United States Imperialism

[Mushroom]

Probably the worst tribe were the Comanches, who warred against and defeated the Apache, and were so bad that the Mexican government invited US Texans to Texas (then part of Mexico), to help fight off the Comanches. The resulting large Texas settlement became partially a cause of the American-Mexican war,1846.

But the Comanche did not cross most of the continent, and attacked and warred with hundreds of other tribes like the Lakota did.

Take a look at a map, and remember that in around 1450 the Lakota were in the Lower Mississippi at roughly where Vicksburg is today. From there they traveled north up the Mississippi, past Lake Michigan to the shores of Lake Superior. There they met, fought with, and were defeated by the Anishinaabe. At that point they turned west and fought their way through every tribe they met once again. And were fighting the tribes around the Wyoming-Idaho border at the time they were finally forced to stop their nomadic wandering and settle down in one place.

Great, the Comanche fought the Apache. They did not roam over 3,000 miles and fight hundreds of different tribes in a giant swath for over 4 centuries.

 

[Mushroom]

And they're lying today about Ukraine

What, that Ukraine really attacked Russia?

 

[gipper]

Any actual argument?

Did you fail to read my posts?

 

[francoHFW]

Texas had beaten Mexico long before the 1846 Mexican-American War. Texas was an independent country just like California was. Texas was even recognized by MEXICO as an independent country in 1845. The US attempted to buy the Southwest from Mexico and Mexico refused. That led to the war which Mexico decisively lost. The first event that led directly to the war was an attack on American troops by Mexican Regulars NORTH of the Rio Grande in territory ceded to the USA by Santa Ana. The USA then declared war. The US still paid Mexico for the Southwest rather than just claiming it as war booty.

fremont won California during the war... I think you are referring to the Gadsden Purchase as far as Mexico getting money........

 

[Kruska]

Operation Storm against Krijina was the blueprint the US/Nato had for the Ukrainians in Donbass, but they have been stopped at first by the Donbass militia in the DPR and LPR and since 2022 by the Russian army, operation Storm by the Croat fascists would have looked like a Sunday School picnic to what the people in Donbass would have faced if the Ukrainian Nationalists had prevailed.

Not quite - almost,

Operation Storm, IMO certainly provided the blueprint to drive out Russian forces and the pro-Russian separatist forces from Donbas, Luhansk and Crimea.
However during Trump's tenure, US military aid and especially the strength of Western PMC's were drastically reduced. Independent of Ukrainian internal issues - corruption and a non-conform/unified political leadership, the envisaged professional buildup of the UAF, therefore never took place.

The perspectives only changed when the Goebbels scholar came to power - and with Biden aka USA then re-enforcing/enacting the project Operation Storm. Thus also being the primary reason for Putin to attack Kiev - planing to install a pro-Russian government, before the UAF would become a potent threat.

As such if one has reasons to believe into a project such as Operation Storm for Ukraine - it would take till the mid/end of 2025 for the UAF to achieve that status.
And the US election is in November 2024.

The present UAF operations - this propagated "big counter offensive" since the beginning of 2023 - is nothing else but a test scenario - to practically evaluate the UAF's capabilities and to draw conclusions onto what kind of support needs to be financed and readied directly from the USA. E.g. Abrams tanks, MLRS, F-16's, AT-helicopters, etc. Since it has become obvious that the European NATO does not have the supplies nor resources to engage towards such needed equipment before the end of 2025.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[fncceo]

China allows capitalists to mercilessly exploit their workers

The PC or phone you're using to make your posts ... where was it made?

 

[Kruska]

. Iran became the most prolific sponser of terrorism, far outdoing Ghaddafi

And why?

 

[protectionist]

Sorry but I haven’t read your posts.

Then how did you manage to have them as quotes in your posts ?

 

[protectionist]

The US revolutionary War had been being fought for FIFTEEN MONTHS before the Declaration of Independence was signed. So no, the D of I had nothing to do with the war. It was just an acknowledgement of existing conditions. It was mostly written to get international support for the Colonies in their struggle with Great Britain.

No matter when the D of I was written, it still had an effect to promote war, whether to start or intensify.

 

[protectionist]

Texas had beaten Mexico long before the 1846 Mexican-American War. Texas was an independent country just like California was. Texas was even recognized by MEXICO as an independent country in 1845. The US attempted to buy the Southwest from Mexico and Mexico refused. That led to the war which Mexico decisively lost. The first event that led directly to the war was an attack on American troops by Mexican Regulars NORTH of the Rio Grande in territory ceded to the USA by Santa Ana. The USA then declared war. The US still paid Mexico for the Southwest rather than just claiming it as war booty.

The timing is a side issue. What I was talking about, was long years before the American-Mexican War. That doesn't mean there wasn't a correlation. The US was still fighting in Afghanistan in 2021, 20 years after the 9/11 attacks, which caused the fighting.

Stephen Austin's contract to bring settlers to Texas, June 4, 1825 (Gilder Lehrman Collection) In order to settle Texas in the 1820s, the Mexican government allowed speculators, called empresarios, to acquire large tracts of land if they promised to bring in settlers to populate the region and make it profitable. Helping Mexico to fight off Comanches was part of it too.

Mexico officials later became concerned about attitudes among the Anglo-Americans in Texas, for instance, their insistence on bringing slaves into the territory. Also, because of the Mier y Terán Report to counter concerns that Mexican Texas, part of the border state of Coahuila y Tejas was in danger of being annexed by the United States. Immigration of United States citizens, some legal, most illegal, had begun to accelerate rapidly.
The legislature passed the Law of April 6, 1830, which prohibited further immigration by U.S. citizens.

 

[protectionist]

But the Comanche did not cross most of the continent, and attacked and warred with hundreds of other tribes like the Lakota did.

Take a look at a map, and remember that in around 1450 the Lakota were in the Lower Mississippi at roughly where Vicksburg is today. From there they traveled north up the Mississippi, past Lake Michigan to the shores of Lake Superior. There they met, fought with, and were defeated by the Anishinaabe. At that point they turned west and fought their way through every tribe they met once again. And were fighting the tribes around the Wyoming-Idaho border at the time they were finally forced to stop their nomadic wandering and settle down in one place.

Great, the Comanche fought the Apache. They did not roam over 3,000 miles and fight hundreds of different tribes in a giant swath for over 4 centuries.

And the left keeps harping about European settlers being harsh to (American) Indians. Most Indians who died after contact with settlers, died from lack of immunity against European diseases (ex Smallpox).

Thousands more died from arrows of other Indians, as described in your informative post.

 

[AZrailwhale]

And why?

Because it’s run by religious fanatics who hate America because we espouse not only freedom of religion, but freedom FROM religion. Our successful society is a direct affront to their beliefs that success only comes from being a slave to allah.

 

[Deadstick]

You're kidding right? Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine are all partially or completely controlled by Teheran. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard is an arm of the Iranian government and has committed many acts of terrorism ranging from attacking neutral shipping during the "Tanker War" that lasted from 1 February 1984 until 4 August 1988. The Revolutionary Guard ground forces have support, trained and financed terrorist forces all over the middle east and trained Hugo Chavez's military in Venezuela. Iran was providing advanced IEDs (except they weren't IMPROVISED) to the terrorist forces opposing the US in the terrorist wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, leading directly to the deaths of hundreds of American servicemen and women.

All those groups you named have one thing in common, they are all part of the resistance to Israel, they are not international terrorists like Al Qaeda etc, Hezbollah didn't even exist before Israel invaded Lebanon and occupied much of the South for decades, if your forces were not in Iraq and Afghanistan they wouldn't be bombed, and who said Iran supplied the IEDs, even if they did so what? you supply weapons to terrorists all over the World including terrorists in Syria, so cry me a river.

 

[Mushroom]

The PC or phone you're using to make your posts ... where was it made?

Actually, the CPU of my computer as well as the video chip were made in New York and Singapore. The motherboard was made in Taiwan. My cell phone was made in South Korea, but I do not use my cell phone here, I use it as a book reader more than anything else.

China is actually the source for very few "high end" chips. What they primarily are is an assembly country. They in reality "make" very little when it comes to cell phones or computers, they are simply the guys that put the pieces together.

 

[Mushroom]

And the left keeps harping about European settlers being harsh to (American) Indians. Most Indians who died after contact with settlers, died from lack of immunity against European diseases (ex Smallpox).

It can't be helped that they are idiots, and want to believe proven liars like Ward Churchill.

And for the latter part, that is wrong. Most of the Indians died off in the very early 1500s, and were dead most of a century before the first Settlers even arrived in North America. And most did not die of smallpox, they died of the common cold, the flu, measles, and chickenpox. By the time smallpox reached them in the 18th century, the survivors of those first pandemics had resistances pretty comparable to the Europeans and died in roughly the same numbers.

The North American Smallpox Epidemic of 1775-1782 killed over 130,000 Americans of European descent before it finally burned out. And ironically, traders from the Hudson Bay Company kicked off another epidemic in 1782 that did affect the West Coast, with mortality rates comparable to those that were seen among Europeans on the East Coast almost a decade earlier. That is the amazing thing about smallpox, nobody has "immunity" to that one, that is why it was such a scourge for tens of thousands of years and decimated people anywhere it arrived. Be it 1800s England and France, or 1900s Boston.

And that's alright, they gave back just as well. The Europeans gave them the cold and measles, the Indians gave them back syphilis.

 

[gipper]

It can't be helped that they are idiots, and want to believe proven liars like Ward Churchill.

And for the latter part, that is wrong. Most of the Indians died off in the very early 1500s, and were dead most of a century before the first Settlers even arrived in North America. And most did not die of smallpox, they died of the common cold, the flu, measles, and chickenpox. By the time smallpox reached them in the 18th century, the survivors of those first pandemics had resistances pretty comparable to the Europeans and died in roughly the same numbers.

The North American Smallpox Epidemic of 1775-1782 killed over 130,000 Americans of European descent before it finally burned out. And ironically, traders from the Hudson Bay Company kicked off another epidemic in 1782 that did affect the West Coast, with mortality rates comparable to those that were seen among Europeans on the East Coast almost a decade earlier. That is the amazing thing about smallpox, nobody has "immunity" to that one, that is why it was such a scourge for tens of thousands of years and decimated people anywhere it arrived. Be it 1800s England and France, or 1900s Boston.

And that's alright, they gave back just as well. The Europeans gave them the cold and measles, the Indians gave them back syphilis.

Is it your understanding the Euros didn’t carry syphillis?

 

[Dayton3]

Is it your understanding the Euros didn’t carry syphillis?

Syphilis is thought to have evolved from another disease.

 

[gipper]

Syphilis is thought to have evolved from another disease.

Doesn’t answer

 

[ralfy]

It shows that NATO is defensive, as Russia will attack a former Soviet satellite to reunite the union, which is not part of NATO, but won't attack the former Soviet satellite countries that are NATO united.

Opinion | NATO Isn’t What It Says It Is

From its origins, the alliance was never primarily concerned with military power.

www.nytimes.com

 

[ralfy]

Even though I agree with much of your post - the factual occurrences in regards to Croatia, Slovenia and Bosnia-Herzegovina in the historic timeline - offer a different view.

In the 70'ies Tito granted Croatia preference right's - which resulted in an immediate economic gain and growth for Croatia. Thereby strengthening the always existing interests and agendas of Croatian nationalists - hence demanding even more autonomy - right down to self-rule. as a result Tito then withdrew these privileges.

In wake of the Soviet withdrawal from eastern Europe in 1989, Croatian nationalist again took their chances and declared independence in 1991. The strongest backer aside from the USA was Germany's old time foreign minister Genscher. He had kind of overslept or was passed over in the process of the German reunification and therefore was desperate to make a name for himself - thus immediately pushing Germany, and the EU towards recognition of Slovenia and Croatia's sovereignty and accreditation by the UN. (1992).

Whilst Serbian held enclaves in Croatia were putting up resistance (militias) and a UN mandate was established for Croatia, another referendum was held in Bosnia in 1992 - boycotted by the Serb population. As a reaction/result to the UN recognition of Croatia, Serbian government troops that had previously withdrawn from Slovenia and Croatia went back into action towards Bosnia - thus resulting in the known atrocities committed on all sides. Whereby those of the Serb committed atrocities certainly outranked the others from 1993 onward.
Even before Croatia was accredited by the UN - NATO was already in action to equip and train the new Croatian Armed Forces - foremost, you guessed right - by the USA. (conducted by "private" US companies - PMCs ) - just as in Ukraine and so many other countries, there is no need for an official NATO/US involvement, to press/support/initiate US global interests.

This enabled Croatia to start two major military offensives against Serb-militia held territory in 1995 (Krajina region and eastern Slavonia) - thereby achieving the first Serbian military defeat since 1991, and thus in return resulting in more violent actions by Serb militias and the Serbian Armed Forces in Bosnia and Croatia.

The Dayton Accord - brokered by the USA - not NATO - did not provide a final result for the Eastern Slavonic issue. However Milosevic agreed to return eastern Slovenia to Croatia in 1996. Croatia recovered full sovereignty over eastern Slavonia in 1998.

Since then NATO aka USA has been pushing it's NATO expansion not just Eastward but also towards the other "new" former Yugoslav states.

Reminds me of

Bill Clinton’s Role in the Crisis Over Ukraine

The militarization of American foreign policy has evolved over the past thirty years. Ironically, this took place in the wake of the dissolution of the

www.counterpunch.org