The Obama administration announced today that it will take Cuba off its list of states that sponsor terrorism. This will take effect in 45 days unless Congress votes to deny it, in which case the White House will certainly veto it. Iran, Sudan, and Syria remain on the list.
There is something deeply hypocritical about the US maintaining lists of countries that sponsor terrorism when it engages in acts of violence and subversion all over the world. It is lucky for the US that other nations don’t have such lists (at least none that they disclose publicly) because it would likely be on most lists. That would be embarrassing.
Might makes right. Who’s gonna argue with the U.S.?
Might makes right. Who’s gonna argue with the U.S.?
So far …
British North America, 1812
Red Cloud 1868
Red Army of Soviet Russia 1920
Korea 1950 -- ongoing
Cuba 1961
VietNam 1964-1975
Afghanistan 2001-ongoing
Venezuela 2002
Iraq 2003-ongoing
Pakistan 2004-ongoing
ISIL 2014-ongoing
http://www.pieria.co.uk/articles/why_the_worlds_biggest_military_keeps_losing_wars
One law for us, one law for US.
Show me an empire that didn’t engage in any hypocrisy and I’ll show you a Micronation.
krambc (#2) -- You may admit the US lost in 1812, but the writer of your link doesn’t:
Why does the US keep losing? Because it’s not willing to die in the numbers necessary to win. Nearly all of the US’s wars (with rare exceptions like World War II) are wars of US aggression against others, for the control of others’ land. And almost always, the US only takes on easy-to-beat opponents (e.g. Grenada) or those it thought would be easy to beat (e.g. Afghanistan). The US turned tail and ran from Beirut in 1983 after the bombing of the marine barracks, unwilling to accept such losses.
People are only willing to fight and die in great numbers for their own land (vis-a-vis Palestine, Vietnam, etc.). Countries that engage in war crimes and colonialism like the US, UK and Israel (and others in the past like France, Germany, USSR and Spain) are willing to fight and commit genocide because they’re unwilling to die for what they’re after. Their own people wouldn’t support their aggression if they had to endure mass casualties, especially on the “home front”.
Just look at the weaponry countries use. Those who carry stuff like AK47s don’t expect to survive. Conversely, countries like the US seek technological solutions and choose weapons intended to avoid any of their own being killed, hence why the US so willingly embraces mass murdering drones.
Mano --
In looking up Micronations, I happened upon something unusual tonight. May I send it by email? You’ve been receptive to other items I’ve sent….
left0ver1under,
Sure!