unfortunate that the pipeline was unable to work! Think of the political and economic opportunities we would have had should it have succeeded! This would have created a situation that the Pakistani's, the Turkmens, e Afghans as well as several international companies all had a stake in the country of afghanistan. It would have produced jobs in a country that has none, and provided captial to a needed economy.

this is purely hypothetical and highly idealistic, for this scenario hasn't occured yet. one just has to visit nigeria, columbia, mexico, angola, gabon, etc. to witness first-hand that such scenarios do not materialise. oil exploitation in developing countries very rarely leads to economic prosperity, rising standards of living, etc., for numerous reasons, including government corruption and lack of social investment on the part of oil companies.

-More importantly it would have forced greater pressure to have been brought to bear on the Taliban Government under the threat of US actions post 9/11. The US operations would have disrupted a whole micro-economy and would have force the countries neighbors to place more plolitical pressure on the situation.

- prior even to that the threat of a higher US/Europe taxation on oil that passed throught the proposed pipeline could have been used help curb Britians #1 source of opium and a major European producer.

according to reports, opium production in 2002 resumed to pre-u.s. invasion levels. apparently levels had decreased dramatically in 2001 when the taliban "banned" production, but since the u.s. invasion production has resumed and increased. there are many news reports on this issue, just do a google search.

- think of the political pressure an alliance in which a US or any western company holds the key to the Afghan economy!! That would have been outstanding in order to offer an alternative to the "welfare government" that relied on smuggling and drug trafficking, and the support of terrorists in order to support themselves. It is a shame we didn;t offer them this alternative sooner.
- ** as I posted earlier the greatest US tragedy of Afghanistan isn't some cocked up story of creating the Taliban (which we didn't) but the withdrawal of US support post Soviet failure...it is unfortunate we did start these ventures immediately after the 92 communist government fell, and created a stituation that the Talibs never could have taken a hold in.[/quote]

ibstolidude

08-21-2003, 05:06 PM

- Who are we to be so concieted as to tell the Afghans they cannot have Big Business move in....the predominent theme of the "simple people" (as they often call a the common man) is when will the companies arrive?

- Because we fear big business and dislike what we percieve as their greed and cut throat attitude for a man living in a mud hut in afghanistan, this DOES NOT mean an Afghani has the same views...they beg for the oil companies, they beg for the steel mills, they beg for the concrete factories, one the other biggest disappointments from them was , "why hasn't the US sent it's companies?"

- Although we often try and demonize the companies, the Union Carbides are not the norm they are the exception... we love the 15 second news bites about the .50 cents a day worker, but tend to forget it was a man who last year DID NOT know that boiling water will kill germs, that had NO education, lived in a area plagued by draught, famine and war for 2 decades!

but at what cost? while corporations and governments grow richer, the people of central asia and other areas continue to live in grinding poverty, which in part explains the appeal of religious fundamentalism. corporations are not known to share the wealth, and, to boot, they cause extensive environmental destruction in such areas, among other problems. this must end.

- How concieted and selfish are YOU? "extensive environment destruction"??...these people don't have a pot to piss in LITERALLY! they **** and piss in the corner! and you want to keep out business so you can further your anti-globalization (ofcourse you are apart of it as you are on the INTERNET) agenda? How concieted one must be.. I also bet you were the kind of guy in the early 90's that wanted to see the local ranger's (not the USARanger) armed to keep people from cutting down the rain forrest, "I mean screw the fact that they cut down the forrest for farm land because they are too poor to buy decent plowed land and have no job, I want my greenpeace ecco-plan to kick in - look I got the T shirt (most likely made by those .50 a day workers)"

- The people of afghanistan did not conduct a terror campaign against the US because the US wants their oil!!! Although many grew angry after the US left them high and dry post Soviet occupation, have been resentful of it, some have even expressed their questions as to why we had returned. They infact fell victim to an ideology that espoused an end of war, a return of values, and an era of prosperity; but the Taliban failed at all and when they learned few would do business in an area that follow their brand of strict 'Sharia' and humand rights violations, they turned to drugs and smuggling (the countries chief exports).

- Currently US, Iranian, Pakistani and Indian (even Japan) have all been involved in the constructions of roads in Afghanistan, GREAT. I hope the next step is some BIG BUSINESS. Then those poor people may finally have central power for the first time! Next to keep workers from revolt we may see some education donations from the business, to allow them to move into an area and smooth over the people. Educate some of the people enough so they learn more successful economic and medical systems inorder to institute them there; thus growing the Big BUsiness potential.

for those that are not aware the industrial revolution has yet to happen in atleast 1/3 of the world.

And what about the majority of the terrorsits on 9/11? they MUST be from one of these poor countries that the US big business moved in on?
NO the come from Saudi Arabia?
Must be angry about oil companies....WaiT A minute that is how Saudi Arabia made there money..
wait - I know it must be the exspansion of a nations money/businesses into other nations...no that can't be right because that is what made the Bin Laden family rich
OR
perhaps it could be a issue that is slightly more complex and one that will not be so easily solved as blaming big business to meet an agenda.

Trident-za

08-21-2003, 06:35 PM

This whole post reminds me of why I stopped posting (although I still read these forums every day) - everybody has their mind made up already, its pointless trying to argue any point.

StarvingStudent47

08-21-2003, 06:58 PM

One bad thing with the diplomacy of the current administration, I believe, is that they have a double standard in judging who are their friends or enemies. Samuel Huntington and Chomsky all said it: if it was in the case of Israelis, it would be a self-defensive action. Had it been Libyans or Lebanese, it would be an irrefuttable act of terror. This is what Arabs think that really bites.

Isn't it strange how no matter what a thread is about, someone tries to turn it into an Israel-bashing thread?

usa320

08-21-2003, 09:51 PM

Indeed, its very strange...wait, theres nothing strange about it... its actually quite obvious.

That those people who hijack threads with there endless ranting about the "zionist entity" clearly suck.

usa320

08-22-2003, 01:48 AM

time to raise the flag over this thread:

http://www.student.smsu.edu/s/san232s/hardfunnypics/bsflag-why_ask_why.gif

Royal

08-22-2003, 02:59 AM

Isn't it strange how no matter what a thread is about, someone tries to turn it into an Israel-bashing thread?

Isn't it strange that whatever they do, Israel can do no wrong in the eyes of most Americans....

SOG

08-22-2003, 03:16 AM

This whole post reminds me of why I stopped posting (although I still read these forums every day) - everybody has their mind made up already, its pointless trying to argue any point.

ah the saying,.... Some people's minds are like cement: all mixed up and permanently set... :bash: ah well.

Kriz

08-22-2003, 03:47 AM

Isn't it strange that whatever they do, Israel can do no wrong in the eyes of most Americans....

That is SO true !

Seiyuuki

08-22-2003, 03:57 AM

Isn't it strange that whatever they do, Palestinians can do no wrong in the eyes of most Europeans and Smutvillians....

Round and round and round we go...where we stop...nobody know...GET IT???

Royal

08-22-2003, 06:05 AM

I never said that the Palestinians havn't commited acts of terrorism, and in no way do I condone them, in the same way that I condemn acts of terrorism commited by the Irgun, Stern and for that matter the Phalangists and even the IDF.

I am merely pointing out that Israel is a state that was created through terrorism and that the Palestinians living in camps (for the most part for their entire lives) were pushed from land that they had lived on for hundreds of years by the creation of Israel.

Both sides must share an element of guilt. Yes Isreal is a democracy, and no the Isrealis don't deliberately target civilians in attacks, but the degree of 'collateral damage' that is seen as acceptable by them does nothing to further their case.

martinexsquaddie

08-22-2003, 07:35 AM

Royals right israel is far from smelling of roses
the pals are pretty bad as well
as the bodycount is approx 3 to 1 in favour of the israels at the moment they must be winning :roll:

budanski

08-22-2003, 08:39 AM

Britain being the father of Israel. Do you guys bear some responsibilities then?

Royal

08-22-2003, 08:48 AM

Britain being the father of Israel. Do you guys bear some responsibilities then?

Yes we do. We did the same thing as you did in Vietnam. We got fed up of taking unnecessary casualties, of having schools and married quarters bombed, of having non combatants murdered. We abrogated our responsibilities and left them to it.

budanski

08-22-2003, 08:57 AM

They can't all be like the civilised Iraqis, now can they?

vryhpyammoadded

08-22-2003, 09:03 AM

vryhpyammoadded

08-22-2003, 10:32 AM

I find the banter that goes on in here quite honest and entertaining. I may not agree with some of the opinions floating around but I respect most everyone that posts and enjoy reading even the looniest rants.
I agree my opinions are all mixed up and permanently set. They took years of study and experience but, on occasion, I do see other opinions on this board that make me go back and reevaluate. So far a few have come close to changing my mind but keep up with the opinions anyway and keep fishing for a good discussion now and then too.
Concrete can only stand up to the jackhammers for so long you know.

usa320

08-22-2003, 12:10 PM

Yes we do. We did the same thing as you did in Vietnam. We got fed up of taking unnecessary casualties, of having schools and married quarters bombed, of having non combatants murdered. We abrogated our responsibilities and left them to it.

Europe may just pull out of stuff when it gets messy or chaotic, butonce the US jumps into something, we stay in it for the long haul.

Seiyuuki

08-22-2003, 04:10 PM

Europe may just pull out of stuff when it gets messy or chaotic, butonce the US jumps into something, we stay in it for the long haul.

That's now how it use to be...Afghanistan and Iraq for time to come will still be a test of American's endurance...especially on the part of Americans' civilians and their stomach for casulties.

Haiw

08-22-2003, 04:12 PM

Europe may just pull out of stuff when it gets messy or chaotic, butonce the US jumps into something, we stay in it for the long haul.
yeah US always stays in for the long haul *cough* somalia *cough*

spier

08-22-2003, 04:48 PM

Europe may just pull out of stuff when it gets messy or chaotic, butonce the US jumps into something, we stay in it for the long haul.
Instances of Use of United States Forces Abroad, 1798 - 1993

by Ellen C. Collier, Specialist in U.S. Foreign Policy,
Foreign Affairs and National Defense Division
Washington DC: Congressional Research Service -- Library of Congress -- October 7, 1993

Summary

This report lists 234 instances in which the United States has used its armed forces abroad in situations of conflict or potential conflict or for other than normal peacetime purposes. It brings up to date a 1989 list that was compiled in part from various older lists and is intended primarily to provide a rough sketch survey of past U.S. military ventures abroad. A detailed description and analysis are not undertaken here.

The instances differ greatly in number of forces, purpose, extent of hostilities, and legal authorization. Five of the instances are declared wars: the War of 1812, the Mexican War of 1846, the Spanish American War of 1898, World War I declared in 1917, and World War II declared in 1941.

Some of the instances were extended military engagements that might be considered undeclared wars. These include the Undeclared Naval War with France from 1798 to 1800; the First Barbary War from 1801 to 1805; the Second Barbary War of 1815; the Korean War of 1950-53; the Vietnam War from 1964 to 1973; and the Persian Gulf War of 1991. In some cases, such as the Persian Gulf War against Iraq, Congress authorized the military action although it did not declare war.

The majority of the instances listed were brief Marine or Navy actions prior to World War II to protect U.S. citizens or promote U.S. interests. A number were actions against pirates or bandits. Some were events, such as the stationing of Marines at an Embassy or legation, which later were considered normal peacetime practice. Covert actions, disaster relief, and routine alliance stationing and training exercises are not included here, nor are the Civil and Revolutionary Wars and the continual use of U.S. military units in the exploration, settlement, and pacification of the West.

INSTANCES OF USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES

ABROAD, 1798-1993 (Note 1)

The following list indicates approximately 234 times that the United States has utilized military forces abroad in situations of conflict or potential conflict to protect U.S. citizens or promote U.S. interests. The list does not include covert actions or numerous instances in which U.S. forces have been stationed abroad since World War II in occupation forces or for participation in mutual security organizations, base agreements, or routine military assistance or training operations. Because of differing judgments over the actions to be included, other lists may include more or fewer instances. (Note 2)

The instances vary greatly in size of operation, legal authorization, and significance. The number of troops involved range from a few sailors or Marines landed to protect American lives and property to hundreds of thousands in Vietnam and millions in World War II. Some actions were of short duration and some lasted a number of years. In some instances a military officer acted without authorization; some actions were conducted solely under the President's powers as Chief Executive or Commander in Chief; other instances were authorized by Congress in some fashion; five were declared wars. For most of the instances listed, however, the status of the action under domestic or international law has not been addressed. Thus inclusion in this list does not connote either legality or significance.

1798-1800 -- Undeclared Naval War with France. This contest included land actions, such as that in the Dominican Republic, city of Puerto Plata, where marines captured a French privateer under the guns of the forts.

1801-05 -- Tripoli. The First Barbary War included the USS George Washington and USS Philadelphia affairs and the Eaton expedition, during which a few marines landed with United States Agent William Eaton to raise a force against Tripoli in an effort to free the crew of the Philadelphia. Tripoli declared war but not the United States.

1806 -- Mexico (Spanish territory). Capt. Z. M. Pike, with a platoon of troops, invaded Spanish territory at the headwaters of the Rio Grande on orders from Gen. James Wilkinson. He was made prisoner without resistance at a fort he constructed in present day Colorado, taken to Mexico, and later released after seizure of his papers.

1806-10 -- Gulf of Mexico. American gunboats operated from New Orleans against Spanish and French privateers off the Mississippi Delta, chiefly under Capt. John Shaw and Master Commandant David Porter.

1810 -- West Florida (Spanish territory). Gov. Claiborne of Louisiana, on orders of the President, occupied with troops territory in dispute east of Mississippi as far as the Pearl River, later the eastern boundary of Louisiana. He was authorized to seize as far east as the Perdido River.

1812 -- Amelia Island and other - parts of east Florida, then under Spain. Temporary possession was authorized by President Madison and by Congress, to prevent occupation by any other power; but possession was obtained by Gen. George Matthews in so irregular a manner that his measures were disavowed by the President.

1812-15 -- War of 1812. On June 18, 1812, the United States declared war between the United States and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Among the issues leading to the war were British interception of neutral ships and blockades of the United States during British hostilities with France.

1813 -- West Florida (Spanish territory). On authority given by Congress, General Wilkinson seized Mobile Bay in April with 600 soldiers. A small Spanish garrison gave way. Thus U.S. advanced into disputed territory to the Perdido River, as projected in 1810. No fighting.

1813-14 -- Marguesas Islands. U.S. forces built a fort on the island of Nukahiva to protect three prize ships which had been captured from the British.

1814 -- Spanish Florida. Gen. Andrew Jackson took Pensacola and drove out the British with whom the United States was at war.

1814-25 -- Caribbean. Engagements between pirates and American ships or squadrons took place repeatedly especially ashore and offshore about Cuba, Puerto Rico, Santo Domingo, and Yucatan. Three thousand pirate attacks on merchantmen were reported between 1815 and 1823. In 1822 Commodore James Biddle employed a squadron of two frigates, four sloops of war, two brigs, four schooners, and two gunboats in the West Indies.

1815 -- Algiers. The second Barbary War was declared by the opponents but not by the United States. Congress authorized an expedition. A large fleet under Decatur attacked Algiers and obtained indemnities.

1815 -- Tripoli. After securing an agreement from Algiers, Decatur demonstrated with his squadron at Tunis and Tripoli, where he secured indemnities for offenses during the War of 1812.

1816 -- Spanish Florida. United States forces destroyed Nicholls Fort, called also Negro Fort, which harbored raiders making forays into United States territory.

1816-18 -- Spanish Florida - First Seminole War. The Seminole Indians, whose area was a resort for escaped slaves and border ruffians, were attacked by troops under Generals Jackson and Gaines and pursued into northern Florida. Spanish posts were attacked and occupied, British citizens executed. In 1819 the Floridas were ceded to the United States.

1817 -- Amelia Island (Spanish territory off Florida). Under orders of President Monroe, United States forces landed and expelled a group of smugglers, adventurers, and freebooters.

1818 -- Oregon. The USS. Ontario dispatched from Washington, landed at the Columbia River and in August took possession of Oregon territory. Britain had conceded sovereignty but Russia and Spain asserted claims to the area.

1820-23 -- Africa. Naval units raided the slave traffic pursuant to the 1819 act of Congress.

1822 -- Cuba. United States naval forces suppressing piracy landed on the northwest coast of Cuba and burned a pirate station.

1823 -- Cuba. Brief landings in pursuit of pirates occurred April 8 near Escondido; April 16 near Cayo Blanco; July 11 at Siquapa Bay; July 21 at Cape Cruz; and October 23 at Camrioca.

1824 -- Cuba. In October the USS Porpoise landed bluejackets near Matanzas in pursuit of pirates. This was during the cruise authorized in 1822.

1824 -- Puerto Rico (Spanish territory). Commodore David Porter with a landing party attacked the town of Fajardo which had sheltered pirates and insulted American naval officers. He landed with 200 men in November and forced an apology. Commodore Porter was later court-martialed for overstepping his powers.

1825 -- Cuba. In March cooperating American and British forces landed at Sagua La Grande to capture pirates.

1827 -- Greece. In October and November landing parties hunted pirates on the islands of Argenteire, Miconi, and Androse.

1831-32 -- Falkland Islands. Captain Duncan of the USS Lexington investigated the capture of three American sealing vessels and sought to protect American interests.

1832 -- Sumatra - February 6 to 9. A naval force landed and stormed a fort to punish natives of the town of Quallah Battoo for plundering the American ship Friendship.

1833 -- Argentina - October 31 to November 15. A force was sent ashore at Buenos Aires to protect the interests of the United States and other countries during an insurrection.

1835-36 -- Peru - December 10, 1835, to January 24, 1836, and August 31 to December 7, 1836. Marines protected American interests in Callao and Lima during an attempted revolution.

1836 -- Mexico. General Gaines occupied Nacogdoches (Tex.), disputed territory, from July to December during the Texan war for independence, under orders to cross the "imaginary boundary line" if an Indian outbreak threatened.

1838-39 -- Sumatra - December 24, 1838, to January 4, 1839. A naval force landed to punish natives of the towns of Quallah Battoo and Muckie (Mukki) for depredations on American shipping.

1840 -- Fiji Islands - July. Naval forces landed to punish natives for attacking American exploring and surveying parties.

1841 -- Drummond Island, Kingsmill Group. A naval party landed to avenge the murder of a seaman by the natives.

1841 -- Samoa - February 24. A naval party landed and burned towns after the murder of an American seaman on Upolu Island.

1842 -- Mexico. Commodore TA.C. Jones, in command of a squadron long cruising off California, occupied Monterey, Calif., on October 19, believing war had come. He discovered peace, withdrew, and saluted. A similar incident occurred a week later at San Diego.

1843 -- China. Sailors and marines from the St. Louis were landed after a clash between Americans and Chinese at the trading post in Canton.

1843 -- Africa -- November 29 to December 16. Four United States vessels demonstrated and landed various parties (one of 200 marines and sailors) to discourage piracy and the slave trade along the Ivory coast, and to punish attacks by the natives on American seamen and shipping.

1844 -- Mexico. President Tyler deployed U.S. forces to protect Texas against Mexico, pending Senate approval of a treaty of annexation. (Later rejected.) He defended his action against a Senate resolution of inquiry.

1846-48 -- Mexican War. On May 13,1846, the United States recognized the existence of a state of war with Mexico. After the annexation of Texas in 1845, the United States and Mexico failed to resolve a boundary dispute and President Polk said that it was necessary to deploy forces in Mexico to meet a threatened invasion.

1849 -- Smyrna. In July a naval force gained release of an American seized by Austrian officials.

1851 -- Turkey. After a massacre of foreigners (including Americans) at Jaffa in January, a demonstration by the Mediterranean Squadron was ordered along the Turkish (Levant) coast.

1851 -- Johanns Island (east of Africa) -- August. Forces from the U.S. sloop of war Dale exacted redress for the unlawful imprisonment of the captain of an American whaling brig.

1852-53 -- Argentina -- February 3 to 12, 1852; September 17, 1852 to April 1853. Marines were landed and maintained in Buenos Aires to protect American interests during a revolution.

1853 -- Nicaragua -- March 11 to 13. U.S. forces landed to protect American lives and interests during political disturbances.

1853-54 -- Japan. Commodore Perry and his expedition made a display of force leading to the "opening of Japan" and the Perry Expedition.

1853-54 -- Ryukyu and Bonin Islands. Commodore Perry on three visits before going to Japan and while waiting for a reply from Japan made a naval demonstration, landing marines twice, and secured a coaling concession from the ruler of Naha on Okinawa; he also demonstrated in the Bonin Islands with the purpose of securing facilities for commerce.

1854 -- China -- April 4 to June 15 to 17. American and English ships landed forces to protect American interests in and near Shanghai during Chinese civil strife.

1854 -- Nicaragua -- July 9 to 15. Naval forces bombarded and burned San Juan del Norte (Greytown) to avenge an insult to the American Minister to Nicaragua.

1855 -- China -- May 19 to 21. U.S. forces protected American interests in Shanghai and, from August 3 to 5 fought pirates near Hong Kong.

1855 -- Fiji Islands -- September 12 to November 4. An American naval force landed to seek reparations for depredations on American residents and seamen.

1855 -- Uruguay -- November 25 to 29. United States and European naval forces landed to protect American interests during an attempted revolution in Montevideo.

1856 -- Panama, Republic of New Grenada -- September 19 to 22. U.S. forces landed to protect American interests during an insurrection.

1856 -- China -- October 22 to December 6. U.S. forces landed to protect American interests at Canton during hostilities between the British and the Chinese, and to avenge an assault upon an unarmed boat displaying the United States flag.

1857 -- Nicaragua -- April to May, November to December. In May Commander C.H. Davis of the United States Navy, with some marines, received the surrender of William Walker, who had been attempting to get control of the country, and protected his men from the retaliation of native allies who had been fighting Walker. In November and December of the same year United States vessels Saratoga, Wabash, and Fulton opposed another attempt of William Walker on Nicaragua. Commodore Hiram Paulding's act of landing marines and compelling the removal of Walker to the United States, was tacitly disavowed by Secretary of State Lewis Cass, and Paulding was forced into retirement.

1858 -- Uruguay -- January 2 to 27. Forces from two United States warships landed to protect American property during a revolution in Montevideo.

1858 -- Fiji Islands -- October 6 to 16. A marine expedition chastised natives for the murder of two American citizens at Waya.

1858-59 -- Turkey. The Secretary of State requested a display of naval force along the Levant after a massacre of Americans at Jaffa and mistreatment elsewhere "to remind the authorities (of Turkey) of the power of the United States."

1859 -- Paraguay. Congress authorized a naval squadron to seek redress for an attack on a naval vessel in the Parana River during 1855. Apologies were made after a large display of force.

1859 -- Mexico. Two hundred United States soldiers crossed the Rio Grande in pursuit of the Mexican bandit Cortina.

1859 -- China -- July 31 to August 2. A naval force landed to protect American interests in Shanghai.

1860 -- Angola, Portuguese West Africa -- March 1. American residents at Kissembo called upon American and British ships to protect lives and property during problems with natives.

1860 -- Colombia, Bay of Panama -- September 27 to October 8. Naval forces landed to protect American interests during a revolution.

1863 -- Japan -- July 16. The USS Wyoming retaliated against a firing on the American vessel Pembroke at Shimonoseki.

1864 -- Japan -- July 14 to August 3. Naval forces protected the United States Minister to Japan when he visited Yedo to negotiate concerning some American claims against Japan, and to make his negotiations easier by impressing the Japanese with American power.

1864 -- Japan -- September 4 to 14. Naval forces of the United States, Great Britain, France, and the Netherlands compelled Japan and the Prince of Nagato in particular to permit the Straits of Shimonoseki to be used by foreign shipping in accordance with treaties already signed.

1865 -- Panama -- March 9 and 10. U.S. forces protected the lives and property of American residents during a revolution.

1866 -- Mexico. To protect American residents, General Sedgwick and 100 men in November obtained surrender of Matamoras. After 3 days he was ordered by U.S. Government to withdraw. His act was repudiated by the President.

1866 -- China. From June 20 to July 7, U.S. forces punished an assault on the American consul at Newchwang.

1867 -- Nicaragua. Marines occupied Managua and Leon.

1867 -- Formosa -- June 13. A naval force landed and burned a number of huts to punish the murder of the crew of a wrecked American vessel.

1868 -- Japan (Osaka, Hiolo, Nagasaki, Yokohama, and Negata) -- February 4 to 8, April 4 to May 12, June 12 and 13. U.S. forces were landed to protect American interests during the civil war in Japan over the abolition of the Shogunate and the restoration of the Mikado.

1868 -- Uruguay -- February 7 and 8, 19 to 26. U.S. forces protected foreign residents and the customhouse during an insurrection at Montevideo.

1868 -- Colombia -- April. U.S. forces protected passengers and treasure in transit at Aspinwall during the absence of local police or troops on the occasion of the death of the President of Colombia.

1870 -- Mexico -- June 17 and 18. U.S. forces destroyed the pirate ship Forward, which had been run aground about 40 miles up the Rio Tecapan.

1870 -- Hawaiian Islands -- September 21. U.S. forces placed the American flag at half mast upon the death of Queen Kalama, when the American consul at Honolulu would not assume responsibility for so doing.

1871 -- Korea -- June 10 to 12. A U.S. naval force attacked and captured five forts to punish natives for depredations on Americans, particularly for murdering the crew of the General Sherman and burning the schooner, and for later firing on other American small boats taking soundings up the Salee River.

1873 -- Colombia (Bay of Panama) -- May 7 to 22, September 23 to October 9. U.S. forces protected American interests during hostilities over possession of the government of the State of Panama.

1873 -- Mexico. United States troops crossed the Mexican border repeatedly in pursuit of cattle and other thieves. There were some reciprocal pursuits by Mexican troops into border territory. Mexico protested frequently. Notable cases were at Remolina in May 1873 and at Las Cuevas in 1875. Washington orders often supported these excursions. Agreements between Mexico and the United States, the first in 1882, finally legitimized such raids. They continued intermittently, with minor disputes, until 1896.

1874 -- Hawaiian Islands -- February 12 to 20. Detachments from American vessels were landed to preserve order and protect American lives and interests during the coronation of a new king.

1876 -- Mexico -- May 18. An American force was landed to police the town of Matamoras temporarily while it was without other government.

1882 -- Egypt -- July 14 to 18. American forces landed to protect American interests during warfare between British and Egyptians and looting of the city of Alexandria by Arabs.

1885 -- Panama (Colon) -- January 18 and 19. U.S. forces were used to guard the valuables in transit over the Panama Railroad, and the safes and vaults of the company during revolutionary activity. In March, April, and May in the cities of Colon and Panama, the forces helped reestablish freedom of transit during revolutionary activity.

1888 -- Korea -- June. A naval force was sent ashore to protect American residents in Seoul during unsettled political conditions, when an outbreak of the populace was expected.

1888 -- Haiti -- December 20. A display of force persuaded the Haitian Government to give up an American steamer which had been seized on the charge of breach of blockade.

1888--89 -- Samoa -- November 14, 1888, to March 20, 1889. U.S. forces were landed to protect American citizens and the consulate during a native civil war.

1889 -- Hawaiian Islands -- July 30 and 31. U.S. forces protected American interests at Honolulu during a revolution.

1890 -- Argentina. A naval party landed to protect U.S. consulate and legation in Buenos Aires.

1891 -- Haiti. U.S. forces sought to protect American lives and property on Navassa Island.

1891 -- Bering Strait -- July 2 to October 5. Naval forces sought to stop seal poaching.

1891 -- Chile -- August 28 to 30. U.S. forces protected the American consulate and the women and children who had taken refuge in it during a revolution in Valparaiso.

1893 -- Hawaii -- January 16 to April 1. Marines were landed ostensibly to protect American lives and property, but many believed actually to promote a provisional government under Sanford B. Dole. This action was disavowed by the United States.

1894 -- Brazil -- January. A display of naval force sought to protect American commerce and shipping at Rio de Janeiro during a Brazilian civil war.

1894 -- Nicaragua -- July 6 to August 7. U.S. forces sought to protect American interests at Bluefields following a revolution.

1894-95 -- China. Marines were stationed at Tientsin and penetrated to Peking for protection purposes during the Sino--Japanese War.

1894-95 -- China. A naval vessel was beached and used as a fort at Newchwang for protection of American nationals.

1894-96 -- Korea -- July 24, 1894 to April 3, 1896. A guard of marines was sent to protect the American legation and American lives and interests at Seoul during and following the Sino-- Japanese War.

1895 -- Colombia -- March 8 to 9. U.S. forces protected American interests during an attack on the town of Bocas del Toro by a bandit chieftain.

1896 -- Nicaragua -- May 2 to 4. U.S. forces protected American interests in Corinto during political unrest.

1898 -- Nicaragua -- February 7 and 8. U.S. forces protected American lives and property at San Juan del Sur.

1898 -- The Spanish--American War. On April 25, 1898, the United States declared war with Spain. The war followed a Cuban insurrection against Spanish rule and the sinking of the U.S.S. Maine in the harbor at Havana.

1898--99 -- China -- November 5, 1898 to March 15, 1899. U.S. forces provided a guard for the legation at Peking and the consulate at Tientsin during contest between the Dowager Empress and her son.

1899 -- Nicaragua. American and British naval forces were landed to protect national interests at San Juan del Norte, February 22 to March 5, and at Bluefields a few weeks later in connection with the insurrection of Gen. Juan P. Reyes.

1899 -- Samoa -- February-May 15. American and British naval forces were landed to protect national interests and to take part in a bloody contention over the succession to the throne.

1899--1901 -- Philippine Islands. U.S. forces protected American interests following the war with Spain and conquered the islands by defeating the Filipinos in their war for independence.

1900 -- China -- May 24 to September 28. American troops participated in operations to protect foreign lives during the Boxer rising, particularly at Peking. For many years after this experience a permanent legation guard was maintained in Peking, and was strengthened at times as trouble threatened.

1901 -- Colombia (State of Panama) -- November 20 to December 4. U.S. forces protected American property on the Isthmus and kept transit lines open during serious revolutionary disturbances.

1902 -- Colombia -- April 16 to 23. U.S. forces protected American lives and property at Bocas del Toro during a civil war.

1902 -- Colombia (State of Panama) -- September 17 to November 18. The United States placed armed guards on all trains crossing the Isthmus to keep the railroad line open, and stationed ships on both sides of Panama to prevent the landing of Colombian troops.

1903 -- Honduras -- March 23 to 30 or 31. U.S. forces protected the American consulate and the steamship wharf at Puerto Cortez during a period of revolutionary activity.

1903 -- Dominican Republic -- March 30 to April 21. A detachment of marines was landed to protect American interests in the city of Santo Domingo during a revolutionary outbreak.

1903 -- Syria -- September 7 to 12. U.S. forces protected the American consulate in Beirut when a local Moslem uprising was feared.

1903-04 -- Abyssinia. Twenty-five marines were sent to Abyssinia to protect the U.S. Consul General while he negotiated a treaty.

1903-14 -- Panama. U.S. forces sought to protect American interests and lives during and following the revolution for independence from Colombia over construction of the Isthmian Canal. With brief intermissions, United States Marines were stationed on the Isthmus from November 4, 1903, to January 21 1914 to guard American interests.

1904 -- Dominican Republic -- January 2 to February 11. American and British naval forces established an area in which no fighting would be allowed and protected American interests in Puerto Plata and Sosua and Santo Domingo City during revolutionary fighting.

1904 -- Tangier, Morocco. "We want either Perdicaris alive or Raisula dead." A squadron demonstrated to force release of a kidnapped American. Marine guard was landed to protect the consul general.

1904 -- Panama -- November 17 to 24. U.S. forces protected American lives and property at Ancon at the time of a threatened insurrection.

1904-05 -- Korea -- January 5, 1904, to November 11, 1905. A Marine guard was sent to protect the American legation in Seoul during the Russo-Japanese War.

1906-09 -- Cuba -- September 1906 to January 23, 1909. U.S. forces sought to restore order, protect foreigners, and establish a stable government after serious revolutionary activity.

1907 -- Honduras -- March 18 to June 8. To protect American interests during a war between Honduras and Nicaragua, troops were stationed in Trujillo, Ceiba, Puerto Cortez, San Pedro Laguna and Choloma.

1910 -- Nicaragua -- May 19 to September 4. U.S. forces protected American interests at Bluefields.

1911 -- Honduras -- January 26. American naval detachments were landed to protect American lives and interests during a civil war in Honduras.

1911 -- China. As the nationalist revolution approached, in October an ensign and 10 men tried to enter Wuchang to rescue missionaries but retired on being warned away and a small landing force guarded American private property and consulate at Hankow. A marine guard was established in November over the cable stations at Shanghai; landing forces were sent for protection in Nanking, Chinkiang, Taku and elsewhere.

1912 -- Honduras. A small force landed to prevent seizure by the government of an American-owned railroad at Puerto Cortez. The forces were withdrawn after the United States disapproved the action.

1912 -- Panama. Troops, on request of both political parties, supervised elections outside the Canal Zone.

1912 -- Cuba -- June 5 to August 5. U.S. forces protected American interests on the Province of Oriente, and in Havana.

1912 -- China -- August 24 to 26, on Kentucky Island, and August 26 to 30 at Camp Nicholson. U.S. forces protect Americans and American interests during revolutionary activity.

1912 -- Turkey -- November 18 to December 3. U.S. forces guarded the American legation at Constantinople during a Balkan War.

1912-25 -- Nicaragua -- August to November 1912. U.S. forces protected American interests during an attempted revolution. A small force, serving as a legation guard and seeking to promote peace and stability, remained until August 5, 1925.

1912-41 -- China. The disorders which began with the Kuomintang rebellion in 1912, which were redirected by the invasion of China by Japan and finally ended by war between Japan and the United States in 1941, led to demonstrations and landing parties for the protection of U.S. interests in China continuously and at many points from 1912 on to 1941. The guard at Peking and along the route to the sea was maintained until 1941. In 1927, the United States had 5,670 troops ashore in China and 44 naval vessels in its waters. In 1933 the United States had 3,027 armed men ashore. The protective action was generally based on treaties with China concluded from 1858 to 1901.

1913 -- Mexico -- September 5 to 7. A few marines landed at Ciaris Estero to aid in evacuating American citizens and others from the Yaqui Valley, made dangerous for foreigners by civil strife.

1914 -- Haiti -- January 29 to February 9, February 20 to 21, October 19. Intermittently U.S. naval forces protected American nationals in a time of rioting and revolution.

1914 -- Dominican Republic -- June and July. During a revolutionary movement, United States naval forces by gunfire stopped the bombardment of Puerto Plata, and by threat of force maintained Santo Domingo City as a neutral zone.

1914-17 -- Mexico. Undeclared Mexican--American hostilities followed the Dolphin affair and Villa's raids and included capture of Vera Cruz and later Pershing's expedition into northern Mexico.

1915-34 -- Haiti -- July 28, 1915, to August 15, 1934. U.S. forces maintained order during a period of chronic and threatened insurrection.

1916 -- China. American forces landed to quell a riot taking place on American property in Nanking.

1916-24 -- Dominican Republic -- May 1916 to September 1924. American naval forces maintained order during a period of chronic and threatened insurrection.

1917 -- China. American troops were landed at Chungking to protect American lives during a political crisis.

1917-18 -- World War I. On April 6, 1917, the United States declared war with Germany and on December 7,1917, with Austria-Hungary. Entrance of the United States into the war was precipitated by Germany's submarine warfare against neutral shipping.

1917-22 -- Cuba. U.S. forces protected American interests during insurrection and subsequent unsettled conditions. Most of the Uni States armed forces left Cuba by August 1919, but two companies remained at Camaguey until February 1922.

1918-19 -- Mexico. After withdrawal of the Pershing expedition, U.S. troops entered Mexico in pursuit of bandits at least three times in 1918 and s times in 1919. In August 1918 American and Mexican troops fought at Nogales.

1918-20 -- Panama. U.S. forces were used for police duty according to treaty stipulations, at Chiriqui, during election disturbances and subsequent unrest.

1918-20 Soviet Russia. Marines were landed at and near Vladivostok in June and July to protect the American consulate and other points in the fighting between the Bolshevik troops and the Czech Army which had traversed Siberia from the western front. A joint proclamation of emergency government and neutrality was issued by the American, Japanese, British, French, and Czech commanders in July. In August 7,000 men were landed in Vladivostok and remained until January 1920, as part of an allied occupation force. In September 1918, 5,000 American troops joined the allied intervention force at Archangel and remained until June 1919. These operations were in response to the Bolshevik revolution in Russia and were partly supported by Czarist or Kerensky elements.

1919 -- Dalmatia. U.S. forces were landed at Trau at the request of Italian authorities to police order between the Italians and Serbs.

1919 -- Turkey. Marines from the USS Arizona were landed to guard the U.S. Consulate during the Greek occupation of Constantinople.

1919 -- Honduras -- September 8 to 12. A landing force was sent ashore to maintain order in a neutral zone during an attempted revolution.

1920 -- China -- March 14. A landing force was sent ashore for a few hours to protect lives during a disturbance at Kiukiang.

1920 -- Guatemala -- April 9 to 27. U.S. forces protected the American Legation and other American interests, such as the cable station, during a period of fighting between Unionists and the Government of Guatemala.

1920-22 -- Russia (Siberia) -- February 16, 1920, to November 19, 1922. A Marine guard was sent to protect the United States radio station and property on Russian Island, Bay of Vladivostok.

1921 -- Panama -- Costa Rica. American naval squadrons demonstrated in April on both sides of the Isthmus to prevent war between the two countries over a boundary dispute.

1922 -- Turkey -- September and October. A landing force was sent ashore with consent of both Greek and Turkish authorities, to protect American lives and property when the Turkish Nationalists entered Smyrna.

1922-23 -- China. Between April 1922 and November 1923 marines were landed five times to protect Americans during periods of unrest.

1924 -- Honduras -- February 28 to March 31, September 10 to 15. U.S. forces protected American lives and interests during election hostilities.

1924 -- China -- September. Marines were landed to protect Americans and other foreigners in Shanghai during Chinese factional hostilities.

1925 -- China -- January 15 to August 29. Fighting of Chinese factions accompanied by riots and demonstrations in Shanghai brought the landing of American forces to protect lives and property in the International Settlement.

1925 -- Honduras -- April 19 to 21. U.S. forces protected foreigners at La Ceiba during a political upheaval.

1925 -- Panama -- October 12 to 23. Strikes and rent riots led to the landing of about 600 American troops to keep order and protect American interests.

1926 -- China -- August and September. The Nationalist attack on Han brought the landing of American naval forces to protect American citizens. A small guard was maintained at the consulate general even after September 16, when the rest of the forces were withdrawn. Likewise, when Nation forces captured Kiukiang, naval forces were landed for the protection of foreigners November 4 to 6.

1926-33 -- Nicaragua -- May 7 to June 5, 1926; August 27, 1926, to January 1933. The coup d'etat of General Chamorro aroused revolutionary activities leading to the landing of American marines to protect the interests of United States. United States forces came and went intermittently until January 3, 1933. Their work included activity against the outlaw leader
Sandino in 1928.

1927 -- China -- February. Fighting at Shanghai caused American naval forces and marines to be increased. In March a naval guard was stationed at American consulate at Nanking after Nationalist forces captured the city. American and British destroyers later used shell fire to protect Americans and other foreigners. Subsequently additional forces of marines and naval
forces were stationed in the vicinity of Shanghai and Tientsin.

1932 -- China. American forces were landed to protect American interests during the Japanese occupation of Shanghai.

1933 -- Cuba. During a revolution against President Gerardo Machada naval forces demonstrated but no landing was made.

1934 -- China. Marines landed at Foochow to protect the American Consulate.

1940 -- Newfoundland, Bermuda, St. Lucia, - Bahamas, Jamaica, Antigua, Trinidad, and British Guiana. Troops were sent to guard air and naval bases obtained by negotiation with Great Britain. These were sometimes called lend-lease bases.

1941 -- Greenland. Greenland was taken under protection of the United States in April.

1941 -- Netherlands (Dutch Guiana). In November the President ordered American troops to occupy Dutch Guiana, but by agreement with the Netherlands government in exile, Brazil cooperated to protect aluminum ore supply from the bauxite mines in Surinam.

1941 -- Iceland. Iceland was taken under the protection of the United States

1941 -- Germany. Sometime in the spring the President ordered the Navy to patrol ship lanes to Europe. By July U.S. warships were conveying and September were attacking German submarines. In November, the Neutrality Act was partially repealed to protect U.S. military aid to Britain.1941-45 -- World War II. On December 8, 1941, the United States declared war with Japan, on December 11 with Germany and Italy, and on June 5, 1942, with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania. The United States declared war against Japan after the surprise bombing of Pearl Harbor, and against Germany and Italy after those nations, under the dictators Hitler and Mussolini, declared war against the United States.

1945 -- China. In October 50,000 U.S. Marines were sent to North China to assist Chinese Nationalist authorities in disarming and repatriating the Japanese in China and in controlling ports, railroads, and airfields. This was in addition to approximately 60,000 U.S. forces remaining in China at the end of World War II.

1946 -- Trieste. President Truman ordered the augmentation of U.S. troops along the zonal occupation line and the reinforcement of air forces in northern Italy after Yugoslav forces shot down an unarmed U.S. Army transport plane flying over Venezia Giulia. Earlier U.S. naval units had been dispatched to the scene.

1948 -- Palestine. A marine consular guard was sent to Jerusalem to protect the U.S. Consul General.

1948 -- Berlin. After the Soviet Union established a land blockade of the U.S., British, and French sectors of Berlin on June 24, 1948, the United States and its allies airlifted supplies to Berlin until after the blockade was lifted in May 1949.

1948-49 -- China. Marines were dispatched to Nanking to protect the American Embassy when the city fell to Communist troops, and to Shanghai to aid in the protection and evacuation of Americans.

1950-53 -- Korean War. The United States responded to North Korean invasion of South Korea by going to its assistance, pursuant to United Nations Security Council resolutions.

1950-55 -- Formosa (Taiwan). In June 1950 at the beginning of the Korean War, President Truman ordered the U.S. Seventh Fleet to prevent Chinese Communist attacks upon Formosa and Chinese Nationalist operations against mainland China.

1954-55 -- China. Naval units evacuated U.S. civilians and military personnel from the Tachen Islands.

1956 -- Egypt. A Marine battalion evacuated U.S. nationals and other persons from Alexandria during the Suez crisis.

1958 -- Lebanon. Marines were landed in Lebanon at the invitation of its government to help protect against threatened insurrection supported from the outside.

1959-60 -- The Caribbean. 2d Marine Ground Task Force was deployed to protect U.S. nationals during the Cuban crisis.

1962 -- Cuba. President Kennedy instituted a "quarantine" on the shipment of offensive missiles to Cuba from the Soviet Union. He also warned Soviet Union that the launching of any missile from Cuba against nations in the Western Hemisphere would bring about U.S. nuclear retaliation on the Soviet Union. A negotiated settlement was achieved in a few days.

1962 -- Thailand. The 3d Marine Expeditionary Unit landed on May 17, 1962 to support that country during the threat of Communist pressure from outside; by Jul 30 the 5000 marines had been withdrawn.

1962-75 -- Laos. From October 1962 until 1976, the United States played a role of military support in Laos.

1964 -- Congo. The United States sent four transport planes to provide airlift for Congolese troops during a rebellion and to transport Belgian paratroopers to rescue foreigners.

1964-73 -- Vietnam War. U.S. military advisers had been in South Vietnam a decade, and their numbers had been increased as the military position the Saigon government became weaker. After the attacks on U.S. destroyers in the Tonkin Gulf, President Johnson asked for a resolution expressing U.S. determination to support freedom and protect peace in Southeast Asia. Congress responded with the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, expressing support for "all necessary measures" the President might take to repel armed attacks against U.S. forces and prevent further aggression. Following this resolution, and following a Communist attack on a U.S. installation in central Vietnam, the United States escalated its participation in the war to a peak of 543 000 in April 1969.

1965 -- Dominican Republic. The United States intervened to protect lives and property during a Dominican revolt and sent more troops as fears grew that the revolutionary forces were coming increasingly under Communist control.

1967 -- Congo. The United States sent three military transport aircraft with crews to provide the Congo central government with logistical support during a revolt.

1970 -- Cambodia. U.S. troops were ordered into Cambodia to clean out Communist sanctuaries from which Viet Cong and North Vietnamese attacked U.S and South Vietnamese forces in Vietnam. The object of this attack, which lasted from April 30 to June 30, was to ensure the continuing safe withdrawal of American forces from South Vietnam and to assist the program of Vietnamization.

1974 -- Evacuation from Cyprus. United States naval forces evacuated U.S. civilians during hostilities between Turkish and Greek Cypriot forces.

1975 -- Evacuation from Vietnam. On April 3, 1975, President Ford reported U.S. naval vessels, helicopters, and Marines had been sent to assist in evacuation of refugees and U.S. nationals from Vietnam. (Note 3)

1975 -- Evacuation from Cambodia. On April 12, 1975, President Ford reported that he had ordered U.S. military forces to proceed with the planned evacuation of U.S. citizens from Cambodia.

1975 -- South Vietnam. On April 30 1975, President Ford reported that a force of 70 evacuation helicopters and 865 Marines had evacuated about 1,400 U.S. citizens and 5,500 third country nationals and South Vietnamese from landing zones near the U.S. Embassy in Saigon and the Tan Son Nhut Airfield.

1975 -- Mayaguez incident. On May 15, 1975, President Ford reported he had ordered military forces to retake the SS Mayaguez, a merchant vessel en route from Hong Kong to Thailand with U.S. citizen crew which was seized from Cambodian naval patrol boats in international waters and forced to proceed to a nearby island.

1976 -- Lebanon. On July 22 and 23, 1974, helicopters from five U.S. naval vessels evacuated approximately 250 Americans and Europeans from Lebanon during fighting between Lebanese factions after an overland convoy evacuation had been blocked by hostilities.

1976 -- Korea. Additional forces were sent to Korea after two American military personnel were killed while in the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea for the purpose of cutting down a tree.

1978 -- Zaire. From May 19 through June 1978, the United States utilized military transport aircraft to provide logistical support to Belgian and French rescue operations in Zaire.

1980 -- Iran. On April 26, 1980, President Carter reported the use of six U.S. transport planes and eight helicopters in an unsuccessful attempt to rescue American hostages being held in Iran.

1981 -- El Salvador. After a guerilla offensive against the government of El Salvador, additional U.S. military advisers were sent to El Salvador, bringing the total to approximately 55, to assist in training government forces in counterinsurgency.

1981 --Libya. On August 19, 1981, U.S. planes based on the carrier Nimitz shot down two Libyan jets over the Gulf of Sidra after one of the Libyan jets had fired a heat-seeking missile. The United States periodically held freedom of navigation exercises in the Gulf of Sidra, claimed by Libya as territorial waters but considered international waters by the United States.

1982 -- Sinai. On March 19, 1982, President Reagan reported the deployment of military personnel and equipment to participate in the Multinational Force and Observers in the Sinai. Participation had been authorized by the Multinational Force and Observers Resolution, Public Law 97-132.

1982 -- Lebanon. On August 21, 1982, President Reagan reported the dispatch of 80 marines to serve in the multinational force to assist in the withdrawal of members of the Palestine Liberation force from Beirut. The Marines left Sept. 20, 1982.

1982 -- Lebanon. On September 29, 1982, President Reagan reported the deployment of 1200 marines to serve in a temporary multinational force to facilitate the restoration of Lebanese government sovereignty. On Sept. 29, 1983, Congress passed the Multinational Force in Lebanon Resolution (P.L. 98-119) authorizing the continued participation for eighteen months.

1983 -- Egypt. After a Libyan plane bombed a city in Sudan on March 18, 1983, and Sudan and Egypt appealed for assistance, the United States dispatched an AWACS electronic surveillance plane to Egypt.

1983-89 -- Honduras. In July 1983 the United States undertook a series of exercises in Honduras that some believed might lead to conflict with Nicaragua. On March 25, 1986, unarmed U.S. military helicopters and crewmen ferried Honduran troops to the Nicaraguan border to repel Nicaraguan troops.

1983 -- Chad. On August 8, 1983, President Reagan reported the deployment of two AWACS electronic surveillance planes and eight F-15 fighter planes and ground logistical support forces to assist Chad against Libyan and rebel forces.

1983 -- Grenada. On October 25, 1983, President Reagan reported a landing on Grenada by Marines and Army airborne troops to protect lives and assist in the restoration of law and order and at the request of five members of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States.

1984 -- Persian Gulf. On June 5, 1984, Saudi Arabian jet fighter planes, aided by intelligence from a U.S. AWACS electronic surveillance aircraft and fueled by a U.S. KC-10 tanker, shot down two Iranian fighter planes over an area of the Persian Gulf proclaimed as a protected zone for shipping.

1985 -- Italy . On October 10, 1985, U.S. Navy pilots intercepted an Egyptian airliner and forced it to land in Sicily. The airliner was carrying the hijackers of the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro who had killed an American citizen during the hijacking.

1986 --Libya. On March 26, 1986, President Reagan reported to Congress that, on March 24 and 25, U.S. forces, while engaged in freedom of navigation exercises around the Gulf of Sidra, had been attacked by Libyan missiles and the United States had responded with missiles.

1986 -- Libya. On April 16, 1986, President Reagan reported that U.S. air and naval forces had conducted bombing strikes on terrorist facilities and military installations in Libya.

1986 -- Bolivia. U.S. Army personnel and aircraft assisted Bolivia in anti-drug operations.

1987-88 -- Persian Gulf. After the Iran-Iraq War resulted in several military incidents in the Persian Gulf, the United States increased U.S. Navy forces operating in the Persian Gulf and adopted a policy of reflagging and escorting Kuwaiti oil tankers through the Gulf. President Reagan reported that U.S. ships had been fired upon or struck mines or taken other military action on September 23, October 10, and October 20, 1987 and April 19, July 4, and July 14, 1988. The United States gradually reduced its forces after a cease-fire between Iran and Iraq on August 20, 1988.

1988 -- Panama. In mid-March and April 1988, during a period of instability in Panama and as pressure grew for Panamanian military leader General Manuel Noriega to resign, the United States sent 1,000 troops to Panama, to "further safeguard the canal, U.S. lives, property and interests in the area." The forces supplemented 10,000 U.S. military personnel already in Panama.

1989 -- Libya. On January 4, 1989, two U.S. Navy F-14 aircraft based on USS John F. Kennedy shot down two Libyan jet fighters over the Mediterranean Sea about 70 miles north of Libya. The U.S. pilots said the Libyan planes had demonstrated hostile intentions.

1989 -- Panama. On May 11, 1989, in response to General Noriega's disregard of the results of the Panamanian election, President Bush ordered a brigade- sized force of approximately 1,900 troops to augment the estimated 11,000 U.S. forces already in the area.

1989 -- Andean Initiative in War on Drugs. On September 15, 1989, President Bush announced that military and law enforcement assistance would be sent to help the Andean nations of Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru combat illicit drug producers and traffickers. By mid-September there were 50- 100 U.S. military advisers in Colombia in connection with transport and training in the use of military equipment, plus seven Special Forces teams of 2-12 persons to train troops in the three countries.

1989 -- Philippines. On December 2, 1989, President Bush reported that on December 1 U.S. fighter planes from Clark Air Base in the Philippines had assisted the Aquino government to repel a coup attempt. In addition, 100 marines were sent from the U.S. Navy base at Subic Bay to protect the U.S. Embassy in Manila.

1989 -- Panama. On December 21, 1989, President Bush reported that he had ordered U.S. military forces to Panama to protect the lives of American citizens and bring General Noriega to justice. By February 13, 1990, all the invasion forces had been withdrawn.

1990 -- Liberia. On August 6, 1990, President Bush reported that a reinforced rifle company had been sent to provide additional security to the U.S. Embassy in Monrovia, and that helicopter teams had evacuated U.S. citizens from Liberia.

1990 -- Saudi Arabia. On August 9, 1990, President Bush reported that he had ordered the forward deployment of substantial elements of the U.S. armed forces into the Persian Gulf region to help defend Saudi Arabia after the August 2 invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. On November 16, 1990, he reported the continued buildup of the forces to ensure an adequate offensive military option.

1991 -- Iraq. On January 18, 1991, President Bush reported that he had directed U.S. armed forces to commence combat operations on January 16 against Iraqi forces and military targets in Iraq and Kuwait, in conjunction with a coalition of allies and U.N. Security Council resolutions. On January 12 Congress had passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force against Iraq Resolution (P.L. 102-1). Combat operations were suspended on February 28, 1991.

1991 -- Iraq. On May 17, 1991, President Bush stated in a status report to Congress that the Iraqi repression of the Kurdish people had necessitated a limited introduction of U.S. forces into northern Iraq for emergency relief purposes.

1991 -- Zaire. On September 25-27, 1991, after widespread looting and rioting broke out in Kinshasa, U.S. Air Force C-141s transported 100 Belgian troops and equipment into Mnshasa. U.S. planes also carried 300 French troops into the Central African Republic and hauled back American citizens and third country nationals from locations outside Zaire.

1992 -- Sierra Leone. On May 3, 1992, U.S. military planes evacuated Americans from Sierra Leone, where military leaders had overthrown the government.

1992 -- Kuwait. On August 3, 1992, the United States began a series of military exercises in Kuwait, following Iraqi refusal to recognize a new border drawn up by the United Nations and refusal to cooperate with U.N. inspection teams.

1992 -- Iraq. On September 16, 1992 President Bush stated in a status report that he had ordered U.S. participation in the enforcement of a prohibition against Iraqi flights in a specified zone in southern Iraq, and aerial reconnaissance to monitor Iraqi compliance with the cease-fire resolution.

1992 -- Somalia. On December 10, 1992, President Bush reported that he had deployed U.S. armed forces to Somalia in response to a humanitarian crisis and a U.N. Security Council Resolution determining that the situation constituted a threat to international peace. This operation, called Operation Restore Hope, was part of a U.S.-led United Nations Unified Task Force (UNITAF) and came to an end on May 4, 1993. U.S. forces continued to participate in the successor United Nations Operation in Somalia (UNOSOM II), which the U.N. Security Council authorized to assist Somalia in political reconciliation and restoration of peace.

1993 -- Iraq. On January 19, 1993, President Bush said in a status report that on December 27, 1992, U.S. aircraft shot down an Iraqi aircraft in the prohibited zone; on January 13 aircraft from the United States and coalition partners had attacked missile bases in southern Iraq; and further military actions had occured on January 17 and 18. Administration officials said the United States was deploying a battalion task force to Kuwait to underline the continuing U.S. commitment to Kuwaiti independence.

1993 -- Iraq. On January 21, 1993, shortly after his inauguration, President Clinton said the United States would continue the Bush policy on Iraq, and U.S. aircraft fired at targets in Iraq after pilots sensed Iraqi radar or anti-aircraft fire directed at them.

1993 -- Bosnia-Hercegovina. On February 28, 1993, the United States bagan an airdrop of relief supplies aimed at Muslims surrounded by Serbian forces in Bosnia.

1993 -- Bosnia-Hercegovina. On April 13, 1993, President Clinton reported U.S. forces were participating in a NATO air action to enforce a U.N. ban on all unauthorized military flights over Bosnia-Hercegovina.

1993 -- Iraq. In a status report on Iraq of May 24, President Clinton said that on April 9 and April 18 U.S. warplanes had bombed or fired missiles at Iraqi anti-aircraft sites which had tracked U.S. aricraft.

1993 -- Somalia. On June 10, 1993, President Clinton reported that in response to attacks against U.N. forces in Somalia by a factional leader, the U.S. Quick Reaction Force in the area had participated in military action to quell the violence. The quick reaction force was part of the U.S. contribution to a success On July 1, President Clinton reported further air and ground military operations on June 12 and June 17 aimed at neutralizing military capabilities that had impeded U.N. efforts to deliver humanitarian relief and promote national reconstruction, and additional instances occurred in the following months.

1993 -- Iraq. On June 28, 1993, President Clinton reported that on June 26 U.S. naval forces had launched missiles against the Iraqi Intelligence Service's headquarters in Baghdad in response to an unsuccessful attempt to assassinate former President Bush in Kuwait in April 1993.

1993 -- Iraq. In a status report of July 22, 1993, President Clinton said on June 19 a U.S. aircraft had fired a missile at an Iraqi anti-aircraft site displaying hostile intent. U.S. planes also bombed an Iraqi missile battery on August 19, 1993.

1993 -- Macedonia. On July 9, 1993, President Clinton reported the deployment of 350 U.S. armed forces to Macedonia to participate in the U.N. Protection Force to help maintain stability in the area of former Yugoslavia. Most of them are month long affairs.

ibstolidude

08-22-2003, 05:16 PM

month long affairs?
as in only a few months?
a-stan - coming up on 2 years now.

Macedonia - Camp ABle sentry still going strong

Bosnia - still going strong

Kosovo - still going strong

Iraq/kuwait/suadia arabia (oman, diaego garcia and upporting countries) - still going strong

82 sinia egypt - still going strong

counter drug operations in the latin americas to include training and logistical support - decades long

91 - Zaire = NEO mission complete

92 - sierre leone = NEO mission complete

90 - Liberia = NEO mision complete

88 and on - panama = wow how long was that!!

Haiti (neglected from list) but it was only 5 years or so

honduras - 6 years

83 grenada - granted prettry short but considering the mission - The mission was to oust the People's Revolutionary Government, to protect U.S. citizens and restore the lawful government. - RTB mision complete

somalia - definately fit the bill only being 1 +1/2 years long!

too - tedious to continue - the statement is bunk.

**Although I certainly don't agree the US is in it for the long hall;
I sure don't see "Most of them are month long affairs." comment being any more true.... unless you count bombing raids and missile strikes and Noncombatant evacs..

I only took comment because the months add up quickly especially once the news media stops coverage.

spier

08-22-2003, 05:31 PM

Actually, most of them seem to be short lived interventions(month long, aka. less than a year long). The fact that you missed the three times Haiti was mentioned does not bode well for your "analysis".. :roll:

Anyway, the most important to note is that the US withdrew both from Vietnam and Somalia when it got too bloody.

ibstolidude

08-22-2003, 05:46 PM

Most of them? - recheck the dates of our initial involvement and the dates of our withdrawal

ACTUALLY the 1994 US led Uphold Democracy would not be included on the list as the list is only current through 1993 (excellantly observed :roll: )

I guess your missing of that recent and significant event in US military history does not bode well for your analysis.
:roll:

Ohh and nice back peddle to say you ACTUALLY mean that the US leaves when it gets bloody, as opposed to your earlier statement the US leaves after only a few months.

as I posted the majority of troop deployments posted in that listed lasted several years, to include the list I posted of "still going strong (currently US deployed troops), to the those where the US military left a presence for many years.

Unless you meant when we bomb we don't keep flying around for several years over their airspace; your posting of the list with the caveat of the US deplyments are "only a few months long" is PURE BUNK.

If you had choosen to make a post based on fact, I would have agreed with you that the American people shown little "stomach" for blody warfare- but alas that was not the point you made..

spier

08-22-2003, 05:57 PM

Interesting, you tried to spin my statement to include the word "few" three times, you even tried to insert it into a quote that you made up.

Desperate times call for desperate measures, eh?

ibstolidude

08-22-2003, 06:30 PM

sorry you are right! I assumed you were smarter.
your statement was definatively shorter!
"month long affairs"

meaning only 1x month long

I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Now I challenge you to find US military deployments that only lasted in a region for 1x month and make sure you find a majority as you stated - "Most of them are month long affairs"

good luck! - remember your statement - and I'll fore warn that just because the list states the basic does not mean there isn't more detail:

1985 -- Italy . On October 10, 1985, U.S. Navy pilots intercepted an Egyptian airliner and forced it to land in Sicily. The airliner was carrying the hijackers of the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro who had killed an American citizen during the hijacking - how long was the 325 w/cetaf now the 173rd stationed in Italy? 15 years?

or

1982 -- Sinai. On March 19, 1982, President Reagan reported the deployment of military personnel and equipment to participate in the Multinational Force and Observers in the Sinai. Participation had been authorized by the Multinational Force and Observers Resolution, Public Law 97-132. - we never left

or
1976 -- Korea. Additional forces were sent to Korea after two American military personnel were killed while in the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea for the purpose of cutting down a tree. - how long have we been there? after all a standard Korea tour is 1x year long.

or
1959-60 -- The Caribbean. 2d Marine Ground Task Force was deployed to protect U.S. nationals during the Cuban crisis.

1962 -- Cuba. President Kennedy instituted a "quarantine" on the shipment of offensive missiles to Cuba from the Soviet Union. He also warned Soviet Union that the launching of any missile from Cuba against nations in the Western Hemisphere would bring about U.S. nuclear retaliation on the Soviet Union. A negotiated settlement was achieved in a few days. hey how is camp X ray these days I wonder?

1962 -- Thailand. The 3d Marine Expeditionary Unit landed on May 17, 1962 to support that country during the threat of Communist pressure from outside; by Jul 30 the 5000 marines had been withdrawn - cobra gold conducted what 20 times now? - still the PACOM is conducting FID in the area..

now granted the Iran raid was short - where are "Most of them are month long affairs" deployments recorded?
maybe
Maybe you are counting all of the NEO - Noncombatant evacuations - where the military only deploys long enough to remove the US citizens from an area at DOS request to DOD?

maybe you meant Provide Comfort 1/2 Kurdistan - 91-96?
New Horizions Central America - no still ongoing in central america

MONUC in the congo in 2000 - no still there
Resolute Resonse in Afrika 98 - no still there
I know
Golden Pheasant in hondurus - no still there
well our aircrews did assist in Zaire for 1x month in 78!!!
well maybe we should try pre vietnam era?

okay:

1965 -- Dominican Republic. The United States intervened to protect lives and property during a Dominican revolt and sent more troops as fears grew that the revolutionary forces were coming increasingly under Communist control. - also known as Powerpack dates apr65 - sep 66

well the congo in 64 was only a week or so long...but we did leave a presence as advisers but we did have people there 60 -62 for operation Congo

or
Blue Bat in lebanon in 58 was only 4 months long, but you said 1 month

or

1954-55 -- China. Naval units evacuated U.S. civilians and military personnel from the Tachen Islands. - part of a series of operations called Tawain Straits - aug54 to may 55

and the early in our history we go I still am not seeing
"Most of them are month long affairs." - since I suck at analysis please enlighten me, I'm willing to change. show that most of US deployments are month long affairs.
I keep looking down your list and the only ones that really fit the profile of "month long affairs" are strikes/raids and the NEO's, with only few exceptions and they are not "most of them" , then?

spier

08-23-2003, 04:44 AM

Look, I know your reading skills aren't particulary good, but here it is in bold for you:
spier
Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2003 5:31 pm Post subject:
Actually, most of them seem to be short lived interventions(month long, aka. less than a year long). Also note that I said that most of them were month long, just that. I didn't have a criteria for how many people deployed or minimum days deployed. I just looked through the list and saw that the ones saying, for example, 1929 outnumbered the ones saying 1959-60.

ibstolidude

08-23-2003, 12:41 PM

I understand that your reading skills are as low as your knowledge of US military history but as I attempted to illustrate to you earlier when the list reads:

"1929" - that does notmean troops are not already deployed on that area or that the troops did not remain. A perfect example:

1993 -- Bosnia-Hercegovina. On April 13, 1993, President Clinton reported U.S. forces were participating in a NATO air action to enforce a U.N. ban on all unauthorized military flights over Bosnia-Hercegovina.

Our troops never left - ACTUALLY were followed by - about 14 subsequent consecutive Named Operations in Bosnia/Croatia to include at one point over 30,000 US troops (ground combat troops beginning 1996 and continues today - support troops for the aviation, SOF, intel, and other logistics assets had been in place since 1993).

that action SKY MONITOR began 16 OCT 1992- read the above - "reported US forces WERE partisipating in a NATO air action" - were=past - thus began operation DENY FLIGHT 12 Apr1993 - 20 dec 1995 - Operation Deny Flight is what your list addressed as your list ended in 1993 it fails to reflect Deny Flight was 2years+ long. Both Operations took place over Balkan Air Space.

or

1993 -- Macedonia. On July 9, 1993, President Clinton reported the deployment of 350 U.S. armed forces to Macedonia to participate in the U.N. Protection Force to help maintain stability in the area of former Yugoslavia.
US troops are still being deployed to that same ISB Camp Able Sentry.

And as I stated before nice back peddle after your original post, but still not accurate:
Actually, most of them seem to be short lived interventions(month long, aka. less than a year long).

- Taking into account (so it does not make the tide overwhelming in the longer favor) the folllowing includes named operations outside of the US.

They range from the current Iraq - Afghanistan and Philippines all the way back to the Barbary Wars in Libya in 1801-1805 and again in 1815 and to the Slave Trade Patrols 1820.

As previously stated I counted Vietnam as one single durations as each of the major 7 named operations of vietnam lasted different lengths and the same troops never left... it was the same war but differnet phases.

I did not count US troops deployed on US soil insupport of counter-drug, national response to emergency, or border patrol. I did not count training excersices over seas as they are not troop deployments (Bright star - cobra gold etc) - even though they have year round US military staff and advisors, therefore leave a US presence. I did not count the US wars fought in US on the Continent as it would not be relavent.

I did however count the evacuation of US embassy staffs and Noncomabatant Evacuations ( troops go in pull out the citizens and leave) and raids (desert one/urgent fury..etc).

US deployments longer than 1 year total approx: 204
78 - named operations
126 - overseas active military service instillations that are older than 1 year and not including Forward Support Bases, Intermediate Staging/support Bases and the like created for the named operations (as of 2002) also not including 7 or so in US Territories and possesions. I also did not include military staffs/guards deployed to US embassies and country teams (100's of locations), does not include US Naval Ships, does not include US soldiers/officers deployed to SHAPE/ARRC/NATO/ and other such organizations all of which contain large numbers of Us troops and have since their creation.

US deployements shorter than 1 year total aprox: 47
47 - (raids, missile strikes, bombing campaigns, wars (grenada), NEO's)- as stated does not include training excersices that last either longer or shorter than 1 year -they count for neither totals)

close score. :roll:
even with out the 126 foriegn military instillations such as SIGONELLA NAS from which came your list item:
1985 -- Italy . On October 10, 1985, U.S. Navy pilots intercepted an Egyptian airliner and forced it to land in Sicily. The airliner was carrying the hijackers of the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro who had killed an American citizen during the hijacking. where pilots have been training for years.
with out those troops in embassies, country teams, embassy guards (marines), overseas training ex's, SHAPE/NATO/ARRC etc -

the facts and history does not reflect: your initial statement:

Most of them are month long affairs. or the ammended/clarified statement:
Actually, most of them seem to be short lived interventions(month long, aka. less than a year long).

They may seem like short affairs, but the US DoD lists all their operations, instillations and their named operations on their websites. Because media coverage ends after the appearant "action" dies down does not equate to a US military withdrawal... If anything the US has a negative stigma of remaining in a region for too long (as we experience feedback/back lash from the locals); although we also have garnered a repution since the 70's for having a public that does not stomach well, bloody operations. - neither of which supports your previous statements about the duration of US military troop deployments.

So you based a decision off incomplete information or did not have the facts, big deal move on...

James

08-23-2003, 03:20 PM

Americans can be fickle people, losing interest in things quickly, and becoming interested in something else a short time later. Americans also get angry and lose patience with leaders who don't tell the truth. How many times has the story about the occupation of Iraq changed? Our troops would fight the war, then quickly return home. They've slowly been trickling back, but more were deployed for occupation duty, and now they are scheduled to be in Iraq for a year, not the few months that was initially promised.

There is an interesting parallel with our experience in Vietnam. I think most of the anti-war sentiment in the American public exploded after the Tet Offensive in early 1968. Before, the American public had been told by military and political leaders "We can see the light at the end of the tunnel". Then, BANG! The U.S. won the battles in Vietnam, but the people at home lost patience with the war.

I really, really hope that doesn't happen in Iraq. We took their country apart, and now we owe them.

usa320

08-23-2003, 03:30 PM

Ya know what is strange....

This thread, and how badly it sucks.

budanski

08-23-2003, 05:37 PM

EUROPE: WORLDS APART
By RALPH PETERS
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/3206.htm

LIFE may not be predictable, but Europeans are. If we criticize them publicly, they splutter, outraged that we don't recognize their perfection. They can dish it out abundantly, but continental Europeans can no more take criticism than their welfare armies could have taken Baghdad.

The only thing you can get for free from Europeans is advice. And they're always ready to give us plenty of it, as they've been doing for more than two centuries.

Still, behind the easy pleasure of poking fun at European pretensions, there are serious - and hardening - differences between Americans, who embrace the future, and the French or Germans or Belgians who cling to the past.

None of those differences go so deep as our opposing concepts of freedom.

For Europeans - excluding the Brits, who are more like us than they sometimes find comfortable - "freedom" means freedom from things: from social and economic risk, from workplace insecurity and personal responsibility, from too much competition in the marketplace or too much scrutiny of governing elites.

Socialism, a doctrine born in Europe, struck very deep roots. The collective takes priority over the individual. The European social contract amounts to this: We will not let the talented rise too high, and we will not let the lazy fall too low. "Equality" doesn't mean equal opportunities, but equal limitations.

For Americans, freedom means the freedom to do: To make our own way, to struggle, achieve, to rise (to climb social, educational or economic ladders), to move beyond our parents' lot in life and give our children better chances still.

We are products of the immigrant spirit and the pioneer mentality. Our ancestors (as well as today's new immigrants) dared to take a chance, instead of remaining in the "old country," with its degrading social and economic systems.

The Europeans with whom we must deal today are those whose ancestors lacked the courage to pack their bags and board the ships in Hamburg or Antwerp or Danzig. They chose a miserable security over hope that carried risks.

The American Revolution was entrepreneurial and constructive. The French Revolution was vengeful and destructive. Even during the Great Depression, when extremist ideologies achieved their greatest popularity in the United States, nothing approaching a majority of Americans signed up for any totalitarian creed of either the right or left. In the words of Huey Long, who for all his faults spoke for the average Joe, we never stopped believing in the possibility of "every man a king."

Europeans are content with "every man a servant," as long as the terms of service are not too severe and the position comes with job security. Hitler did not cement his hold on power with anti-Semitism - that was an add-on - but with works projects, with jobs for Germans, with a promise of economic security, however low the level.

The Bolsheviks never preached liberty. Their credo was the nanny state, a "fair share" for the workers and the promise that decisions would be made "for the good of all."

We elevate the individual; Europeans worship the group. We dream. Europeans fear. Indeed, the only belief that has been ****ounced dead more often than religion is the American dream. Professors write its obituary almost daily. The rest of us live it.

Life isn't fair, of course. But too much enforced "fairness" robs life of its vitality. We Americans live in the one country where each of us, regardless of race or religion, has the chance to realize our potential. Reaching that potential is up to us. But our laws and our culture don't stand in our way.

There are, of course, many further differences between us and the Europeans, but the greatest other distinction relates to the first: American is the land of second chances. And of third, fourth and fifth chances, if only we have the gumption to seize them.

In Europe, there's little provision for late bloomers. The placement tests the student takes as a teenager determine his or her academic, economic and social fate to an extent that would spark another revolution in America.

Here, attending Harvard is no guarantee that you'll succeed in life - it just gives you a head start out of the gate. On the other hand, beginning your academic career at a community college doesn't mean you can't climb to the highest income levels.

Europeans accept their fates. Americans make their own.

Most Americans would be astonished if they understood how few opportunities there are for Europeans to pursue adult education, to change careers, to learn new skills - or to recreate their lives. It's an adult version of being forced to retain your identity in junior high school forever.

Europeans demand security, no matter the price. Americans want a shot at the title.

And so it comes to pass that, as America seeks to change the world for the better, Europeans are content to let dictators thrive and populations suffer - as long as Europe's slumber is not disturbed.

Strategically, Europe is in danger of becoming the greatest impediment to positive change in the world. Europe clings to the international status quo, no matter how dreadful, simply because risk has been bred out of its culture. This leaves the United States (and Britain) with the choice of doing that which is necessary and just without Europe's support, or accepting the rules that made the 20th century history's bloodiest.

Europeans are correct when they insist that America has become a danger. We are, indeed, a tremendous threat to their self-satisfaction, to their dread of change, to their moral irresponsibility and to their dreary, state-supported cultures.

Our ancestors chose a new kind of human freedom. Europeans have resisted it ever since.

spier

08-23-2003, 07:00 PM

Lets see, Ralph here is arguing that Europe is willing to sacrifice freedom for security. While Americans like to retain their freedom at any cost..and that is why the American people barely objected to the Patriot act and the other great "security measures" the US goverment created after 9/11.

The US of A; Making satirists obsolete since 1776!

Interesting, it also mentions that the Europeans are so scared, which is probably why there are so many guns in Europe. Oh wait..

Oh god, I didn't notice this until I had posted:
look not to the mote in thy neighbour's eye, when thou has a beam in thine own. That is the first time I can say that I have seriously Laughed out Loud on the internet. rofl

Moookey

08-23-2003, 07:10 PM

Swiss are stupid.

budanski

08-23-2003, 07:37 PM

Oh god, I didn't notice this until I had posted:
look not to the mote in thy neighbour's eye, when thou has a beam in thine own. That is the first time I can say that I have seriously Laughed out Loud on the internet. rofl

Its directed at idiots that start these kinds of threads.

Coming from a country that was responsible for 2 world wars and the deaths of 6 million jews, isnt it quite strange that you have such gall to preach and look down on the U.S.?

Perhaps us 'cowboys' could learn a thing or two when dealing with terrorists from the Huns. Bankroll the terrorists. (http://sg.news.yahoo.com/030823/1/3dmt1.html) :roll:

California Joe

08-23-2003, 09:50 PM

And those spikey, pointy Kaiser helmets looked wicked gay. So there.

spier

08-24-2003, 04:37 AM

Desert-Fox

08-24-2003, 03:36 PM

Isn't that strange?

Moookey

08-24-2003, 03:57 PM

Swiss are stupid.

budanski

08-24-2003, 04:06 PM

Indeed they are (http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/Swissinfo.html?siteSect=105&sid=4152582)

spier

08-24-2003, 04:08 PM

Swiss are stupid.Indeed.

Moookey

08-24-2003, 04:41 PM

Europeans and Australian are stupid.

Herrmannek

08-24-2003, 04:44 PM

Europeans and Australian are stupid.
You've pushed to far...I'm not stupid...at least I think I'm not stupid...

spier

08-24-2003, 04:46 PM

Europeans and Australian are stupid.THat's funny. Especially since chances are that your great-grandpa was an Euro.

Fargin

08-24-2003, 04:48 PM

Scandinavians are stupid too.

StarvingStudent47

08-24-2003, 06:34 PM

Its directed at idiots that start these kinds of threads.

Coming from a country that was responsible for 2 world wars and the deaths of 6 million jews, isnt it quite strange that you have such gall to preach and look down on the U.S.?

Perhaps us 'cowboys' could learn a thing or two when dealing with terrorists from the Huns. Bankroll the terrorists. (http://sg.news.yahoo.com/030823/1/3dmt1.html) :roll:OK, you did it again, I LoL'ed.

You have no idea where I am from.

That's fine that Switzerland is neutral, but don't try and act like that makes you better than everyone else. Neutrality does NOT automatically confer moral superiority. Non-action is often not the most ethical answer--as my signature suggests.

usa320

08-24-2003, 07:35 PM

What the hell, if this is a nation bashing pissing contest, i might as well jump in.

FRANCE- IT BLOWS.

BUT NOT AS BADLY AS WHAT THIS ALREADY CRUMMY THREAD HAS BEEN DEGRADED TO.

Moookey

08-25-2003, 12:23 AM

Europeans and Australian are stupid.
You've pushed to far...I'm not stupid...at least I think I'm not stupid...

Europeans (except Poland) and Australians are stupid.

THat's funny. Especially since chances are that your great-grandpa was an Euro.

THat's funny. Especially since chances are that your great-grandpa was an Asian.

THat's funny. Especially since chances are that your great-grandpa was an African.

spier

08-25-2003, 01:56 AM

stuntman

08-25-2003, 03:29 AM

WOW a great big **** match!
:bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash:
Screw the rules!

Kriz

08-25-2003, 04:49 AM

You all suck, now go and die please, goodbye !

Haiw

08-25-2003, 08:09 AM

i'll join the utterly useless flamewar;

BRITNEY SPEARS I ****ING HATE U U CHEAP ASS DIRTY BITCH QUIT MAKING THOSE ****ING ANOYING SINGLES THEY PISS ME OFF GODDAMNIT!!!!

that's better...

vryhpyammoadded

08-25-2003, 11:56 AM

Have they gone plaid yet.

Spaceballs was stupid.

Trigger

08-25-2003, 12:11 PM

Waaaaayy past 'plaid'...I think it's closer to 'paisley' at this point. :roll:

He219

08-25-2003, 12:38 PM

StarvingStudent47

08-25-2003, 01:20 PM

StarvingStudent47, I am better than you.
Above all things, nothing upsets me more than this kind of ARROGANCE. I may not agree with StarvingStudent47 most of the time, but I would NEVER consider myself SUPERIOR to him/her or ANY OTHER PERSON in the world.

Personal Values may vary and should be considered whilst making statements of Reighteousness, but spier's audacity as stated in his own words is self-explanatory......

:slap:

Actually, I think that was meant to be a joke. I had said something like "don't believe that a country's neutraliy policy makes its citizens better than anyone else." The response "I am better than you" is a light-hearted response to that.

On the other hand, if Spier meant that seriously, then he's pretty dumb ;)

usa320

08-26-2003, 12:34 AM

I HATE WENDY's. THERE BURGERS TASTE LIKE ****...

rofl

This thread sucks so bad, im at a loss of words.

I mean, all its become is a big genetalia size contest.

Moookey

08-26-2003, 01:38 AM

Have they gone plaid yet.

Spaceballs was stupid.

OHH...THE NERVE!!! Don't make me ram your behind with my ship at ludacrous speed!!!

Adri

08-26-2003, 04:26 AM

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0778562.html

this is an independent page wich says:

I`m from norway that means I have the best standar of life i the hole WORLD...tihi woot

Kriz

08-26-2003, 04:37 AM

Belgium is 6th, not bad at all :D

Haiw

08-26-2003, 08:29 AM

I am FIFTH YEAAAAAH

786mine

05-11-2004, 04:37 AM

i fell asleep halfway through... rofl
rofl rofl rofl :cantbeli: