Did your view of the War against Serbia change?

[Flying Pig]

Aye, all 57 of them; nothing like a European war. It was also far from the main USA

 

[Aegis]

How convincing. How can I ever argue against such powerful arguments.
It is off-topic anyway, and I am not interested in debating with you. So just enjoy life on your little make-believe world.
I am still not laughing.

Considering your lack of historical knowledge, you should be crying.

Dragonlord already rattled off a handful of nations off the top of his head that were blatantly more aggressive than the US, so your point is already defeated. Sticking your fingers in your ears does not make the evidence go away.

Aye, all 57 of them; nothing like a European war. It was also far from the main USA

What's next, are you going to try to tell me that the citizens of Richmond did not experience the horrors of war as the Union was bombarding them with artillery? Do you really think it mattered to them who was firing the shells?

 

[Stolen Rutters]

Exactly like I said before, just because an aggression is justified does not mean it is not aggression (it wasn't justified in the US Civil War). Please give us the reason why Serbia was justified in invading it's neighbors and committing genocide.

I never said Serbia or Serbians were justified. In fact, I think the idea I was trying to get across was that all of the players in the Yugos' collapse were unjustified and it became a massive power play between the various groups. Otherwise I would not have said there were no "good guys".

As to the American Civil War, as devastating as the conflict was, I feel it definitely saved the territorial integrity of our nation. Justified or not, it definitely kept North America from becoming a war zone since then. A united continent turned out to benefit us greatly over the past century and a half.

p.s. More Civil War Off Topics

Spoiler :

For posterity's sake, I am a northerner, and when I was younger, I admit I did believe "our side won" that war. It's what we are taught. It wasn't until a few years ago when I became interested in history that I really realized that war was much more nuanced. I mean, how are you supposed to teach that we essentially split in two and fought "ourselves" in a war. That would be a horrible thing to happen in reality. There's no justification for either side. Better to teach that the enemy who split off were a bunch of nutcases who wanted to keep people bonded as slavs.

Of course, the original reasons for secession were primarily about slavery, at least according to the Southerners who were advocating the position... but those same people who claimed the slavery argument at the beginning of the war claimed after the war that was not so. It was really all about states rights.

I don't mean to say the Southerners were the villains. I know better than that now. The northerners did the opposite, claiming they were fighting to save the union at first completely downplaying the slavery issue, and only later, after the fighting went hot and got quite deadly, claimed the war was also a fight against slavery (as a justification to claim the moral high ground.)

 

[jessiecat]

I never said Serbia or Serbians were justified. In fact, I think the idea I was trying to get across was that all of the players in the Yugos' collapse were unjustified and it became a massive power play between the various groups. Otherwise I would not have said there were no "good guys".

As to the American Civil War, as devastating as the conflict was, I feel it definitely saved the territorial integrity of our nation. Justified or not, it definitely kept North America from becoming a war zone since then. A united continent turned out to benefit us greatly over the past century and a half.

A united continent, eh? A few million Canadians and Mexicans would find that hilarious.
How more American can you get?

 

[Kyriakos]

Anyone want to comment on the KLA=terrorist suggestion?

 

[Flying Pig]

A united continent, eh? A few million Canadians and Mexicans would find that hilarious.
How more American can you get?

I love the yanks!

 

[frekk]

Dragonlord already rattled off a handful of nations off the top of his head that were blatantly more aggressive than the US

But almost none of those nations were consistently as aggressive as the US. No other country in the history of mankind has been at war so often over such a long duration of time. Germany hasn't been involved in a war for decades; Napoleonic France was quite aggressive, but only for a decade and a half; after the Napoleonic Wars they were at peace for 55 years, far longer than the US has ever been. The US has been involved in armed conflict practically continuously since its founding, with the brief exception of the 1920s and 1930s. Pick a year at random outside those dates, and the US was more than likely involved in at least one armed conflict.

About the only groups from those that even comes vaguely close to sustaining the same level of consistent aggressiveness are the Assyrians and the Romans, and even they fall short.

 

[Patroklos]

But almost none of those nations were consistently as aggressive as the US. No other country in the history of mankind has been at war so often over such a long duration of time.

This is hilarious. Do us a favor and look up the "30 years war" and the "100 years war" as a start Neither involved the US.

Germany hasn't been involved in a war for decades

Did you miss the Cold War, Kosovo (the topic of the thread!) and Afghanistan???

Napoleonic France was quite aggressive, but only for a decade and a half; after the Napoleonic Wars they were at peace for 55 years

Pecious. The Napoleonic wars involved the armed supression of an entire continent and lasted decades in themselves (longer than any American war). I suppose their rape their colonial holdings doesn't matter, right?

The US has been involved in armed conflict practically continuously since its founding, with the brief exception of the 1920s and 1930s.

And the 1790s, 1820s/30s, most of the 1840s, 1850s, 1870/80s etc. etc. You obviouisly have no idea what you are talking about. It is even more hilarious because you seem to be oblivious to the constant aggression of the major colonial powers of France/Britain/Spain/Germany/etc. who were running through the world roughshod for most of American history.

Pick a year at random outside those dates, and the US was more than likely involved in at least one armed conflict.

Even if this was true, and its not, it is still not enough to even remotely prove your position.

About the only groups from those that even comes vaguely close to sustaining the same level of consistent aggressiveness are the Assyrians and the Romans, and even they fall short.

 

[frekk]

And the 1790s, 1820s/30s, most of the 1840s, 1850s, 1870/80s etc. etc. You obviouisly have no idea what you are talking about.

BZZZT! Wrong.

1790s: Northwest Indian War; the Quasi War
1820s/30s: Winnebago War; Blackhawk War; Second Seminole War
1840s: Mexican-American War; Cayuse War
1850s: Cayuse War (went from 1847-1855); Third Seminole War
1870s: Korean Expedition; Modoc War; Red River War; Black Hills War; Nez Perce War; Bannock War; Cheyenne War; Sheepeater Indian War; Ute War

Any other decades you'd like to try?

The Napoleonic wars involved the armed supression of an entire continent and lasted decades in themselves (longer than any American war). I suppose their rape their colonial holdings doesn't matter, right?

Um ... armed suppression of an entire continent? Yeah, the decades you thought the US wasn't involved in any wars at all don't look anything like that now, do they? How ironic your statement is! Armed suppression of a continent. Colonial rape. Didn't matter. Etc.

Talk about foot in mouth syndrome.

The Napoleonic Wars were a series of wars, not a single war. And if you add up the series of wars the US fought during its expansion towards the Pacific, they last a heck of alot longer than the Napoleonic Wars.

It is even more hilarious because you seem to be oblivious to the constant aggression of the major colonial powers of France/Britain/Spain/Germany/etc.

Wait ... who is supposed to be oblivious, here? Who's the one who thought that "not being at war" includes waging war on people in order to take their land? Who's the one who didn't count things?

I never said what others did weren't acts of aggression or they didn't matter. It's not a choice between "the US is shiny and good and the best ever and everyone else is really bad", or "nobody else ever did anything wrong and the US is really bad."

Others have been quite aggressive. But that doesn't mean the US hasn't been. There's a big difference between being notably aggressive, and uniquely aggressive.

 

[Patroklos]

Wow, this is just surreal.

If you are going to count the various Indian conflicts then I get to count the continued suppression of Ireland by England, which lasted a good 400-500 years. The British suppression of India? How about the French suppression of Normandy? A good 1000 years there. The Spanish supression of Basque? A good 500 years.

You can't win this, your position is entirely untennable. It is laughable. You have notices not a single poster in this thread spanning multiple ideologies has even attempted to back you uo, right? That should tell you something.

 

[frekk]

If you are going to count the various Indian conflicts

Why wouldn't we count them? Surreal, indeed! Not to mention repugnant. And a dead giveaway to the kind of moral compass being used here. Whatever we do is good. If it's bad, it doesn't really count.

"Yeah, we were at peace those years! Uh, except for this war. And this one. Oh, and that one. And this one too. And this other one. And this one. And this one. And this one. And this one. And this one. And this one. And this one. And this one. And this one. And this one. And this one. And this one. And this one. But uh, well, those people don't really count." Now THAT is surreal.

then I get to count the continued suppression of Ireland by England, which lasted a good 400-500 years. The British suppression of India? How about the French suppression of Normandy? A good 1000 years there. The Spanish supression of Basque? A good 500 years.

Well, the US simply couldn't be oppressing anyone for 500 or 1000 years because it hasn't been around that long. This defence is preposterous; by that measure, the Nazis were sweet little bunny rabbits, since they were only around 22 years. Ridiculous. What matters isn't the absolute duration, but the frequency and intensity during that portion of history in which the polity actually existed.

Also, I wasn't counting occupation of native land or oppression of natives at all; only wars against them, and I only mentioned those ones because you claimed the US wasn't being aggressive during a series of particular decades, when in fact, it fought no less than 18 armed conflicts during those decades, 17 of which were land grabs.

The question isn't "is the US the nastiest worstest nation ever" or "is the US the bestest goodiest country ever" (why do Americans insist on seeing everything as a moral competition? It seems so juvenile). I objected to your claim that the US was not militarily aggressive, specifically. Treatment of minorities and so on is a different question altogether (although you probably don't want to go there, either - it certainly wouldn't be all-time #1 on that issue, but it's worse than some). But to say that the US has been one of the least militarily aggressive countries in history, is just absurd and completely at odds with the historical facts. If you want to believe it's the greatest and most moral country ever, go ahead; it's really got little to do with how militarily aggressive it is. Military aggression is something we can measure without ever making a moral judgement (because military aggression isn't always a bad thing; think Allies in WW2, for instance). We can measure it by the frequency and intensity of armed conflict, by the militarization of the society in terms of how much of the economy is devoted to supporting military force outside its borders, and so on. And by all these measurements, the US comes out far ahead of any competitor. The frequency of armed conflict is much higher; the portion of the economy devoted to military force beyond the borders is many, many times greater than anything else that has ever existed.

By the way ... what's up with your claim that France "oppressed" the Normans for 1000 years? The Normans invaded Normandy, which had belonged to France since forever (the Franks were living there 200 years before Charlemagne), and said "this is ours now" and France said "well ... I guess so" - and after a while, the Normans started speaking French and considering themselves to be French, and so did the French.

I think you must means the Bretons?

You have notices not a single poster in this thread spanning multiple ideologies has even attempted to back you uo, right? That should tell you something.

Nobody except you has argued against me, either. I'm not the poster who brought this up. I just chimed in when you said there are 10 000 nations who are more militarily aggressive than the US.

Not that it would matter if anyone did. Argumentum ad populum, and an absurdly weak one at that; as if a handful of posters to a video game forum proves anything! It's telling that these are the kind of metrics you use, without even any apparent awareness of just how silly they are.

You may be able to convince me that the US isn't the most aggressive country in history, though you're doing poorly so far (you could really use a refresher on how to construct an argument - a bunch of assertions isn't an argument). But your original assertion that "The USA doesn't even make the top 10,000 of most military aggressive nations in the world's history" is looking fairly toasted at this point. You're not presenting a convincing argument that it wasn't in the top 1 or even 10, never mind ten thousand.

 

[say1988]

While I also think his arguement is pretty bad, and a stupid thing to begin with, the Indian wars that were cited are a completely different story from Ireland or whatever that for much of the history had sporadic revolts but were fairly peaceful. In comparison you could cite specific events while the British ruled Ireland. Best example would be specifically British campaigns and conflicts that brought more and more of India under their control.

 

[REDY]

Comparing Serbs to Indians is not good. While both live in reservations in their own land, Indians were genocided mainly by deseases, Serbs were cleansed by UÇK and NATO.