TRIVIA: Which of these places was illegally attacked/invaded by the U.S.?

[UdoKier]

Poll question: TRIVIA: Which of these places was illegally attacked/invaded by the U.S.?

TRIVIA: Which of these places was illegally attacked/invaded/occupied by the U.S.?

[shadowknows69]

1. You forgot.

most of North America

[UdoKier]

2. There are a few others I left off...

But I tried to stay a little more contemporary...

[libhill]

8. Oh, come now

The Government was only protecting us from the Indians, who hated us for our freedom. Would you want to see an awsome Apache or Arapahoe army marching down your street? And those Canadians - we all know that the North West Mounted Police were always a menace to Amurica.

[shadowknows69]

60. I know dudley do right use to scare the shit out of me j/k

:hippie:

[Debs]

51. The Dominican Republic

Thats 1964

[Spazito]

3. They tried to invade us too and we burned down the WH

(with a little help from the British, lol)

[libhill]

6. Yeah

You forgot them thar damn Canucks, what had the audacity to take up arms against our manifest destiny. Tain't right, just tain't right at all. I mean, Mexico didn't mind.

[malmapus]

10. lol I wish I was a canuck for that bragging right =)

..

[TreasonousBastard]

11. 54 40 or Fight! And we're...

gonna get ALL of those lakes real soon now.

[Lone Pawn]

49. And was *that* illegal?

We had declared war, you know.

[Spazito]

58. LOL, true, you did, it was not illegal

but, seeing as it is our one 'claim to fame', I simply couldn't resist mentioning it.

[Lone Pawn]

77. True. We did have it coming.

The war of 1812 was perhaps the second-stupidest war we declared. I mean, we at least got something out of all the others but Vietnam.

And I'm purposefully leaving out Iraq and Afghanistan, because the jury's simply out on these. It seems likely we've made our position worse, but you never really know. Since there's an outside chance suddenly everything will fall in place, entropy will reverse, and Iraq will become free and stable and unicorns will dance in the streets of Baghdad, I'm not including it in lists of 'worst wars.' I would at least let the war *finish* before I conclusively declare it an unabashed failure.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

4. You mean history didn't start on 9/11? *gasp* I'm shocked!!!

What are you, some kind of God-less sodomizing druggy hippie? Oh, you mean this is all true and relevant? Damn. I'll go watch sports...

http://members.aol.com/bblum6/American_holocaust.htm
(Killing Hope: US Military and CIA
Interventions Since World War II. )

Table of Contents
Introduction
1. China - 1945 to 1960s: Was Mao Tse-tung just paranoid?
2. Italy - 1947-1948: Free elections, Hollywood style
3. Greece - 1947 to early 1950s: From cradle of democracy to client state
4. The Philippines - 1940s and 1950s: America's oldest colony
5. Korea - 1945-1953: Was it all that it appeared to be?
6. Albania - 1949-1953: The proper English spy
7. Eastern Europe - 1948-1956: Operation Splinter Factor
8. Germany - 1950s: Everything from juvenile delinquency to terrorism
9. Iran - 1953: Making it safe for the King of Kings
10. Guatemala - 1953-1954: While the world watched
11. Costa Rica - Mid-1950s: Trying to topple an ally - Part 1
12. Syria - 1956-1957: Purchasing a new government
13. Middle East - 1957-1958: The Eisenhower Doctrine claims
another backyard for America
14. Indonesia - 1957-1958: War and pornography
15. Western Europe - 1950s and 1960s: Fronts within fronts within fronts
16. British Guiana - 1953-1964: The CIA's international labor mafia
17. Soviet Union - Late 1940s to 1960s: From spy
planes to book publishing
18. Italy - 1950s to 1970s: Supporting the Cardinal's
orphans and techno-fascism
19. Vietnam - 1950-1973: The Hearts and Minds Circus
20. Cambodia - 1955-1973: Prince Sihanouk walks the
high-wire of neutralism
21. Laos - 1957-1973: L'Armée Clandestine
22. Haiti - 1959-1963: The Marines land, again
23. Guatemala - 1960: One good coup deserves another
24. France/Algeria - 1960s: L'état, c'est la CIA
25. Ecuador - 1960-1963: A text book of dirty tricks
26. The Congo - 1960-1964: The assassination of Patrice Lumumba
27. Brazil - 1961-1964: Introducing the marvelous
new world of death squads
28. Peru - 1960-1965: Fort Bragg moves to the jungle
29. Dominican Republic - 1960-1966: Saving democracy
from communism by getting rid of democracy
30. Cuba - 1959 to 1980s: The unforgivable revolution
31. Indonesia - 1965: Liquidating President Sukarno ...
and 500,000 others ...... East Timor - 1975: And 200,000 more
32. Ghana - 1966: Kwame Nkrumah steps out of line
33. Uruguay - 1964-1970: Torture -- as American as apple pie
34. Chile - 1964-1973: A hammer and sickle stamped
on your child's forehead
35. Greece - 1964-1974: "Fuck your Parliament and your
Constitution," said the President of the United States
36. Bolivia - 1964-1975: Tracking down Che Guevara
in the land of coup d'etat
37. Guatemala - 1962 to 1980s: A less publicized "final solution"
38. Costa Rica - 1970-1971: Trying to topple an ally -- Part 2
39. Iraq - 1972-1975: Covert action should not
be confused with missionary work
40. Australia - 1973-1975: Another free election bites the dust
41. Angola - 1975 to 1980s: The Great Powers Poker Game
42. Zaire - 1975-1978: Mobutu and the CIA, a marriage made in heaven
43. Jamaica - 1976-1980: Kissinger's ultimatum
44. Seychelles - 1979-1981: Yet another area of
great strategic importance
45. Grenada - 1979-1984: Lying -- one of the few growth
industries in Washington
46. Morocco - 1983: A video nasty
47. Suriname - 1982-1984: Once again, the Cuban bogeyman
48. Libya - 1981-1989: Ronald Reagan meets his match
49. Nicaragua - 1981-1990: Destabilization in slow motion
50. Panama - 1969-1991: Double-crossing our drug supplier
51. Bulgaria 1990/Albania 1991: Teaching communists
what democracy is all about
52. Iraq - 1990-1991: Desert holocaust
53. Afghanistan - 1979-1992: America's Jihad
54. El Salvador - 1980-1994: Human rights, Washington style
55. Haiti - 1986-1994: Who will rid me of this
turbulent priest?
56. The American Empire - 1992 to present
Notes
Appendix I: This is How the Money Goes Round
Appendix II: Instances of Use of United States Armed
Forces Abroad, 1798-1945
Appendix III: U. S. Government Assassination Plots
Index
-----------------------------------------------
http://www.swans.com/library/art6/zig055.html
A CENTURY OF U.S. MILITARY INTERVENTIONS, From Wounded Knee to Yugoslavia, Compiled by Zoltan Grossman

(This only goes to 1999 and doesn't include the covert death squads and CIA assassinations, terror, torture, etc. which you can read some of below.)
------------------------------------------------
http://home.att.net/~Resurgence/CIAtimeline.html
(A Timeline of CIA Atrocities, only through 1993)
--------------------------------------------------
Hear it straight from the mouth of John Stockwell, former CIA Angola station chief under George H.W.Bush. This is a 1987 speech with transcript where Stockwell describes the millions killed by CIA wars and how the crazy bastards in the Reagan White House want to eliminate the Bill of Rights and form a Gestapo to disappear people to Gitmo Bay just as those same people are doing right now:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4068.htm
(Americas Third World War How 6 million People Were killed in CIA secret wars against third world countries)
-------------------------------------------------

[Redstone]

33. One of those is pure bullshit.

My wife is from the Seychelles, and the US never invaded or otherwise interfered with the government of that country, though many people who live there kind of wish we had.

Let's not go overboard, OK? The US has made many mistakes, but you're sure not going to advance your views by claining things that are simply not true.

Redstone

[JohnOneillsMemory]

38. Thanks for the info. Always glad to get more...n/t

[Redstone]

43. So will you be able to contact the source of

the erroneous information and get it corrected? There's so much baloney out there on the Web, even one small correction is worth doing.

Redstone

[DelawareValleyDem]

55. Here ya go

William Blum is available through email at [email protected]

On edit: Per his writings, that address is suitable for "Comments, typos found, money, love notes, hate mail, death threats, letter bombs, (and) anthrax "

[Renew Deal]

5. Hey, where is None of the above?

:hide:

[libhill]

9. You can look for it

at Free Republic - lol

[jdj]

16. lol

actually, I think they'd be "damn proud" of it. (this freeper in one of my classes the other day wore a shirt saying 'kick their ass and take their gas." charming, no?)

If you really want none of the above, look in a high school text-book.

[libhill]

24. True

The only conflicts that are mentioned in mainstream text books are the usual - Revolution, War of 1812, Civil War, etc. The "colonial" conflicts are always left out or glossed over, except for a passing reference to the Indian Wars. After all, colonialism was strictly a European phenomena, don't ya know -

[Bridget Burke]

7. You left out Mexico....

Of course, Mexicans are reclaiming many of those lands.

[Lone Pawn]

48. That also was not illegal.

We declared war, which was a perfectly legal method of land theft.

[Bridget Burke]

62. It was an illegal war, started for imperialistic purposes.

Ever hear of Manifest Destiny?

[Lone Pawn]

78. Okay, what international law did we break? None. It was legal.

If you can cite a particular international accord to which the United States was signatory preventing aggressive warfare in 1846, I'll concede defeat.

[chieftain]

12. But in our defense, each of them was/is a major power

and therefore represented a serious threat to our existence.

[UdoKier]

13. I'm assuming sarcasm here...

I don't think Californians were quaking in fear of invading hordes of Hawaiians...

[chieftain]

29. Damn, I can't get anything by DUers. Yes my tongue was firmly

in my cheek as I typed. One of the things that amazes me is how my
Republican friends actually believe that we are kicked around by the rest of the world. I wonder if when you study bullies you find that they feel menaced all the time even though they are the aggressors.It certainly is a major aspect of the collective psyche of the U.S.

[Lone Pawn]

14. I don't know what was so illegal about Hawai'i, the Philippines, and VN.

We had a UN resolution for Vietnam, the Philippines were ceded to the United States by Spain, and Hawai'i was not a breach of international law because the United States government was not directly involved in the coup.

Edit: Cuba, also, was legally occupied after the Spanish-American war as per treaty, and was granted independence as per treaty.

[libhill]

17. In regards to the Filipinos

They assumed, and were allowed to assume, that the U.S. was there to liberate them from Spain, and grant them independence. They were soon disillusioned, when they discovered they had only traded one Western colonial master for another. It took the U.S. almost 20 years, from 1898 to about 1917, to "pacify" the Philippine Islands. The Moro tribes never were completely pacified, and as late as the 1930s, Philippine troops under American commanders were still on "jungle patrol" in Moro tribal areas. Even Republican President Theodore Roosevelt, who had declared the "Philippine Insurrection" over in 1902, admitted later in life that the occupation had been a mistake, as the islands were too far from the U.S. mainland to be easily defensible if attacked by Japan. Filipino losses in the main conflict (1899 -1902) were 16,000 killed and 100,000 dead from famine. Maybe not illegal, but certainly immoral and unethical.

[Lone Pawn]

25. Certainly immoral. Not illegal. The question was 'illegal.'

[manic expression]

27. Yes it was 'illegal'.

Although no real rules of war were set up at the time, the tactics used by the US were quite illegal by the standards of the Geneva Convention (which were put in place during the insurrection, making them applicable to the actions after and very much those in the same conflict). The US used concentration camps and did not provide adequate protection or supplies to the civilians they were occupying (all illegal under the Geneva Convention).

So actually, it was illegal.

[Lone Pawn]

30. Your history is outright wrong.

The only two Geneva conventions in place by 1913 were the First and Second Geneva Conventions. The First Geneva Convention covered little more than the treatment of wounded soldiers on the battlefield. It basically forbade firing upon anyone, civilian or soldier, who was tending to the wounded. The Second extended the First to war at sea. The Third, which covered P.O.Ws, was not to pass until 1929, and the Fourth, which is what you're thinking of, was not passed until 1949. So yes, it was legal.

[libhill]

32. If murder is legal

Then it was a legal occupation. There is evidence that U.S. troops wiped out entire Moro villages, including non combatant women and children. Check up on General Leonard Woods campaign against the Moros in 1905. (Not absolutely sure on that date - may have been a year earlier or later).

[Lone Pawn]

34. Civilian populations are protected by the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949

In response to widespread civilian deaths in WW2 on the part of all sides. The Filipino occupation was perfectly legal at the time.

[UdoKier]

63. I shouldn't have used the word "illegal"

it opens the door for apologists to spin and rationalize and defend the indefensible, just because there were times when lawlessness prevailed or the only applicable laws were written by the invaders.

[Lone Pawn]

80. Apologist? I've called the wars "immoral" and "theft."

I haven't defended them one bit. Legality of an action is by no means a justification. It's merely a factual description of an action, devoid of moral weight. For instince, much of the peaceful resistance of the Civil Rights Era was factually illegal, but certainly moral. Slavery at its peak was factually legal, but entirely immoral.

If you want to argue immorality, argue immorality. I wouldn't defend a single one of the wars. But if you want to call entirely legal acts illegal because of their immorality--well, that's not even productive. We have to hold ourselves to a standard of truth. And to call the Philippine-American War "illegal" would be a lie.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

19. The U.S. was not directly involved in the coup against Hawaii, but

1) There were already U.S. troops stationed there
2) The coup plotters were all Americans
3) It was only the refusal of President Grover Cleveland to recognize the coup that prevented Hawaii from being handed over to the U.S. earlier. Once he was out of office, William McKinley was delighted to accept the coup plotters' request to become a U.S. territory. (The coup plotters had the gall to arrest Queen Liliuokalani on charges of "treason" for resisting a coup against her own government.)

[libhill]

20. And was also

Reoccupied by U.S. troops several times afterward, at least up until 1912. At the whim of U.S. Business interests.

[Lone Pawn]

35. From 1898 onward, it was not "occupied" by US troops, as it was a US

territory.

[libhill]

39. I was referring

To your last comment about Cuba - not Hawaii. As late as 1912, as I stated, U.S forces intervened in /occupied Cuba at will. In 1912, U.S. Marines were sent in to suppress an uprising of Cuban field hands.

[Lone Pawn]

47. That was also completely legal.

Under the Platt Amendment, it was written in the Cuban constitution and became official US policy until 1939 that America had the ability to deploy military forces in Cuba at America's discretion.

[UdoKier]

65. And according to Ashcroft and Gonzalez, torture is also legal.

According to you, as long as some American says it's legal, it's legal!

[Lone Pawn]

81. No, as long as it does not invalidate any law, it's legal.

I believe that the US-ordered torture violates both the Third Geneva Convention, to which the United States is signatory, and United States anti-torture laws. Declaring something legal or illegal does not make it so. What makes things legal is their accordance with laws. The US occupation of Cuba violated no international law, and was in full accordance with both US and Cuban law.

[UdoKier]

64. Changing the name doesn't change the fact that it was occupied.

an illegally occupied territory, even today.

But keep on spinnin' if it makes you feel better.

[Lone Pawn]

82. By what law?

Seriously. Tell me what law we have violated by annexing Hawai'i.

[UdoKier]

85. Hawaiian law.

My assumption is that the coup and subsequent takeover violate Hawaiian law. Since the US had no legal claim to the islands of Hawaii, it was an illegal takeover. It was not taken by legal means.

[Lone Pawn]

87. The government of Hawai'i petitioned for annexation.

The Kingdom of Hawai'i no longer existed, and its laws no longer were valid. It may have been immorally deposed of, but the laws of a deposed government are by no means legally binding.

[UdoKier]

88. You mean the outlaw government of Hawaii.

Also, you say that the US government had no part in the coup, but the congress at the time saw fit to condemn US Minister Stevens for using US naval forces to aid in the coup.

http://www.hawaiiankingdom.org/us-house-resolution-1894.shtml

More info:

http://www.hawaiiankingdom.org/us-occupation.shtml

[Lone Pawn]

89. "Outlaw government" is a contradiction.

They may have been an immoral government, but they were the legal government. Claiming that rebellion and deposition of a government does not validate the next government would be claiming that the United States government is an outlaw government simply because a minority rebelled and deposed the legal government.

As for US naval involvement, the US navy was officially there to protect the lives of American citizens, as it is allowed to do. It overstepped its bounds without the approval of the federal government, and those who ordered it done were rebuked. This does not mean that the government of the United States acted illegally. Indeed, it condemned those who did so. You still have yet to tell me what law the US broke.

[JanMichael]

22. What happened in the Phillipines was genocide by us.

Brutal, nasty, ugly, sickening, early imperialistic behavior.

[Lone Pawn]

26. But was not illegal, which was the question.

[manic expression]

28. Yes it was

under the Geneva Convention, which was put in place during the conflict, making the laws of said document applicable to the conflict.

Even ignoring this, it was illegal if one looks at human decency in any way.

[Lone Pawn]

31. Do you have any idea which Geneva convention you're talking about?

There are four.

The only two Geneva Conventions in place by 1913 were the First and Second Geneva Conventions. The First Geneva Convention covered little more than the treatment of wounded soldiers on the battlefield. It basically forbade firing upon anyone, civilian or soldier, who was tending to the wounded. The Second extended the First to war at sea. The Third, which covered P.O.Ws, was not to pass until 1929, and the Fourth, which is what you're thinking of, was not passed until 1949. So yes, it was legal.

[manic expression]

44. The third relates to POWs

If I am not mistaken, this can cover civilians treated as POWs as well as actual POWs. So, actually, US actions in the Philippines WERE illegal.

By the way, even if it was not illegal under such a document, it would be JUST as base and disgusting and wrong.

[Lone Pawn]

46. Did you read my post? The third didn't pass until 1929.

It was certainly immoral, but it was legal.

[manic expression]

90. The Filipino insurgency was still going on in 1929

although VERY limited, the conflict was still going on. Therefore, this can be applied to the entire conflict since it was passed DURING its existence.

For info, check an above post.

[UdoKier]

61. Whole lotta spinning and rationalizing going on in your post...

But I'll just do Hawaii.

How can you say that the US government was not involved in the illegal takeover of the country by FOREIGNERS? The white American settlers, who the Hawaiian people had been generous enough to accept on their land, decided they didn't like the Hawaiian communal system of land ownership, so they decided to stage a violent rebellion, and then asked the US to take over and "keep the peace". It was well known even at the time that the US was bound to give the government back to the Hawaiians, but racism triumphed and they failed to follow through. Just wait until most of those who remember the old kingdom are dead and the country is awash in white invaders, then "granting statehood" became easy as pie.

Absolutely shameful. Hawaii should be given back to the Hawaiians, and I wouldn't blame them if they deported every white and seized all of their property.

[Lone Pawn]

83. Yes, it's quite immoral.

But you didn't mention any laws the United States failed to hold. At the time, if the United States Army were to steam up and declare Hawai'i part of the US, then it would be legal. Today, such an action would violate UN charter.

However, if independent American business interests without direct American government funding were to overthrow the government of, say, Cuba tomorrow, and then petition for Cuba's admission to the United States as a territory, then this also would not violate any international law, and would therefore be legal. What I meant was that not only would the Hawai'ian action be legal back before the United Nations, it would be legal today as well. This is in contrast to the Mexican-American War, which was legal at the time but would be considered illegal today.

Shameful, yes. Shameful, certainly. Immoral, definitely.

You have yet to ask me about their morality. You only declared them illegal, which is factually incorrect.

[UdoKier]

84. Was there no Hawaiian law against insurrection?

Or takeover by a foreign power? How are you so sure?

[Lone Pawn]

86. As regards the first,

the United States government did not violate the laws of the Kingdom of Hawai'i during the insurrection, because it was not physically part of the insurrection itself. The businessmen violated Hawai'ian law. As regards the second, any Hawai'ian laws that would be applicible no longer existed, as the government of the Kingdom of Hawai'i no longer existed. Saying the US was violating Hawai'ian law in this act would be as valid as my being arrested in Honolulu for eating a pineapple that had been grown on a plot of land declared kapu by a priest 400 years ago.

[jdj]

15. you left out North America n/t

[JanMichael]

18. What about Russia? That's something that was NEVER mentioned...

...when I was in elementary school back in the 70's.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

21. Right, invasion of Russia (around Murmansk)

in the last days of World War I to fight on the side of the anti-revolutionaries.

[libhill]

23. Also -

On the other side of Russia, in Siberia. "The U.S. Siberian Expeditionary Force". Dough boys who had enlisted to fight Germany and "Make the World Safe for Democracy" ended up fighting Bolshevik raiders in Siberia to protect a lousy railway. For several years.

[Charon]

54. Russia

Also believe we had troops in Siberia.

[Is It Fascism Yet]

36. Where's the "none of the above" choice. I don't think any of those

actions were legal.

[strategery blunder]

37. If you don't think any of the actions were legal,

there is an "all of the above" poll option, i.e. an option to say that all of the named interventions were illegal.;)

[tinanator]

40. BUT WE DID IT FOR THEM!

Imagine the consequences if we hadnt?

[UdoKier]

66. Yes, God forbid these countries had exercised their right...

to self-determination!

[LiberallyInclined]

41. what about Japan?

Perry used warships to force them to open their borders to trade with the world.

[Lone Pawn]

45. How did that violate any law or treaty?

We had no treaties with the Empire of Japan, and no international protocols relating to use of force existed. It was a perfectly legal act.

[moondust]

42. Laos? Grenada? Libya? n/t

[Cash]

50. The Moon

We should never have invaded there. It was wrong.

[UdoKier]

67. Oh, very funny.

I'll be looking forward to SEVERAL more posts from you.

[Swamp Rat]

52. La Nouvelle-Orléans, Louisiane

Vas te faire foutre les paure con Américains! Tu m'emmerdes!:P

[NoPasaran]

59. Bought and paid for

Ask Napoleon

[Swamp Rat]

69. The Americans INVADED first

Ask Andrew "Old Hickory" Jackson. :cry:

[NoPasaran]

70. Louisiana Purchase---1803

Jackson arrives in New Orleans to DEFEND it from the British---1814

[Swamp Rat]

71. We didn't sell New Orleans

A dictator from our former colonial power did. We said "NON!" But he sold it anyway. How about you and I sell Mexico City to China?

Jackson DID invade. Your Anglais history books are incorrect, as are all the histories written by conquerers. Don't worry, we have plans to strangle the American heartland by cutting off the Mississippi River. :D

Vivre La Nouvelle-Orléans!

[UdoKier]

72. Or you could crush us by keeping us in the toilet...

from all those cayenne peppers...

[Swamp Rat]

74. HAHA!

:D I love your posts, by the way.

I'm going to be eating 10 lbs. of these mud bugs in the next few hours... lot's of Cayenne baby! Then tomorrrow at Jazz Fest I'm gonna eat lots of crawfish pie, alligator sausage, and other swamp creatures that I can find. The leftover fumes the next day will kill any Anglais-Américain who tries to invade my neighborhood. :D

[VOX]

53. Don't forget continental North America - invasion of Indian Nations

There were written, signed government documents supposedly protecting those. It doesn't get any more illegal than that.

Genocide, pure and simple.

[Lone Pawn]

57. That I actually agree with.

Quite a few of the ones posted are by no means illegal, except ex post facto. But there were supposedly-binding treaties broken right and left with North America.

[UdoKier]

68. Yes, that's an obvious choice.

But I tried to stay a little more contemporary.

[coffeenap]

56. Haiti, now.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4954596,00.html

[0rganism]

73. Why is this marked "TRIVIA"?

It is hardly a trivial matter.

[UdoKier]

76. More in the sense of "Didja know?" than "trivial"

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[indepat]

75. At least we are the good guys who wear white hats wanting only to bring

liberty, freedom and democracy.

[thecai]

79. America, and Elsewhere.... n/t