Have US cityzens fear to block Bush?

[Charlie-brm]

[quote]Originally posted by BNC: [b]Chris- The former Chairman of the Joint Cheifs of Staff, Colin Powell, supports using military action. He has historically been against using the military whenever possible. Please post some examples of military heads of state who oppose the administrations actions.[/b][/quote]These are the retired generals who were actually in the field. [quote]Maj Gen Patrick Cordingley, who commanded the brigade - the renowned Desert Rats - in 1991, believes that Iraq poses no imminent threat to Britain or its interests and that "the case for war has not yet been made by the politicians". Gen Cordingley told The Telegraph: "I'm absolutely opposed to a war. I feel very strongly that it is wrong. There is no justification for sending British troops to Iraq." [/quote]Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf: [quote]"The thought of Saddam Hussein with a sophisticated nuclear capability is a frightening thought, okay?" he says. "Now, having said that, I don't know what intelligence the U.S. government has. And before I can just stand up and say, 'Beyond a shadow of a doubt, we need to invade Iraq,' I guess I would like to have better information." He hasn't seen that yet, and so -- in sharp contrast to the Bush administration -- he supports letting the U.N. weapons inspectors drive the timetable: "I think it is very important for us to wait and see what the inspectors come up with, and hopefully they come up with something conclusive."[/quote] [quote] He likes the performance of Colin Powell -- chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Gulf War, now secretary of state. "He's doing a wonderful job, I think," he says. But he is less impressed by Rumsfeld, whose briefings he has watched on television. "Candidly, I have gotten somewhat nervous at some of the pronouncements Rumsfeld has made," says Schwarzkopf. He contrasts Cheney's low profile as defense secretary during the Gulf War with Rumsfeld's frequent television appearances since Sept. 11, 2001. "He almost sometimes seems to be enjoying it." That, Schwarzkopf admonishes, is a sensation to be avoided when engaged in war. [/quote]and [quote] Sir Michael Quinlan, former permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defense, this weekend told The Independent on Sunday that war was "disproportionate". Major-General Julian Thompson, a senior Falklands veteran, admitted he was "not persuaded of the case for war at the moment". "I also don't think that Saddam Hussein is necessarily the right target," he added. [/quote]

[Wewus432]

[img]http://neptune.atlantis-intl.com/dolphins/img/sea03.jpg[/img]

[Anderton]

<> I've been staying out of the Bush threads because I just haven't had the time. But I think the real question involves the statement above. Is it possible to "box in" Hussein and basically render him ineffective? If so, that would be far preferable than going to war...I don't think anyone would dispute that. What's up for dispute -- and I don't think anyone here has the answer -- is whether force is essential or not. Let me propose another justification for the Bush interest in Iraq. By all accounts, Iraq is not a happy place (granted, embargos haven't helped, but Hussein could have ended them very easily) and Hussein really is a very twisted person, afraid of his own bodyguards, and more than happy to order executions that fit political ends. The Middle East is of tremendous strategic importance, not just for oil, but for location. It controls several significant shipping lanes, and holds a lot of wealth. Yet there is corruption and conflict in many places. Iraq's location is such that it is, by default, a major player. Israel, Iran, Jordan, etc. are all within striking range. Hussein did in fact invade Kuwait. Whether he had it cleared by the State Department or not, as it certainly seems if you read about April Glaspie (sp?) and her meeting with Hussein, he nonetheless displayed a major imperialistic streak. A country like Jordan is just trying its best to cope and doing a reasonably good job, ditto Israel. There are voices in Palestine and Israel who have had enough of conflict. There are voices in Iran who want change. And there are those in Iraq who remember when it was a Westernized center of culture, and wish those days would come back. Then there are the Saudis, a very corrupt regime that is perenially subject to threat, but eager to keep a stable situation. I think Bush may see Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Palestine, Iran, etc. as all potentially dangerous, especially if conquered by Iraq. A free, prosperous Iraq would have tremendous beneficial effects, cause the US to look like good guys ("hey, they liberated Iraq, just like they helped do with France! Cool!"), reduce dependence on Russian oil, and make it that much harder for terrorists to find safe haven. But the problem with that theory is this: why hasn't Bush articulated it in this manner? Perhaps it is because it's a hard sell that Americans should die to protect Jordanians, Israelis, Iranians, etc. -- although quite a few Americans would not have a problem with that. In other words, a stable middle east would be a tremdendous asset: we could get some of their wealth into our banks, the issue of oil would be less problematic, the Israeli/Palestinian thing might have a better chance, Jordan could continue its liberalization, and Iran would be a less represssive place. This is a very big gamble. If the US goes into Iraq, deposes Hussein expeditiously, and there is dancing in the streets and pictures of Iraqis hugging US soldiers and covering them with flowers, the positive PR would be incalculably good. If we go in there, Israel is nuked, our soldiers are gassed, and nightly news shows Israelis with skin peeling off their backs and disfigured GIs, man, that's a whole different scenario. I don't know which one it will be. I don't think anyone does. But I think Bush is making calculations based on the assumption that once attacked, Hussein's regime will implode. Let's hope he's right, because if not, then we ARE in BIG trouble. Now, before this looks pro-Bush/pro-war, let me add a few more things: 1. It may be entirely possible to cause Hussein's regime to collapse without having to send in a zillion troops. 2. Weapons inspection after the Gulf War destroyed more weapons than the war did. If US intelligence worked with inspectors and truly tried to chase down and destroy every weapon of mass destruction and neutralized Hussein, there would not be as many positive benefits but there wouldn't be a war, either. 3. The infringements on our civil liberties have been astouding, swift, and enacted with barely a peep from our illustrious representatives and concerned citizens. This is truly scary stuff. As usual, this is a tremendously complex and nuanced situation. War is a very simple and plain alternative. I think what many Europeans are asking is whether there is a complex and nuanced solution available. The problem there is I think they give Hussein too much credit for being a reasonable negotiator. So many opinions are based on suppositions of what might happen or what will happen, so we won't know who's right until the situation hits the fan. I will say one thing for sure: anyone who has served this country through military service deserves major props. I've seen war destroy people, I've seen how war destroyed cities, and I would prefer not to see any of that ever again. Anyone who had to actually live through the hell of war deserves both kindness and respect...and also, a government that doesn't renege on its commitment to veterans.

[whitefang]

Craig, I have no problem if Bush is only trying to attempt a sort of liberation of the Iraqi people. I have a problem with all the fol-de-rol surrounding this issue. If he said so up front, my end of the debate would be nullified. GZ, it isn't a hatred for the country as much as it's dissapointment with both the government's and others even in this forum with the leanings towards nationalism. By loose definition, "patriotism" is when you love your country even when it's bad, and maintaining a drive to make improvements. "Nationalism" is to blithely feel "my country is the BEST" and let it's behavior go unchecked. And to insist that other countries would be more acceptable if they were "just like us", and use extreme measures to insure they are is dangerous. And completly wrong. Hitler felt that way, as did Stalin, Kruschev, Breshnev and many other megomaniacal leaders. Would you suggest our embracing such policy, because we are America, makes it somehow different and BETTER? Whitefang

[BP3]

[quote]Originally posted by Dave Pierce: [b]* We've had a polarized two-party system for so long that politically active people often take positions on issues based on being "against" the other party, rather than thinking through each specific issue. [/b][/quote]I think that the best amendment to the constitution would be this. [i]No amendment may be presented that is not directly related to the purpose of a bill.[/i] Keep each bill related to one issue only. It's easier to judge a vote if you don't have to look for the hidden reasons for a vote. This would help end pork, favor trading, hidden taxes, and other shit that make good laws fail and bad laws pass. This one amendment would get rid of many of the incentives of congressmen and senators to fuck with good ideas and attach themselves to bad ones. :wave: :wave: :wave: :idea: :idea: :idea:

[Meriphew_dup1]

A lot of people say that Saddam is no longer a threat to the U.S., that he has been so dehabilitated that he is no longer potent. Do I beleive that Iraq will directly attack the U.S? No I don't. Do I beleive Iraq will provide arms, financial support, and refuge to those who would? [b]Hell yeah I do[/b]! By us going into Iraq and removing Saddam, we are saying to everyone in the world - if you are supporting or contributing to terrorism, we [i]will[/i] come to your home with full military force, even if you are on the other side of the planet, and you will be dealt with swiftly and decisively. I think incentives like that will help to ebb the flow of terrorism.

[BNC]

TinderArts- Your amendment should have been added long ago. Its such an obvious solution to a simple/stupid problem with our legislature. Anderton- Your description of the motives of Bush and our gevernment are spot on. This is something that I have known since the beggining, it makes sense to me and is what I would strive for if in a position of power. I am shocked that there seems to be no offical statements drawing the same conclusions, it would certainly quell some of the sentiment that Bush is just out for oil etc. The idea of constant inspections and UN occupation could make it more difficult for Saddam to inflict pain on others, however, it will not make a dent in terrorism. Constant inspections would keep the military basically incative, definatly a good thing. Contrary, it only takes one Iraqi scientist to give one batch of chemical xyz to a terrorist to cuase severe damage, and no matter how closely Iraq is monitored, individuals can easily evade survailence. THIS is why Iraq is a threat to the US. It is pretty hard to track and detect an exchange of a briefcase in the middle of the desert in the dark. One person interviewed on a major new station recently (can't recall which/who) equated to Saddam/terrorism to cancer. To parraphrase- you can undergo some immediate pain to greatly improve the situation/cure it; or it can be ignored, almost certainly leading to much more pain and a more difficult adversary in the future. We could do nothing to Saddam since he is not currently attacking anyone (outside of his country), but that leaves the world open to what he could do in the future; imagine what he would be capable of in 10 years if left unchecked...

[Soundcrafter]

I might be slightly off topic, but I've got something to say like the rest of you. There's been a lot of talking about how much hate the United States receives. I admit I am part of the group of people who dislike(not hate, as that is an extremely strong word) the country, but note I say country, not people. I know many citizens of the US who are great people. For me, it's the current government I dislike. Remember back around September 11, Bush kept on talking about how the terrorists want to erode our freedoms and all that we cherish about it? He's been using the words 'freedom' and 'democracy' so much they've become buzz words more than truth. It's like he's trying to brainwash people into thinking they're as free if not free-er than befroe Spetember 11. The article someone linked to on the first page (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0207-10.htm) is a good example. It seems the terrorists are getting what they "wanted," in that freedom is fast becoming a thing of the past.

[Anderton]

<> As I said, "But the problem with that theory is this: why hasn't Bush articulated it in this manner?" It seems the justification for invasion changes depending on which one this administration thinks will go over best with the public ("He's just like Hitler!" "No wait, he has links to 9-11!" "Well, maybe he doesn't have links to 9-11, but he would if he could!") Here's another theory: why the sudden reversal on allowing inspectors? Is it because making Hussein hide his weapons will make it that much harder to deploy them should the war start suddenly?

[Anifa]

Just a few quotes to toss in here that were made by Adolf Hitler... [quote] "Altogether, care should be taken not to regard the masses as stupider than they are." -- Adolph Hitler [/quote][b]How many people question George W's ability for leadership? Think about Hitler's comment![/b] [quote] "... he who swims with the stream is more easily overlooked than he who bucks the waves." -- Adolph Hitler [/quote] [quote] "For in the long run government systems are not maintained by the pressure of violence but by faith in their soundness and in the truthfullness with which they represent and advance the interest of a people." -- Adolph Hitler [/quote] [quote] "We must always bear in mind that even the most beautiful idea of a sublime theory in most cases can be disseminated only through the small and smallest minds. The important thing is not what the genius who has created an idea has in mind, but what, in what form, and with what success the prophets of this idea transmit it to the broad masses." -- Adolph Hitler [/quote] [quote] "It must never be forgotten that nothing that is really great in this world has ever been achieved by coalitions, but that it has always been the success of a single victor." -- Adolph Hitler [/quote] [quote] "Care must be taken not to underestimate the force of an idea." -- Adolph Hitler [/quote] [quote] "In order not to be considered lacking in artistic understanding, people stood for every mockery of art and ended up becoming really uncertain in the judgment of good and bad." -- Adolph Hitler [/quote] [quote] "... empty hands can judge only by externals and never have the faculty of penetrating the inner core ..." -- Adolph Hitler [/quote] [quote] "We are not simple enough, either, to believe that it could ever be possible to bring about a perfect era. But this relieves no one of the obligations to combat recognized errors, to overcome weakness, and strive for the ideal." -- Adolph Hitler [/quote] [quote] "For the greatest revolutionary changes on this earth would not have been thinkable if their motive force, instead of fanatical, yes, hysterical passion, had been merely the bourgeois virtues of law and order." -- Adolph Hitler [/quote] [quote] "People are not freed by doing nothing, but by sacrifices." -- Adolph Hitler [/quote] [quote] "... God does not make cowardly nations free ..." -- Adolph Hitler [/quote] [quote] "Whatever you do, do it completely." -- Adolph Hitler [/quote] [quote] "... the impetus to the mightiest upheavals on this earth has at all times consisted less in a scientific knowledge dominating the masses than in a fanaticism which inspired them and sometimes in a hysteria which drove them forward." -- Adolph Hitler [/quote] [quote] "Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live." -- Adolph Hitler [/quote] [quote] "The best weapon is dead, worthless material as long as the spirit is lacking which is ready, willing, and determined to use it." -- Adolph Hitler [/quote]

[BP3]

Everybody sing - [i] Springtime for Hitler and Germany.....[/i] BTW - What's become of Mel Brooks??

[Charlie-brm]

[quote]Originally posted by meriphew: [b]A lot of people say that Saddam is no longer a threat to the U.S., that he has been so dehabilitated that he is no longer potent. Do I beleive that Iraq will directly attack the U.S? No I don't. Do I beleive Iraq will provide arms, financial support, and refuge to those who would? [b]Hell yeah I do[/b]! By us going into Iraq and removing Saddam, we are saying to everyone in the world - if you are supporting or contributing to terrorism, we [i]will[/i] come to your home with full military force, even if you are on the other side of the planet, and you will be dealt with swiftly and decisively. I think incentives like that will help to ebb the flow of terrorism.[/b][/quote]That thinking is over two years old. The problem we are after doesn't have a home. Saddam doesn't even have to exist and I won't feel any safer. Supposedly the Pentagon sent the best they had to Afghanistan. Lots of people in the U.S. were giddy in anticipation as the specialists were going to pick off these ragheads, put Bin Laden's head on a pike and show the others watching a lesson. Well the ragheads they were after got away because they have tons of cash, friends and passports. You do know many of those aluminum cases you saw specialists carrying in the boonies did not carry fancy equipment? They carried cash for potential informants to rat out Bin Laden. What are you going to do with $50,000 in the middle of nowhere and your throat slashed by your neighbours? Saddam works as a legitimate target because he could be sold to the public as the enemy. He's not a boogey man. We can see him any night on TV and we know where he is. He is not going anywhere outside of Iraq anytime soon. Don't get me wrong, he is the enemy but I think we're hunting dictators out of season. We start shooting up Iraq and any Al-Qaeda that are potentially there are dust in the wind. Here's something else, but about North Korea. I heard myself laughing out loud, realizing what I just heard on a report about N. Korea's export of terrorism. In that stern voice that reporters use to sound serious, it was announced that annual exports of missiles are OVER 600 MILLION DOLLARS!! That sounds like chump change in the military hardware business. And apparently it is about half of their foreign trade. No wonder they can't pay their electricity bill.

[Wewus432]

[quote]Originally posted by TinderArts: [b]Everybody sing - [i] Springtime for Hitler and Germany.....[/i] BTW - What's become of Mel Brooks??[/b][/quote]Quit trying to change the subject. We were talking about dolphins. Here's a picture of an enhanced flying dolphin coming in for a landing at Honolulu airport. [img]http://neptune.atlantis-intl.com/dolphins/img/drc07.jpg[/img]

[BNC]

by Anderton [quote] Here's another theory: why the sudden reversal on allowing inspectors? Is it because making Hussein hide his weapons will make it that much harder to deploy them should the war start suddenly? [/quote]I think a more likely reason for letting the inspectors back in is to stall. Saddam say that after Powell's speach to the UN, we were much closer to going to war. He knows that if he lets the inspectors back in, it will buy him at least the time it takes to do another round of inspections and presentations to the security council. He will probably keep doing this, and allowing more of what was demanded of him (private talks with scientists, disclose some more info, etc) in order to keep war-opponents going "see, he is cooperating, give more time". By doing this, yes Saddam would be cooperating more, and we would have more info on what Iraq is up to, but at the same time Saddam is playing more tricks behind our backs.

[Meriphew_dup1]

[quote]Originally posted by Charlie-brm: That thinking is over two years old. The problem we are after doesn't have a home. Saddam doesn't even have to exist and I won't feel any safer.[/quote]Doesn't have a home??? Off the top of my head I can list at least seven or eight countries where it lives and thrives and seems to be supported.

[NOT Bolt Rifles]

[quote]Originally posted by Anifa: [b]Just a few quotes to toss in here that were made by Adolf Hitler... [quote] "Altogether, care should be taken not to regard the masses as stupider than they are." -- Adolph Hitler [/quote][b]How many people question George W's ability for leadership? Think about Hitler's comment![/b] [quote] "... he who swims with the stream is more easily overlooked than he who bucks the waves." -- Adolph Hitler [/quote] [quote] "For in the long run government systems are not maintained by the pressure of violence but by faith in their soundness and in the truthfullness with which they represent and advance the interest of a people." -- Adolph Hitler [/quote] [quote] "We must always bear in mind that even the most beautiful idea of a sublime theory in most cases can be disseminated only through the small and smallest minds. The important thing is not what the genius who has created an idea has in mind, but what, in what form, and with what success the prophets of this idea transmit it to the broad masses." -- Adolph Hitler [/quote] [quote] "It must never be forgotten that nothing that is really great in this world has ever been achieved by coalitions, but that it has always been the success of a single victor." -- Adolph Hitler [/quote] [quote] "Care must be taken not to underestimate the force of an idea." -- Adolph Hitler [/quote] [quote] "In order not to be considered lacking in artistic understanding, people stood for every mockery of art and ended up becoming really uncertain in the judgment of good and bad." -- Adolph Hitler [/quote] [quote] "... empty hands can judge only by externals and never have the faculty of penetrating the inner core ..." -- Adolph Hitler [/quote] [quote] "We are not simple enough, either, to believe that it could ever be possible to bring about a perfect era. But this relieves no one of the obligations to combat recognized errors, to overcome weakness, and strive for the ideal." -- Adolph Hitler [/quote] [quote] "For the greatest revolutionary changes on this earth would not have been thinkable if their motive force, instead of fanatical, yes, hysterical passion, had been merely the bourgeois virtues of law and order." -- Adolph Hitler [/quote] [quote] "People are not freed by doing nothing, but by sacrifices." -- Adolph Hitler [/quote] [quote] "... God does not make cowardly nations free ..." -- Adolph Hitler [/quote] [quote] "Whatever you do, do it completely." -- Adolph Hitler [/quote] [quote] "... the impetus to the mightiest upheavals on this earth has at all times consisted less in a scientific knowledge dominating the masses than in a fanaticism which inspired them and sometimes in a hysteria which drove them forward." -- Adolph Hitler [/quote] [quote] "Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live." -- Adolph Hitler [/quote] [quote] "The best weapon is dead, worthless material as long as the spirit is lacking which is ready, willing, and determined to use it." -- Adolph Hitler [/quote][/b][/quote][quote]Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Bill Clinton December, 1998 [/quote]

[Anifa]

[quote]Originally posted by meriphew: [b] [quote]Originally posted by Charlie-brm: That thinking is over two years old. The problem we are after doesn't have a home. Saddam doesn't even have to exist and I won't feel any safer.[/quote]Doesn't have a home??? Off the top of my head I can list at least seven or eight countries where it lives and thrives and seems to be supported.[/b][/quote]Any one that has ever paid any attention to Saddam knows that he has MANY docoys to mislead those in pursuit of him. Although, I do agree that our trained sharp shooters should have no problem in locating the REAL Houdini, er, I mean Huesein-i, and taking him out; same with Bin Laden.

[the stranger]

It's not about where the oil is, it's about who controls distribution. Texas oil just may fall to ten bucks a gallon. But it will just sit there. Why would they even take it to market in that situation? The whole point is to use the rest of the world's oil reserves first. Then we have what is left. Then we will control ALL the world's supply. That would be the reason they are concerned about foreign oil. So they can just sit on what's here. [quote]Originally posted by Salty Tonk: [b] [quote]The majority is not against war, the current split is basically 50/50. [/quote].....Actually the latest polls show to 60/40 pro-war..................................... [quote]Sadly I can only see gallons of split blood and gallons of black crude and rich businessmen getter even richer and so more powerful every day [/quote]Everyone keeps talking about Bush being greedy and lusting for Iraqi oil.How many TX oil wells do you think Bush owns.Right now West Tx intermediate is around 34$ a barrel.If Iraqi oil flows freely to this country,Tx oil will drop to 10$ a barrel.This takes money out of Bush's wallet.He doesn't want thier oil.This is about right and wrong.As a matter of fact,oil has more to do with the opposition to war.Did you know one of the main reasons France is against war,is because the oil well service companys that service and ship Iraqi oil are all French owned.Hmmmmmm.....................................When Iraq invaded Kuwait,that was a crime.We inforced the law.As part of thier "probation",Iraq was to completely disarm.They have not done so.They have violated "probation".The UN seems unwilling to inforce the "probation".What message does this send to other rogue nations?I guess everyone would be alot better off if we didn't inforce probation laws with common criminals? I think not. [quote] And that is the truth that I suggested you seek. Peace and Love. [/quote]Someone please point out tthese nations that seek peace and love.It certainatly isn't France or Germany(which are hotbeds of terrorist activity),it isn't N.Korea which is lookin for a chance to blackmail some aid from the US,and it isn't Iraq whose dictator is hellbent for death and destruction...........With all that said I wish there was another way other than war.But I realize that the time has come to tell rogue nations we are not going to idley sit by while they break "probation" or try to blackmail us.War has to happen.In times of crisis folks need to pull together and fight the good fight.My .02$ worth,I'm done...........Well one more thing I suggest everyone pray for as little civilian casualities as possible both here and abroad.[/b][/quote]

[semitone]

U.S. military spending ($343 billion in the year 2000) is 69 percent greater than that of the next five highest nations combined. Russia, which has the second largest military budget, spends less than one-sixth what the United States does. Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Cuba, Sudan, Iran, and Syria spend $14.4 billion combined; Iran accounts for 52 percent of this total. The following is a partial list of U.S. military interventions from 1890 to 2000. This guide does NOT include demonstration duty by military police, mobilizations of the National Guard, offshore shows of naval strength, reinforcements of embassy personnel, the use of non-Defense Department personnel (such as the Drug Enforcement Agency), military exercises, non-combat mobilizations (such as replacing postal strikers), the permanent stationing of armed forces, covert actions where the U.S. did not play a command and control role, the use of small hostage rescue units, most uses of proxy troops, U.S. piloting of foreign warplanes, foreign disaster assistance, military training and advisory programs not involving direct combat, civic action programs, and many other military activities. Among sources used, besides news reports, are the Congressional Record (23 June 1969), 180 Landings by the U.S. Marine Corps History Division, Ege & Makhijani in Counterspy (July-Aug. 1982), and Daniel Ellsberg in Protest & Survive. "Instances of Use of United States Forces Abroad, 1798-1993" by Ellen C. Collier of the Library of Congress Congressional Research Service. SOUTH DAKOTA 1890 (-?) Troops 300 Lakota Indians massacred at Wounded Knee. ARGENTINA 1890 Troops Buenos Aires interests protected. CHILE 1891 Troops Marines clash with nationalist rebels. HAITI 1891 Troops Black workers revolt on U.S.-claimed Navassa Island defeated. IDAHO 1892 Troops Army suppresses silver miners' strike. HAWAII 1893 (-?) Naval, troops Independent kingdom overthrown, annexed. CHICAGO 1894 Troops Breaking of rail strike, 34 killed NICARAGUA 1894 Troops Month-long occupation of Bluefields. CHINA 1894-95 Naval, troops Marines land in Sino-Jap War. KOREA 1894-96 Troops Marines kept in Seoul during war. PANAMA 1895 Troops, naval Marines land in Colombian province. NICARAGUA 1896 Troops Marines land in port of Corinto. CHINA 1898-1900 Troops / Boxer Rebellion fought by foreign armies. PHILIPPINES 1898-1910(-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, killed 600,000 Filipinos. CUBA 1898-1902(-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, still hold Navy base. PUERTO RICO 1898(-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, occupation continues. GUAM 1898(-?) Naval, troops / Seized from Spain, still used as base. MINNESOTA 1898(-?) Troops Army battles Chippewa at Leech Lake. NICARAGUA 1898 Troops Marines land at port of San Juan del Sur. SAMOA 1899(-?) Troops Battle over succession to throne. NICARAGUA 1899 Troops / Marines land at port of Bluefields. IDAHO 1899-1901 Troops / Army occupies Coeur d'Alene mining region. OKLAHOMA 1901 Troops Army battles Creek Indian revolt. PANAMA 1901-14 Naval, troops Broke off from Colombia 1903, annexed Canal Zone 1914-99. HONDURAS 1903 Troops Marines intervene in revolution. DOMINICAN REP. 1903-04 Troops U.S. interests protected in Revolution. KOREA 1904-05 Troops Marines land in Russo-Japanese War. CUBA 1906-09 Troops / Marines land in democratic election. NICARAGUA 1907 Troops "Dollar Diplomacy" protectorate set up. HONDURAS 1907 Troops Marines land during war with Nicaragua. PANAMA 1908 Troops / Marines intervene in election contest. NICARAGUA 1910 Troops Marines land in Bluefields and Corinto. HONDURAS 1911 Troops / U.S. interests protected in civil war. CHINA 1911-41 Naval, troops Continuous occupation with flare-ups. CUBA 1912 Troops / U.S. interests protected in Havana. PANAMA 19l2 Troops / Marines land during heated election. HONDURAS 19l2 Troops / Marines protect U.S. economic interests. NICARAGUA 1912-33 Troops, bombing 20-year occupation, fought guerrillas. MEXICO 19l3 Naval / Americans evacuated during revolution. DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1914 Naval / Fight with rebels over Santo Domingo. COLORADO 1914 Troops / Breaking of miners' strike by Army. MEXICO 1914-18 Naval, troops Series of interventions against nationalists. HAITI 1914-34 Troops, bombing 19-year occupation after revolts. DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1916-24 Troops 8-year Marine occupation. CUBA 1917-33 Troops / Military occupation, economic protectorate. WORLD WAR I 19l7-18 Naval, troops Ships sunk, fought Germany RUSSIA 1918-22 Naval, troops Five landings to fight Bolsheviks. PANAMA 1918-20 Troops "Police duty" during unrest after elections. YUGOSLAVIA 1919 Troops Marines intervene for Italy against Serbs in Dalmatia. HONDURAS 1919 Troops Marines land during election campaign. GUATEMALA 1920 Troops 2-week intervention against unionists. WEST VIRGINIA 1920-21 Troops, bombing Army intervenes against mineworkers. TURKEY 1922 Troops Fought nationalists in Smyrna (Izmir). CHINA 1922-27 Naval, troops Deployment during nationalist revolt. HONDURAS 1924-25 Troops Landed twice during election strife. PANAMA 1925 Troops / Marines suppress general strike. CHINA 1927-34 Troops / Marines stationed throughout the country. EL SALVADOR 1932 Naval / Warships sent during Farabundo Marti revolt. WASHINGTON DC 1932 Troops / Army stops WWI vet bonus protest. WORLD WAR II 1941-45 Naval,troops, bombing, nuclear Fought Axis for 3 years; 1st nuclear war. DETROIT 1943 Troops Army puts down Black rebellion. IRAN 1946 Nuclear threat Soviet troops told to leave north (Iranian Azerbaijan). YUGOSLAVIA 1946 Naval / Response to shooting-down of U.S. plane. URUGUAY 1947 Nuclear threat Bombers deployed as show of strength. GREECE 1947-49 Command operation U.S. directs extreme-right in civil war. CHINA 1948-49 Troops Marines evacuate Americans before Communist victory. GERMANY 1948 Nuclear threat Atomic-capable bombers guard Berlin Airlift. PHILIPPINES 1948-54 Command operation CIA directs war against Huk Rebellion. PUERTO RICO 1950 Command operation Independence rebellion crushed in Ponce. KOREA 1950-53 Troops, naval, bombing, nuclear threats U.S.& South Korea fight China & North Korea to stalemate; A-bomb threat in 1950, & vs. China in 1953. Still have bases. IRAN 1953 Command operation CIA overthrows democracy, installs Shah. VIETNAM 1954 Nuclear threat Bombs offered to French to use against siege. GUATEMALA 1954 Command operation, bombing, nuclear threat CIA directs exile invasion after new govt nationalizes U.S. company lands; bombers based in Nicaragua. EGYPT 1956 Nuclear threat, troops Soviets told to keep out of Suez crisis; MArines evacuate foreigners LEBANON 1958 Troops, naval / Marine occupation against rebels. IRAQ 1958 Nuclear threat Iraq warned against invading Kuwait. CHINA 1958 Nuclear threat China told not to move on Taiwan isles. PANAMA 1958 Troops / Flag protests erupt into confrontation. VIETNAM 1960-75 Troops, naval, bombing, nuclear threats Fought South Vietnam revolt & North Vietnam; 1-2 million killed in longest U.S. war; atomic bomb threats in 1968 and 1969. CUBA 1961 Command operation CIA-directed exile invasion fails. GERMANY 1961 Nuclear threat Alert during Berlin Wall crisis. CUBA 1962 Nuclear threat, Naval Blockade during missile crisis; near-war with USSR. LAOS 1962 Command operation Military buildup during guerrilla war. PANAMA 1964 Troops / Panamanians shot for urging canal's return. INDONESIA 1965 Command operation Million killed in CIA-assisted army coup. DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1965-66 Troops, bombing Marines land during election campaign. GUATEMALA 1966-67 Command operation Green Berets intervene against rebels. DETROIT 1967 Troops / Army battles Blacks, 43 killed. UNITED STATES 1968 Troops / After King is shot; over 21,000 soldiers in cities. CAMBODIA 1969-75 Bombing, troops, naval Up to 2 million killed in decade of bombing, starvation, and political chaos. OMAN 1970 Command operation U.S. directs Iranian marine invasion. LAOS 1971-73 Command operation, bombing U.S. directs South Vietnamese invasion; "carpet-bombs" countryside. SOUTH DAKOTA 1973 Command operation Army directs Wounded Knee siege of Lakotas. MIDEAST 1973 Nuclear threat World-wide alert during Mideast War. CHILE 1973 Command operation CIA-backed coup ousts elected marxist president. CAMBODIA 1975 Troops, bombing Gas captured ship, 28 die in copter crash. ANGOLA 1976-92 Command operation CIA assists South African-backed rebels. IRAN 1980 Troops, nuclear threat, aborted bombing Raid to rescue Emba-ssy hostages; 8 troops die in copter-plane crash. Soviets war-ned not to get involved in revolution. LIBYA 1981 Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down in maneuvers. EL SALVADOR 1981-92 Command operation, troops Advisors, overflights aid anti-rebel war, soldiers briefly involved in hostage clash. NICARAGUA 1981-90 Command operation, naval CIA directs exile (Contra) invasions, plants harbor mines against revolution. LEBANON 1982-84 Naval, bombing, troops Marines expel PLO and back Phalangists, Navy bombs and shells Muslim and Syrian positions. HONDURAS 1983-89 Troops / Maneuvers help build bases near borders. GRENADA 1983-84 Troops, bombing Invasion four years after revolution. IRAN 1984 Jets / Two Iranian jets shot down over Persian Gulf. LIBYA 1986 Bombing, naval Air strikes to topple nationalist gov't. BOLIVIA 1986 Troops Army assists raids on cocaine region. IRAN 1987-88 Naval, bombing US intervenes on side of Iraq in war. LIBYA 1989 Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down. VIRGIN ISLANDS 1989 Troops St. Croix Black unrest after storm. PHILIPPINES 1989 Jets / Air cover provided for government against coup. PANAMA 1989-90 Troops, bombing Nationalist government ousted by 27,000 soldiers, leaders arrested, 2000+ killed. LIBERIA 1990 Troops Foreigners evacuated during civil war. SAUDI ARABIA 1990-91 Troops, jets Iraq countered after invading Kuwait; 540,000 troops also stationed in Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Israel. IRAQ 1990-? Bombing, troops, naval Blockade of Iraqi and Jordanian ports, air strikes; 200,000+ killed in invasion of Iraq and Kuwait; no-fly zone over Kurdish north, Shiite south, large-scale destruction of Iraqi military. KUWAIT 1991 Naval, bombing, troops Kuwait royal family returned to throne. LOS ANGELES 1992 Troops Army, Marines deployed against anti-police uprising. SOMALIA 1992-94 Troops, naval, bombing U.S.-led United Nations occupation during civil war; raids against one Mogadishu faction. YUGOSLAVIA 1992-94 Naval Nato blockade of Serbia and Montenegro. BOSNIA 1993-95 Jets, bombing No-fly zone patrolled in civil war; downed jets, bombed Serbs. HAITI 1994-96 Troops, naval Blockade against military government; troops restore President Aristide to office three years after coup. CROATIA 1995 Bombing Krajina Serb airfields attacked before Croatian offensive. ZAIRE (CONGO) 1996-97 Troops Marines at Rwandan Hutu refuge camps, in area where Congo revolution begins. LIBERIA 1997 Troops Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners. ALBANIA 1997 Troops Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners. SUDAN 1998 Missiles Attack on pharmaceutical plant alleged to be "terrorist" nerve gas plant. AFGHANISTAN 1998 Missiles Attack on former CIA training camps used by Islamic fundamentalist groups alleged to have attacked embassies. IRAQ 1998-? Bombing, Missiles Four days of intensive air strikes after weapons inspectors allege Iraqi obstructions. YUGOSLAVIA 1999-? Bombing, Missiles Heavy NATO air strikes after Serbia declines to withdraw from Kosovo. YEMEN 2000 Naval Suicide bomb attack on USS Cole. MACEDONIA 2001 Troops NATO troops shift and partially disarm Albanian rebels. UNITED STATES 2001 Jets, naval Response to hijacking attacks. AFGHANISTAN 2001 Massive U.S. mobilization to attack Taliban, Bin Laden. War could expand to Iraq, Sudan, and beyond. (The first bombing began on October 7, 2001. Several Afghan cities come under aerial attack. The story continues).