Originally posted by LWW CONQUEST: To take by force or coercion. To exert power and domination over. To acquire thru illegitimate means and hold by force what is not rightly yours.
Not sure what crap dictionary you are using, but I've never known CONQUEST to require any illegal action.. Here is a link I found with the definition..
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=conquest
1. The act or process of conquering. See Synonyms at victory.
2. Something, such as territory, acquired by conquering.
3. One that has been captivated or overcome: The pianist made a conquest of every audience on the tour.
Nothing of 'illegal' or 'illigitimate' means.. Once again you try to slant the truth to your meaning by misleading.. How about making points and statements that can stand on their own merits instead of needing adjustment and influence by twisted truths?
WWII: We were attacked at Pearl Harbor by Japan not Germany. We the EEEVILLL Americans assisted in the LIBERATION of Europe and returned the continent to the people of Europe.
Now, if you are reffering to the 'never fight war' thing, then this is moot.. if you are trying to show us 'liberating' people, you are failing to stick to the terms I've set forth (being ones that support a precident for our current conflict).. In WW-II, we were attacked.. provoked.. has nothing to do with Iraq today..
Korean War: The enlightened socialist regime of N Korea attempted to CONQUER the freely Democracy of S Korea. The EEEVILLL Americans, under UN blessing, LIBERATED the CONQUERED portions of Korea and forced the N Koreans back to their rightful borders.http://www.korean-war.com/
Again, we were asked to join in.. we did NOT arbitrairily start a war, we joined a war..
Grenada: The Cubans were building an air base which was illegal under treaties. The Grenadan people were oppressed by the new government, which CONQUERED the island via coup usurping the legitimate government, and the new government a puppet of the Cubans who were in fact puppets of the Soviets. American interests were threatened. The EEEVILLL Americans LIBERATED the island and returned it to the people of Grenada.http://www.historyguy.com/Grenada.html
You said it, and supported my earlier statemenet.. we were NOT there to liberate them, we were there to stop the alliance with Cuba and destroy/block the air base.. Not to mention, there were over 1000 AMERICAN CITIZENS there at the time, so 'liberating forgein people' was not the cause of the war, as Bush is claiming is the push in Iraq..
Panama: The UN ordered free elections to be held. These elections were supervised by former President Jimmy Carter. Manuel Noriega LOST the free election he had agreed to hold. The Panamanian military was sent out to enforce martial law. This made Panama a de facto CONQUERED nation. The legally elected, and recognized by the UN, new President of Panama and it's Supreme Court fled to the EEEVILLL USA. They were then flown back to Panama by the USAF to a base on sovereign Panamanian soil. The Panamanian Supreme Court swore in the legally elected Panamanian President who then immediately invoked a common defense treaty agreement with the EEEVILLL Americans at which point the EEEVILLL Americans LIBERATED Panama and returned it to the Panamanian people. The drug dealer, *********, dictator and former sweetheart of the left was returned to the US and summarily tried and sentenced. As a side note former boxing champion Roberto Duran was also returned to the USA so he could repay the millions in back taxes he owed.
http://www.panamascandal.com/today/today_right.html
Again, it started as a war on drugs, to get Noriega. Once we told him we were comming in, he THEN went nuts on his own people.. according to your info anyway.. again, it was NOT to liberate the forgein people from a forgein government, we were looking for ONE person for crimes against the US... not against his people..
" This became evident during the 1989 invasion of Panama to oust General Manuel Antonio Noriega. During the Reagan administration's war against drugs, a Florida federal court issued an indictment accusing stout, so-called "pineapple face" due to his pot-holed complexion, accusing him of providing the famed Medellin drug with secret airfields in Panamanian territory from which to smuggle drugs into the United States in exchange for huge bribes. The trusted ally on the payroll of the C.I.A. now became the #1 enemy of the United States. The Reagan administration moved to impose sanctions against Panama, but Noriega reacted by publicly waiving his machete, defying United States intervention in Panama.
A brutal period in Panamanian history ensued. Noriega overthrew his own puppet government three times in less than five years. His enemies were exiled; many were killed; his military cronies sacked the public vaults; and in 1989, after two years of public defiance of U.S. sanctions, he staged a second fraudulent election, invalidating the results when his candidate overwhelmingly lost to the opposition coalition led by Guillermo Endara. He became newly elected President George H.W. Bush's personal headache. Bush himself was battling the image of a wimp, and for a while Noriega seemed invincible. "
Kuwait: Iraq was a very wealthy nation. Saddam squandered there oil wealth in an attempt to CONQUER Iran. Yes we did back him to some degree in a move which I consider brilliant.
I hope the 'brillian' comment was sarcasim.. In any event, we were ASKED to come in, despite having other motives (oil/money/etc).. again.. not a start of a war for liberation, it was a joining of a war.. Ironic that we started helping this psycho and now claim we don't like him.. Immagine that, the government being involved with the nastiest of people running other countries, then later when they aren't doing what we want we go to war with them.. Na, our government isn't currupt..
Any and all attempts at revisionism of empirical historical facts are a complete abdication of intellectual integrity on the part of Savant and his followers.
I'm not out to revise it, and as you pionted out, you have many college hours of history courses.. In that case, I would think you're educated enough to see the underlying current of how fukked up our government is, yet you don't see that. I have to presume you are very well read, but not very smart. Talk about regurgitation.. spitting out 'facts' with no ability to process that information is the exact antithsis of intellecutality.. I will happiliy concede that I don't know all the facts about all the parts of all history.. But to say I try to revise it to my own needs is.. well, bull.. If I'm incorrect about something, I'm happy to learn, I love to learn.. That's the only way to adjust your views and have an informed opinion, most of mine are.. Yours seem to be based on what you want to be true rather than what the evidence points to..
My reason for going on is that many people don't read the paper or learn their history sadly and end up reading this puke and assuming that it has some veracity. I'll even give Savant a break here and concede that he probably falls into this group himself. My only gripe is he insists upon sticking his own head up his own arse and hiding from the truth because to do otherwise the learned one would have to admit to being f-f-f-full of sh-sh-sh... wr-wr-wr-wrong. Please gain an understanding of history before you debate it. As I have noted in other threads I have sufficient college hours to have a Masters Degree in history. I don't have the degree yet because I neglected taking some of the BS stuff required such as Phys Ed and other fluff. I stand on my credentials however as being at least above the norm on this area of study.
You are correct, I don't read the paper.. I pretty much don't read at all.. I have Dyslexia which causes reading to be a very tedious endeavor.. Therefore I have to rely mostly on things I hear (on TV news, in college courses, from people that I feel know what they are talking about, etc).. However, that does not mean I have my head up my *** and am hiding from the truth.. It means I don't read the paper.. that's all it means.. Just because you are bookread on history doesn't mean you understand those words. Bookread doesn't mean intelligent.. Nor does knowledgable mean wise..
Savant as to you wanting me to commit fornication with you I doubt that our plumbing/genitalis is compatible...but in a mental metaphoric analogy I think I already have.
Wait, aren't you the one that said "GROW UP MAN" about such things? Again, another perfect example of how you seem to think you don't have to play by the same rules.. like basing your statements of 'fact' on things that can be proved.. And, actaully, another example of how you can't comprehend what you read.. I said fuk off, has nothing to do with the compatibility (or lack there of) of our genitalia.. and you certianly haven't come close to any kind of intelletual elevation over me. Simply shown that you know more history than I do, none of which is helping you substantiate your points..
