Israel's war with several middle eastern countries

[Scott]

Just got this in my mailbox:

Trump Announces ‘Complete and Total’ Cease-Fire Between Israel and Iran

The conflict will be declared over within 24 hours, the U.S. president says.

www.theepochtimes.com

I admit i have my doubts that it's all done, but one can still hope.

 

[EdwinA]

What American Empire???????

The one that lives in his head, and even in his dreams won't pay any serious attention to him.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

That assessment sounds fairly reasonable. Anyway, I think things would have been a lot better if Mossadegh had remained in power.

Well, the Europeans did--do?--have a way of fucking over other countries like nobody's business. They've been at it for like 500+ years...

 

[Scott]

Well, the Europeans did--do?--have a way of fucking over other countries like nobody's business. They've been at it for like 500+ years...

The United States' may not have been doing it for quite so long, but sometimes I think that what they lack in longevity, they make up for in quantity. In any case, we don't need to agree on this- I think we might both agree that it'd be wonderful if Israel and Iran have truly agreed to an indefinite ceasefire as Trump has claimed.

 

[Hawkeye10]

The United States' may not have been doing it for quite so long, but sometimes I think that what they lack in longevity, they make up for in quantity. In any case, we don't need to agree on this- I think we might both agree that it'd be wonderful if Israel and Iran have truly agreed to an indefinite ceasefire as Trump has claimed.

The Zionist Bastards NEVER keep their word.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

The United States' may not have been doing it for quite so long, but sometimes I think that what they lack in longevity, they make up for in quantity. In any case, we don't need to agree on this- I think we might both agree that it'd be wonderful if Israel and Iran have truly agreed to an indefinite ceasefire as Trump has claimed.

Not true. Outside of mucking around in their own neighborhood, the US pretty much stayed out of the world's business until the 20th Century. Then the US was drug into European wars and intrigues. Stuff at home, like Central and South America, were small fries compared to that. Canada and Mexico, for the most part, have had decent relations with the US. The closest thing the US got into in terms of imperialism / colonialism were the "banana wars" in Central America. But those are a product of big corporations using corrupt politicians to do their dirty work for them.

On the other hand, the Europeans, and then Japan following their example, have long gone on colonial wars, imperialistic adventures, and fought with their neighbors and each other damn near continuously. Dar al Islam got all fucked up after the Mongol invasions of the 13th Century. From then on, they were hell bent on violence like nobody's business. The Europeans were more than happy to add to that with things like the Crusades.

 

[Guno צְבִי]

I think it's unfortunate that the Israeli government learned a lot of its biggest mistakes from groups like the Nazis. I'm sure that Hitler would have been just fine with that line from Golda Meir to prop up his own regime as well, especially as Nazi germany approached its demise.

Such a filthy ignorant subhuman to make that comment. May your kind live long enough to see your loved ones buried, and may that day come sooner then later

 

[Guno צְבִי]

The Zionist Bastards NEVER keep their word.

May you and yours only know tragedy in your lives

 

[Scott]

The United States' may not have been doing it for quite so long, but sometimes I think that what they lack in longevity, they make up for in quantity. In any case, we don't need to agree on this- I think we might both agree that it'd be wonderful if Israel and Iran have truly agreed to an indefinite ceasefire as Trump has claimed.

Not true. Outside of mucking around in their own neighborhood, the US pretty much stayed out of the world's business until the 20th Century.

The U.S. started a bit earlier than the 20th Century- the Spanish American war comes to mind:

Spanish–American War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But I think we can agree that most of what the U.S. international interventions were in the 20th century.

Then the US was drug into European wars and intrigues. Stuff at home, like Central and South America, were small fries compared to that. Canada and Mexico, for the most part, have had decent relations with the US.

Not always, though the conflicts between the U.S., Canada and Mexico were in the 19th century:

War of 1812 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Mexican–American War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

As to European wars, I think it was good that the U.S. got involved in World War II, but I'm not sure if the U.S. has gotten into -any- good war after that. American Professor and Statesman Jeffrey Sachs made a speech to European Parliament where he made some good points. His speech has since been turned into an article that adds additional details. A relevant passage in relation to our current point of conversation is the following:
**
There have been around one hundred regime-change operations by the U.S. since 1947, many in your countries [speaking to the MEPs] and many all over the world.

(Political scientist Lindsey O’Rourke documented 64 U.S. covert regime-change operations between 1947 and 1989, and concluded that “Regime change operations, especially those conducted covertly, have oft en led to prolonged instability, civil wars, and humanitarian crises in the affected regions.” See O’Rourke’s 2018 book, Covert Regime Change: America’s Secret Cold War. After 1989, there is ample evidence of the C.I.A. involved in Syria, Libya, Ukraine, Venezuela, and many other countries.)

That’s what the C.I.A. does for a living. Please know it. It’s a very unusual kind of foreign policy. In the American government, if you don’t like the other side, you don’t negotiate with them, you try to overthrow them, preferably, covertly. If it doesn’t work covertly, you do it overtly. You always say it’s not our fault. They’re the aggressor. They’re the other side.

They’re “Hitler.” That comes up every two or three years. Whether it’s Saddam Hussein, whether it’s [deposed Syrian President Bashar] al-Assad, whether it’s Putin, that’s very convenient. That’s the only foreign policy explanation the American people are ever given. Well, we’re facing Munich 1938. We can’t talk to the other side. They’re evil and implacable foes. That’s the only model of foreign policy we ever hear from our government and mass media. The mass media repeats it entirely because it’s completely suborned by the U.S. government.
**

Source:

Jeffrey Sachs: The Geopolitics of Peace

The author explains manipulative U.S. post-war foreign policy to European MPs, explodes myths about Ukraine and urges an independent European foreign policy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjcMoDFU1xg&ab_channel=MichaelvonderSchulenburg This is an edited transcript of Professor Jeffrey Sachs’

consortiumnews.com

The closest thing the US got into in terms of imperialism / colonialism were the "banana wars" in Central America. But those are a product of big corporations using corrupt politicians to do their dirty work for them.

I have yet to hear of a war after World War II that -wasn't- driven by corporate interests. I've also heard that many before World War II were as well. I think that Smedley D. Butler, a retired United States Marine Corps major general and two-time Medal of Honor recipient put it quite well in a book he wrote. Quoting:
**
War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

[snip]

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909–1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
**

Source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket/

On the other hand, the Europeans, and then Japan following their example, have long gone on colonial wars, imperialistic adventures, and fought with their neighbors and each other damn near continuously.

Europe and Japan certainly got into a fair amount of wars -before- World War II, but after that, it seems to me that the main antagonist was the U.S.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

The U.S. started a bit earlier than the 20th Century- the Spanish American war comes to mind:

Spanish–American War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But I think we can agree that most of what the U.S. international interventions were in the 20th century.



Not always, though the conflicts between the U.S., Canada and Mexico were in the 19th century:

War of 1812 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Mexican–American War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

As to European wars, I think it was good that the U.S. got involved in World War II, but I'm not sure if the U.S. has gotten into -any- good war after that. American Professor and Statesman Jeffrey Sachs made a speech to European Parliament where he made some good points. His speech has since been turned into an article that adds additional details. A relevant passage in relation to our current point of conversation is the following:
**
There have been around one hundred regime-change operations by the U.S. since 1947, many in your countries [speaking to the MEPs] and many all over the world.

(Political scientist Lindsey O’Rourke documented 64 U.S. covert regime-change operations between 1947 and 1989, and concluded that “Regime change operations, especially those conducted covertly, have oft en led to prolonged instability, civil wars, and humanitarian crises in the affected regions.” See O’Rourke’s 2018 book, Covert Regime Change: America’s Secret Cold War. After 1989, there is ample evidence of the C.I.A. involved in Syria, Libya, Ukraine, Venezuela, and many other countries.)

That’s what the C.I.A. does for a living. Please know it. It’s a very unusual kind of foreign policy. In the American government, if you don’t like the other side, you don’t negotiate with them, you try to overthrow them, preferably, covertly. If it doesn’t work covertly, you do it overtly. You always say it’s not our fault. They’re the aggressor. They’re the other side.

They’re “Hitler.” That comes up every two or three years. Whether it’s Saddam Hussein, whether it’s [deposed Syrian President Bashar] al-Assad, whether it’s Putin, that’s very convenient. That’s the only foreign policy explanation the American people are ever given. Well, we’re facing Munich 1938. We can’t talk to the other side. They’re evil and implacable foes. That’s the only model of foreign policy we ever hear from our government and mass media. The mass media repeats it entirely because it’s completely suborned by the U.S. government.
**

Source:

Jeffrey Sachs: The Geopolitics of Peace

The author explains manipulative U.S. post-war foreign policy to European MPs, explodes myths about Ukraine and urges an independent European foreign policy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjcMoDFU1xg&ab_channel=MichaelvonderSchulenburg This is an edited transcript of Professor Jeffrey Sachs’

consortiumnews.com

I have yet to hear of a war after World War II that -wasn't- driven by corporate interests. I've also heard that many before World War II were as well. I think that Smedley D. Butler, a retired United States Marine Corps major general and two-time Medal of Honor recipient put it quite well in a book he wrote. Quoting:
**
War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

[snip]

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909–1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
**

Source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket/

Europe and Japan certainly got into a fair amount of wars -before- World War II, but after that, it seems to me that the main antagonist was the U.S.

The Spanish American war was one the US really didn't want. The sinking of the Maine--due to a coal fire and magazine explosion not Spanish saboteurs--was the cause of the US getting into it. The US divested itself of most of the islands taken in that war by 1950, roughly half-a-century later.

The war of 1812 was caused by Britain impressing--essentially kidnapping--US sailors on merchant ships and such into Royal Navy service due to a shortage of crew the RN was facing.

The Mexican-American war was largely a border dispute over where it was in Texas. Yes, the US was being expansionist but at the same time, Mexico didn't want to negotiate any land deals even while being broke because of public opinion against that. In the peace that followed that war, the US indemnified Mexico--paid them off--the US asking price for the land that the US took over most of which was Mexican in name only. That is, they had neither settlers nor any sort of government presence on it.

That was followed by the Gadsden Purchase which was an outright real estate deal with Mexico because, once again, the borders were screwed up and the US wanted the land for a rail route into southern California.

As for post WW 2...

US involvement in the Chinese civil war post WW 2 where Mao took the country was mostly a withdrawal.
Korea was a UN war started by N. Korea wholly and totally.

Since then, other wars the US had a vested interest in were:

Dominican Republic invasion to stop communist takeover
Granada invasion to stop communist takeover
Panama invasion to stop drug flow to prop up dictator

And a few various meddling's by the CIA and such.

None of that was "corporate interests."

 

[Scott]

The U.S. started a bit earlier than the 20th Century- the Spanish American war comes to mind:

Spanish–American War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But I think we can agree that most of what the U.S. international interventions were in the 20th century.



Not always, though the conflicts between the U.S., Canada and Mexico were in the 19th century:

War of 1812 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Mexican–American War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

As to European wars, I think it was good that the U.S. got involved in World War II, but I'm not sure if the U.S. has gotten into -any- good war after that. American Professor and Statesman Jeffrey Sachs made a speech to European Parliament where he made some good points. His speech has since been turned into an article that adds additional details. A relevant passage in relation to our current point of conversation is the following:
**
There have been around one hundred regime-change operations by the U.S. since 1947, many in your countries [speaking to the MEPs] and many all over the world.

(Political scientist Lindsey O’Rourke documented 64 U.S. covert regime-change operations between 1947 and 1989, and concluded that “Regime change operations, especially those conducted covertly, have oft en led to prolonged instability, civil wars, and humanitarian crises in the affected regions.” See O’Rourke’s 2018 book, Covert Regime Change: America’s Secret Cold War. After 1989, there is ample evidence of the C.I.A. involved in Syria, Libya, Ukraine, Venezuela, and many other countries.)

That’s what the C.I.A. does for a living. Please know it. It’s a very unusual kind of foreign policy. In the American government, if you don’t like the other side, you don’t negotiate with them, you try to overthrow them, preferably, covertly. If it doesn’t work covertly, you do it overtly. You always say it’s not our fault. They’re the aggressor. They’re the other side.

They’re “Hitler.” That comes up every two or three years. Whether it’s Saddam Hussein, whether it’s [deposed Syrian President Bashar] al-Assad, whether it’s Putin, that’s very convenient. That’s the only foreign policy explanation the American people are ever given. Well, we’re facing Munich 1938. We can’t talk to the other side. They’re evil and implacable foes. That’s the only model of foreign policy we ever hear from our government and mass media. The mass media repeats it entirely because it’s completely suborned by the U.S. government.
**

Source:

Jeffrey Sachs: The Geopolitics of Peace

The author explains manipulative U.S. post-war foreign policy to European MPs, explodes myths about Ukraine and urges an independent European foreign policy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjcMoDFU1xg&ab_channel=MichaelvonderSchulenburg This is an edited transcript of Professor Jeffrey Sachs’

consortiumnews.com

I have yet to hear of a war after World War II that -wasn't- driven by corporate interests. I've also heard that many before World War II were as well. I think that Smedley D. Butler, a retired United States Marine Corps major general and two-time Medal of Honor recipient put it quite well in a book he wrote. Quoting:
**
War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

[snip]

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909–1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
**

Source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket/

Europe and Japan certainly got into a fair amount of wars -before- World War II, but after that, it seems to me that the main antagonist was the U.S.

The Spanish American war was one the US really didn't want. The sinking of the Maine--due to a coal fire and magazine explosion not Spanish saboteurs--was the cause of the US getting into it.

From what I've read, the jury's still out as to what caused the explosion. From Wikipedia:
**
In 1974, Admiral Hyman George Rickover had his staff look at the documents and decided there was an internal explosion A study commissioned by National Geographic magazine in 1999, using AME computer modeling, reported: "By examining the bottom plating of the ship and how it bent and folded, AME concluded that the destruction could have been caused by a mine."
**

Source:

Spanish–American War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I think I'll respond to the rest later, getting late .

 

[T. A. Gardner]

From what I've read, the jury's still out as to what caused the explosion. From Wikipedia:
**
In 1974, Admiral Hyman George Rickover had his staff look at the documents and decided there was an internal explosion A study commissioned by National Geographic magazine in 1999, using AME computer modeling, reported: "By examining the bottom plating of the ship and how it bent and folded, AME concluded that the destruction could have been caused by a mine."
**

Source:

Spanish–American War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I think I'll respond to the rest later, getting late .

It was a coal fire and a magazine explosion. There have been numerous studies now that confirm that. It isn't like it's the only ship that suffered such a fate, for example:

HMS Glatton (1914) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Scott]

From what I've read, the jury's still out as to what caused the explosion. From Wikipedia:
**
In 1974, Admiral Hyman George Rickover had his staff look at the documents and decided there was an internal explosion A study commissioned by National Geographic magazine in 1999, using AME computer modeling, reported: "By examining the bottom plating of the ship and how it bent and folded, AME concluded that the destruction could have been caused by a mine."
**

Source:

Spanish–American War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I think I'll respond to the rest later, getting late.

It was a coal fire and a magazine explosion. There have been numerous studies now that confirm that. It isn't like it's the only ship that suffered such a fate, for example:

HMS Glatton (1914) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You may be right, I'm just going by what I read on Wikipedia.

 

[Scott]

The war of 1812 was caused by Britain impressing--essentially kidnapping--US sailors on merchant ships and such into Royal Navy service due to a shortage of crew the RN was facing.

Wikipedia lists British impressment as only one of the reasons:
**
The origins of the War of 1812 (1812–1815), between the United States and the British Empire and its First Nation allies, have been long debated. The War of 1812 was caused by multiple factors and ultimately led to the US declaration of war on Britain:

• Trade restrictions introduced by Britain to impede American trade with France with which Britain was at war (the US contested the restrictions as illegal under international law).
• The impressment (forced recruitment) of seamen on US vessels into the Royal Navy (the British claimed they were British deserters).
• British military support for Native Americans who were offering armed resistance to the expansion of the American frontier in the Northwest Territory.
• A possible desire by the US to annex some or all of Canada.
• US motivation and desire to uphold national honor in the face of what they considered to be British insults, such as the Chesapeake affair.

American expansion into the Northwest Territory (now Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, and northeast Minnesota) was impeded by Indian raids. Some historians maintain that an American goal in the war was to annex some or all of Canada, a view many Canadians still share. However, many argue that inducing the fear of such a seizure was merely an American tactic, which was designed to obtain a bargaining chip.

Some members of the British Parliament and dissident American politicians such as John Randolph of Roanoke claimed that American expansionism, rather than maritime disputes, was the primary motivation for the American declaration of war. That view has been retained by some historians.

Although the British made some concessions before the war on neutral trade, they insisted on the right to reclaim their deserting sailors. The British also had long had a goal to create a large "neutral" Indian state that would cover much of Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan. They made the demand as late as 1814 at the Ghent Peace Conference, but they lost battles that would have validated those claims.
**

Source:

Origins of the War of 1812 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Scott]

The Mexican-American war was largely a border dispute over where it was in Texas. Yes, the US was being expansionist but at the same time, Mexico didn't want to negotiate any land deals even while being broke because of public opinion against that.

The paid version of ChatGPT agrees that the border dispute was -one- of the factors, but not the only one. It also lists the annexation of Texas and U.S. expansionism/manifest destiny as causes:
**

Causes of the Mexican-American War (1846–1848)​

The Mexican-American War was triggered by a combination of political, territorial, and ideological factors. Key causes included:

• Annexation of Texas (1845): The U.S. annexation of Texas, a former Mexican territory, angered Mexico – which still claimed Texas – and led Mexico to sever diplomatic ties with the United States (Source: https://history.state.gov/milestone...ident John Tyler,United States on December 29)
• Border Dispute (Rio Grande vs. Nueces): Texas (and the U.S.) insisted the Texas-Mexico border lay along the Rio Grande, while Mexico maintained it was at the Nueces River, a disagreement that led to military confrontation (Source: https://history.state.gov/milestone...Mexico did not follow,north of the Rio Grande)
• Manifest Destiny: A widespread American belief in “Manifest Destiny” – the idea that the United States was divinely destined to expand across the continent – fueled public support for war to seize new territories from Mexico. (Sources: https://www.britannica.com/summary/...cans had by that,the Pacific Ocean and beyond , https://www.britannica.com/summary/...ef in Manifest Destiny,acquired Mexican lands)
• U.S. Expansionist Aims: President James K. Polk’s expansionist agenda (including aims to acquire California and other Mexican lands) prompted him to provoke a conflict; Polk sent American troops into the disputed zone, and when Mexican forces responded, he used their attack as a pretext to urge a U.S. declaration of war (Sources: https://www.nps.gov/places/the-mexi...can territory and,Polk knew this action would, https://history.state.gov/milestone...re of Slidell’s,States declared war on Mexico)

**

 

[Sammy Jankis]

The Spanish American war was one the US really didn't want. The sinking of the Maine--due to a coal fire and magazine explosion not Spanish saboteurs--was the cause of the US getting into it. The US divested itself of most of the islands taken in that war by 1950, roughly half-a-century later.

The war of 1812 was caused by Britain impressing--essentially kidnapping--US sailors on merchant ships and such into Royal Navy service due to a shortage of crew the RN was facing.

The Mexican-American war was largely a border dispute over where it was in Texas. Yes, the US was being expansionist but at the same time, Mexico didn't want to negotiate any land deals even while being broke because of public opinion against that. In the peace that followed that war, the US indemnified Mexico--paid them off--the US asking price for the land that the US took over most of which was Mexican in name only. That is, they had neither settlers nor any sort of government presence on it.

That was followed by the Gadsden Purchase which was an outright real estate deal with Mexico because, once again, the borders were screwed up and the US wanted the land for a rail route into southern California.

As for post WW 2...

US involvement in the Chinese civil war post WW 2 where Mao took the country was mostly a withdrawal.
Korea was a UN war started by N. Korea wholly and totally.

Since then, other wars the US had a vested interest in were:

Dominican Republic invasion to stop communist takeover
Granada invasion to stop communist takeover
Panama invasion to stop drug flow to prop up dictator

And a few various meddling's by the CIA and such.

None of that was "corporate interests."

is it always ok to attack countries that are poor?

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Wikipedia lists British impressment as only one of the reasons:
**
The origins of the War of 1812 (1812–1815), between the United States and the British Empire and its First Nation allies, have been long debated. The War of 1812 was caused by multiple factors and ultimately led to the US declaration of war on Britain:

• Trade restrictions introduced by Britain to impede American trade with France with which Britain was at war (the US contested the restrictions as illegal under international law).
• The impressment (forced recruitment) of seamen on US vessels into the Royal Navy (the British claimed they were British deserters).
• British military support for Native Americans who were offering armed resistance to the expansion of the American frontier in the Northwest Territory.
• A possible desire by the US to annex some or all of Canada.
• US motivation and desire to uphold national honor in the face of what they considered to be British insults, such as the Chesapeake affair.

American expansion into the Northwest Territory (now Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, and northeast Minnesota) was impeded by Indian raids. Some historians maintain that an American goal in the war was to annex some or all of Canada, a view many Canadians still share. However, many argue that inducing the fear of such a seizure was merely an American tactic, which was designed to obtain a bargaining chip.

Some members of the British Parliament and dissident American politicians such as John Randolph of Roanoke claimed that American expansionism, rather than maritime disputes, was the primary motivation for the American declaration of war. That view has been retained by some historians.

Although the British made some concessions before the war on neutral trade, they insisted on the right to reclaim their deserting sailors. The British also had long had a goal to create a large "neutral" Indian state that would cover much of Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan. They made the demand as late as 1814 at the Ghent Peace Conference, but they lost battles that would have validated those claims.
**

Source:

Origins of the War of 1812 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Impressive has a whole new meaning now.

thank you Scott.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

You may be right, I'm just going by what I read on Wikipedia.

It's pretty obvious given the known facts and design of the ship. Add to that, trying to figure out how the Spanish got a mine big enough to do that damage either into or under the magazine of the ship with no divers, no pre-knowledge of where the ship was anchoring or its swing at anchor.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

is it always ok to attack countries that are poor?

No, but is okay to attack ones that do stupid shit to you and yours to show them that you won't put up with it.

 

[Into the Night]

No, I was trying to point out to Gardner that the fact that there are various middle east factions fighting each other isn't a coincidence at all- it's planned. Some stories that strongly hint at this:

Israeli Mossad named as funder of Gaza Humanitarian Foundation - The Grayzone

Top Israeli lawmakers have accused their government of laundering massive sums through a shadowy network of US humanitarian and mercenary orgs. The weaponized aid initiative is the linchpin of Israel’s plan to ethnically cleanse northern Gaza by forcing the starving population into concentration...

thegrayzone.com

Uber CEO plots ‘opening up’ of Iran with Israeli-tied monarchist opposition group - The Grayzone

A livestreamed Iranian royalist chat revealed a network of foreign-educated elites plotting to plunder Iran's economy after realizing their dream of regime change. The CEO of Uber, Dara Khosrowshahi, has drawn criticism following his participation in an online discussion workshopping ways to...

thegrayzone.com

Leaked files show secret UK Syria project boosted Jolani’s HTS - The Grayzone

In the name of building a “moderate opposition,” London established a social service and media network in areas controlled by HTS, benefitting the group it branded as a dangerous Al Qaeda affiliate. Leaked British intelligence files reviewed by The Grayzone raise grave questions about whether...

thegrayzone.com

Thousands reported killed in Syria as HTS-allied forces attack, execute Alawites - The Grayzone

Editor's note: Sectarian Sunni forces linked to the new HTS-led government of Syria have massacred over 1300 Alawites in the past week, according to a conservative estimate. The Grayzone has spoken to staff from a Western aid organization currently on the ground in Syria who say the death toll...

thegrayzone.com

Who's planning this?