Top Menu

Eye-Opening Graphic: Map of Muslim Countries that the U.S. and Israel Have Bombed

(updated – see below)

Pro-Israel propagandist Jeffrey Goldberg made an inadvertent but profound admission the other day when he said: “[T]he U.S. have been waging a three-decade war for domination of the Middle East.”

This “three-decade war for domination of the Middle East” becomes apparent when we consider how many Muslim countries the peace-loving United States and her “stalwart ally” Israel have bombed:

During Bill Clinton’s presidency, the U.S. bombed Iraq, Afghanistan, and Sudan.

In the time of George Bush, the U.S. bombed Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq, Pakistan, and Somalia.

Under Barack Obama, the U.S. is currently bombing Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya.  According to some reports (see here and here), we can add Iran to this ever-expanding list. [Update: An Informed Comment reader named Shannon pointed out that in fact the United States bombed Iran in 1988 during Operating Praying Mantis, an act that “cannot be justified” according to the International Court of Justice.]

Thanks to American arms and funding, our “stalwart ally” Israel has bombed every single one of its neighbors, including Palestine, LebanonSyria, Jordan, and Egypt.  Israel has also bombed Tunisia and Iraq (how many times can Americans and Israelis bomb this country?).

The total number of Muslim countries that America and Israel have bombed comes to fourteen: Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Iran, Sudan, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, and Tunisia.

Meanwhile, the U.S. has military bases in several countries in the Greater Middle East, including Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Turkey, Pakistan, UAE, Yemen, Iraq,  AfghanistanDjiboutiKyrgyzstan, SomaliaEthiopiaTurkmenistanUzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Chad. The U.S. also used to have a base in Eritrea and demanded another one in 2010. [Update: There is a minor error here pointed out to me by Prof. Juan Cole: the U.S. troops stationed in Uzbekistan are using an Uzbek, not American, base.  However, this makes little substantive difference: there is still a U.S. military presence in that country, which was my point.]

Here’s what that looks like on a map of the Greater Middle East:

(Note: Image quality improved thanks to a reader named Mohamed S.)

I wonder where those silly Muslims come up with the conspiratorial, absolutely irrational idea that the U.S. is waging war against the Muslim world?

If you haven’t already seen this video, I strongly suggest you watch it:

With seven active wars in seven different Muslim countries, it is quite an amazing thing that Americans can have the audacity to ask: “why are Muslims so violent and warlike?”

But, that’s just the tip of the iceberg.  The New York Times reports that President Barack Obama “widened” the war, which is now being waged across “two continents” in “roughly a dozen countries — from the deserts of North Africa, to the mountains of Pakistan, to former Soviet republics,” using “robotic drones and commando teams” as well as “contractors” and “local operatives.”

Even more worrisome, the Washington Post reports that America’s “secret wars” are waged by “Special Operations forces” in “75 countries” (and “that number will likely reach 120”); in other words, the United States will have engaged in military acts in over 60% of the world’s nation-states.  After all of this, Americans will turn around and ask: “why are Muslims so violent and warlike?”

Could it possibly be more obvious that the War on Terror is just a pretext for global domination?

*  *  *  *  *

Every four years, Americans get the illusion of choice: the choice between Democrat and Republican.  In terms of foreign policy, the difference is like the difference between Coke and Pepsi.  In the last election, John McCain sang a variation of the famous Beach Boys song “Barbara Ann,” changing the lyrics to “bomb, bomb, bomb Iran!”; meanwhile, Barack Obama hinted at expanding the war to Pakistan.  The American voter was given the choice not between war and peace, but between war against Iran or war against Pakistan.

In the national discourse, there exists a bipartisan consensus on the need for perpetual war: both candidates agreed on the need to expand the War on of Terror and attack more Muslim countries.  There was no confusion about whether or not to bomb, invade, and occupy–the question was only where to do this.  If the Muslim world were imagined to be a turkey, the question was then only whether to begin munching on the leg first or to start with the breast.

President Barack Obama may have disagreed with his predecessor’s tactics, but he agreed with the Bush/Cheney world view.  Obama may have thought we could move around troops here and there–let’s move some of these troops from Iraq to Afghanistan–but he did not disagree with the basic premise, overall methods, and goals of the Bush/Cheney War on of Terror.

Interestingly, Obama was considered to be “the peace candidate”; even more absurd of course was that he ended up winning the Noble Peace Prize.  While it is true that the Democratic Obama has tended to use less hawkish language, in terms of actions Obama has a worse record than Bush: Obama has expanded the War on of Terror, both in terms of covert and overt wars.

Why did a “liberal” Democrat (Barack Obama) end up being more warlike than a “hawkish” Republican (George Bush)?  There is of course the obvious explanation of war inertia.  But aside from this, there must be something deeper, which is apparent if we look at the situation between what were historically the two large parties in Israel.

Western media (see Time Magazine, for example), portrays the Labor Party as “dovish” and Likud as “hawkish”.  Certainly, in terms of rhetoric this is true.  But, is it really true?  According to experts in the field–such as Prof. Noam Chomsky and Dr. Norman Finkelstein–Labor has had a far worse track record toward Palestinians than the Likud.  Labor and Likud play good cop, bad cop toward Palestinians–or rather bad cop, badder cop.  But while the two parties disagree on rhetoric and tactics, they share similar overall goals.

The same is the case with Democrats and Republicans.  The Democrats use softer rhetoric, whereas the Republicans continually push the national discourse (the “center”) rightward.  But, because a Democratic president must counter the accusation that he is “weak” on matters of “defense” (Orwell: offense is defense), he must be Strong and Tough against Terrorism.  Effectively this means that his war policy becomes virtually indistinguishable from that of the political right.

Furthermore, President Barack Obama has done something that no Republican could do: he has brought bipartisan consensus to the state of perpetual and global war.  During the reign of George Bush, prominent liberal progressives criticized his warlike policies.  In fact, this was one of the motivating factors behind electing Obama, who would bring “Change.”  Yet, when Obama brought more of the same, most liberal progressives fell silent, a hypocrisy that did not go unnoticed by conservatives.

It took a “liberal” Democrat to expand the War on of Terror and give it bipartisan consensus, just as it took a conservative Republican (Richard Nixon) to make peace with Communist China.

Under the two-party system, it really does not matter which side wins.  A Republican candidate might sound more warlike than a Democrat, but once in office, he softens his position somewhat due to Democratic opposition (even though most of the Democrats won’t vote against war resolutions).  Meanwhile, a Democrat president must prove that he is Strong and Tough against Terrorism, so he hardens his position.  In the end, Democratic and Republican presidents are moved to the political “center” (which keeps getting pushed ever more to the right), so that the two are virtually indistinguishable from each other.  Perhaps Barack Obama was onto something when he said:

There’s not a liberal America or a conservative America; there’s the United States of America.

It is true: America’s politicians are united in their endorsement of perpetual and global war.

The United States has a long history of bipartisan consensus when it comes to waging wars of aggression.  In 1846, the country was divided between the hawkish Democratic party led by President James K. Polk and the supposedly dovish Whig party.  Polk’s administration saber-rattled against Mexico in order to justify invading and occupying their land.  Meanwhile, “[t]he Whig party was presumably against the war,” but “they were not so powerfully against the military action that they would stop it by denying men and money for the operation” (p.153 of Prof. Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States). In fact, the “Whigs joined Democrats in voting overwhelmingly for the war resolution, 174 to 14.”  They did so, because “[t]hey did not want to risk the accusation that they were putting American soldiers in peril by depriving them of the materials necessary to fight.”  The only dissenters were “a small group of antislavery Whigs, or a ‘little knot of ultraists,’ as one Massachusetts Congressman who voted for the war measure put it.”  Perhaps among them was Ron Paul’s great grandfather.

The measure passed the Congress (174 to 14) and the Senate (40 to 2), “Whigs joining Democrats.”  The Whigs “could only harry the administration with a barrage of verbiage while voting for every appropriation which the military campaigns required.”  In any case, “the United States would be giving the blessings of liberty and democracy” to the Mexicans.  Any of this sound familiar?

Flash forward to today and we see the establishment left consistently supporting America’s wars of aggression.  Even while these avowed liberals criticize right-wingers for warmongering against Iran, they themselves often saber-rattle against Pakistan and even Saudi Arabia.  The right thinks we’re doing something great in Iraq and wants to expand the war to Iran (which we may already have done).  Meanwhile, the left thinks we were right to bomb Afghanistan and that we should expand the war to Pakistan (which we’ve already done).  Neither left or right opposes foreign wars altogether.  The difference is only with regard to the names of the countries we bomb, which doesn’t really matter since the truth is that we are bombing all of them now.

This is because both left and right agree with the Supreme Islamophobic Myth: that Islam (or radical Islam) is the greatest threat to world peace.  This inevitably leads to the central tenet of Islamophobia, which is to endorse the Supreme Islamophobic Crime: bombing, invading, and occupying Muslim lands.

Peace can only be attained when one is disabused of this mother of nationalistic myths.  This can only be done by realizing that it is the United States that is the greatest threat to peace in the region (look at the map!).  Consider that the U.S. has bombed at least a dozen Muslim countries in recent history, whereas zero Muslim countries have bombed the U.S.  If “wars of aggression” constitute “the supreme international crime”–as decided during the Nuremberg Trials–then what does it say about the situation when America has initiated multiple wars of aggression against the Muslim world whereas no single Muslim country has done so against the United States?

No Muslim country has attacked us because the risks of doing so are far too great; it would mean almost certain destruction.  This is why, even though the map of the Middle East in the image above looks like it does, no Muslim country has the audacity to retaliate.  Meanwhile, the U.S.–as the world’s only superpower–can attack multiple smaller countries without fear of significant retaliation to the American heartland.  Therefore, it only makes sense for people of conscience, especially Americans, to be highly critical of U.S. foreign policy.

*  *  *  *  *

Something else troubling I’ve noticed about the national discourse is how even those opposed to war (or at least one set of wars) will frame their opposition in financial terms.  The primary argument to convince Americans against war seems not to be the fact that war is immoral, that bombing countries and killing so many countless civilians is morally repugnant, but rather that it’s just too costly to do so.  It’s our wallets, not our soul, that is at stake.

Another argument that takes precedence over the moral argument includes the idea that too many of our troops are dying (victim inversion); alternatively, it is argued (rightfully) that such wars increase the likelihood of terrorism against us (another example of victim inversion).

During the Nuremberg Trials, it was decided that initiating a war of aggression constituted “the supreme international crime”:

To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.

Of what moral character would you consider a Nazi official if he argued against Hitler’s wars on the basis of “it will cost too much German tax payer money” or “it will kill too many German soldiers” or “it may result in retaliation against Germany?” (Refer to Glenn Greenwald’s article on Godwin’s law.)

Would it not be better to use as one’s central argument against America’s wars that it is morally repugnant to bomb and kill people?

Danios was the Brass Crescent Award Honorary Mention for Best Writer in 2010 and the Brass Crescent Award Winner for Best Writer in 2011.  

Update I:

Prof. Juan Cole was kind enough to reproduce the image and link to our article.  He had some minor issues with the map, to which I responded here.

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Jeremy

    Shaykh al-Hajj Dawud Ahmad, M.S.J.D.

    Also, you posted that you have no problem with America, and yet in an earlier post you refer to it as a slave state? am i to take it that you support slavery then?

    Just trying to understand your position, as statements like that seem very contradictory.

    So, is America, or is it not a slave state?

    Do you, or do you not have a problem with that?

  • Jeremy

    Shaykh al-Hajj Dawud Ahmad, M.S.J.D.

    I am sure you get all your information from documentaries, but I have no interest in watching your propaganda, all you would need do to make your point is say that “yes, this magical society I am talking about had all of the following:

    no Slavery
    unrestricted free speech
    equality for women
    equality for Gays and Lesbians
    rights for children
    a willingness to let people vote for their rights”

    instead of all your assumptions and blather, you simply could have answered the question, instead suggesting I go around watching movies you recommend.
    I didn’t make any assumptions about anything other than what you said…. you said that this was some sort of perfect society, or at least the best there could be, and I simply replied that a perfect society would have had all the things I listed…. for starters.

    why is that such a hard thing for you to answer? Did this society, or did it not, have all those rights and freedoms? I truthfully don’t know and am asking?

    Perhaps you watch documentaries because your reading comprehension isn’t so good. I never said anything derogatory about Islam in any way, and yet you rail on and defend against positions I never took? please copy pasta one of my replies where I said anything negative about Islam, or take back what you said.

    ***You’re outclassed here, Jeremy.***

    Obviously, LOL.

    ** My American ancestry goes back over seventeen thousand years in America, and my European ancestry goes back to the Mayflower in America. I was a beneficiary of America’s “white skin privilege” all the way through childhood education, military service during the Vietnam Era, college, “counterculture,” entrepreneurial success, and white collar crime, losing that privilege only by embracing Islam ~ after which I’ve been treated as a deserter, a renegade, a traitor, and of the “untouchable” caste in America.**

    So, I am outclassed because of your Ancestry? Are you a racist? Cause that sounds an awful lot like a racist statement.

    **But here you are, in a Web discussion forum administered and dominated by American muslims with American values, and by Americans with muslim values, enjoying the freedom of speech you imagine Islam to abolish, running your mouth with pure crap, false light representations, insinuations, gutter gossip, and anything you can think of to divert discussions into irrelevant trivialities, and wasting the time of people trying to concentrate on opposing the very bigotry, prejudice, phobic paranoia, misanthropic pathology, and demonization propaganda that you promote.**

    so, where in any of my posts did I suggest Islam abolishes free speech?
    What have I said that is crap, false light representations, insinuations, gutter gossip etc?
    in what way am I trying to divert discussions into irrelevant trivialities?
    and which bigotry, prejudice, phobic paranoia, misanthropic pathology, and demonization of anyone, or anything have I promoted?

    I defy you to p[rovide examples of any of these in my posts. It seems to be you who are the bigot, refusing to engage in sensible dialogue, and jumping to all sorts of conclusions about what I am here to ‘promote’

    I can only assume you are being a troll and not a prejudiced bigot seeing as nothing in your reply has spoken to anything I have actually posted…… but I will play along, just this once….

  • Saladin

    @Danios & Scott
    December 14th, 2011 at 12:26 am

    Just watched a very disappointing Ron Paul interview:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcKIsBcEA-8

    Paul wouldn’t have a problem with Israel bombing Iran. In fact, he seems to say that the conditions warrant that.

    He also doesn’t recognize the importance of Resolution 242, the 1967 borders, etc.

    He also thinks Israel should be our best friend.

    Fail.

    Danios I think you are misunderstanding Ron Paul’s position he is a non-interventionist he says we should be friends with as many nation as possible and trade with them but not be the world police so if God forbid Iran and Israel go at we should not take side with either one let them deal with it. From his view we should be friends with nations not their masters it is not just Israel he would treat that but every nation including the Palestinians , he was highlighting Israel because they were trying to label him as anti-Israel and borderline antisemitic

  • Pingback: Eye-Opening Graphic: Map of Muslim Countries that the U.S. and Israel Have Bombed | Islamophobia Today eNewspaper()

  • Jeremy insinuates: So, your problem with America is a lack of perfection?

    I don’t have any problem with America.

    I can’t say I have watched the documentary

    Then you have nothing to say based on any actual knowledge, but only your assumptions about something you know nothing about. Is that about right?

    I assume it must have had all of the following:
    no Slavery
    unrestricted free speech
    equality for women
    equality for Gays and Lesbians
    rights for children
    a willingness to let people vote for their rights

    You should have watched the documentary before making assumptions based on your short-sighted concepts of “freedom” and your non-existent understanding of “liberty.”

    I suppose I could go on.

    I’m sure you could. Ignorance confronted with knowledge seems to produce that tendency.

    Does your wonderful society (which btw, was never in any serious contention for global Empire) have all of these rights and freedoms?

    Muslims, Christians, Jews, Sabians, and all others had ~ and have ~ whatever rights God gives them that their companions do not take away from them. This was true then, there, and it is true now, here in America. The difference is that the muslims did not deprive Jews, Christians, and others of rights that America does.

    I suppose Jews and Christians didn’t have to pay any different taxes and had the exact same rights as everyone else?

    Jews paid Jewish taxes to their Jewish authorities, Christians paid Christian taxes to their Christian authorities, and both had the option of providing military defense alongside the muslims rather than paying the expenses of necessary defense that muslims were obligated to provide. The right to avoid military service was a right that Jews and Christians (and others) had that the muslims did not have.

    Otherwise than that, Jewish authorities restricted the rights of Jews ~ such as we see today in Jerusalem, where the Jewish religious authorities prohibit Jews from setting foot on the Temple Mount, although muslims do not prohibit anyone from visiting the sacred places of any religion ~ with the sole exception of Mecca and Medina in Arabia, which are “restricted” the same way the Holy of Holies of the Temple, and the inner sanctums of the Vatican, are “forbidden territory” to people outside of those religions. And in muslim Spain, Christians had lost only the “right” to slaughter Jews at will for no better reason than that they were “Christ-killers,” which is why the muslims were invited into Spain in the first place.

    You really don’t know much more about Islam than how to spell it, it appears.

    As for “empire,” there is no such thing as an “Islamic” empire. The Arab muslim empire, like the Mongol muslim empire, the Ottoman (muslim) empire, and all the other successors to the imperial dominion of the Abbasid Arabs, had nothing to do with Islam other than their false claim to the religious authority they invented for themselves. Muslim Spain was not an “empire,” it was a federation that included Jewish, Christian, muslim, and other independently sovereign kingdoms.

    You should have watched the documentary.

    A “Land of the Free” does not need “equal opportunity” legislation.

    The USA certainly doesn’t and never did need ‘equal opportunity’ legislation, which is racist by it’s very nature.

    The USA has never had “equal opportunity” except for white Anglo-Saxon property owners and other European immigrants who had to fight for it. It still doesn’t, despite the legislation intended to provide some opportunity for some racial and ethnic minorities ~ which has been pork-barreled to death and made marginally effective only where some individual or group has been able to find monetary sponsorship to fight the legal battles. “Tokenism” is still the rule of “opportunity” in America. Had you watched the documentary, you would have seen something quite different.

    You’re outclassed here, Jeremy. My American ancestry goes back over seventeen thousand years in America, and my European ancestry goes back to the Mayflower in America. I was a beneficiary of America’s “white skin privilege” all the way through childhood education, military service during the Vietnam Era, college, “counterculture,” entrepreneurial success, and white collar crime, losing that privilege only by embracing Islam ~ after which I’ve been treated as a deserter, a renegade, a traitor, and of the “untouchable” caste in America.

    In other words, I’m not looking at America as an “outsider” or as any kind of “alien” ~ America is my country, it’s always been my country, and it’s still my country. I’ve been “inside politics” in both major national political parties, held public office, owned property, been “inside” (but not “in”) the Greek letter societies, lived in Chagrin Falls and married (for a while) into Jewish money, participated (unknowingly) as an “agent of influence” in the FBI’s COunter-INTELligence PROgram, published social commentary as a regular columnist, nearly was a candidate for Jesuit priesthood, was listed in a “Who’s Who in American [privilege group redacted],” nominated for membership in a “Blue Key” society ~ the doorway to successful legal practice and political clout in a State where I attended college ~ my American “resume” (that I consider utterly worthless) is unstoppable.

    With my background and a dime I used to be able to buy a cup of coffee. When I had a quarter I had to make the tough decision about whether to buy a gallon of gasoline or a pack of cigarettes. There’s no question, in the minds of the FBI, the courts, or anywhere in the American power elite in my country that I am a dyed-in-the-wool, born-and-bred, knife-in-the-teeth-bomb-in-the-belly American, through and through.

    There is also no question in the centers of Islamic learning, or in the leadership strata of Muslim America, that I am a muslim ~ established, known, certain, sincere, and reliable.

    Which is why I have no problem with America. None. I have dual citizenship, but not dual loyalty or conflicting allegiances. My loyalty to God and my loyalty to my country are one loyalty.

    But some people in America ~ not for the sake of being American but for other reasons ~ have a problem with me. That’s their problem ~ they’ve never been able to make it “my” problem.

    You’re not even an annoyance. You give me a soapbox and a megaphone. You support and advance my professional agenda to “Make Islam Known” to people in American idiomatic English. You can’t bring a lie or a mischaracterization about Islam that I can’t expose as inimical to truth, justice, the American Way, and humanity.

    Of course you “can’t say I have watched the documentary.” You don’t dare to say you’ve seen a factual depiction of a society steeped in liberty, where Jews, Christians, muslims, and others shared power and influence over the course of their common history, with all of their respective warts, peccadilloes, human failings, jealousies, rivalries, ambitions, and other “fine human qualities” shown but unable to establish any lasting tyranny such as we have institutionalized and hidden in American society. Your peers and colleagues would eat you alive were you to make such an admission.

    But here you are, in a Web discussion forum administered and dominated by American muslims with American values, and by Americans with muslim values, enjoying the freedom of speech you imagine Islam to abolish, running your mouth with pure crap, false light representations, insinuations, gutter gossip, and anything you can think of to divert discussions into irrelevant trivialities, and wasting the time of people trying to concentrate on opposing the very bigotry, prejudice, phobic paranoia, misanthropic pathology, and demonization propaganda that you promote.

    “Divert, distort, denigrate, disrupt or destroy any discussion of anything adverse to any agenda of the enemies of humanity.”

    Such company you keep. Have you ever considered getting a life?

  • Jeremy

    Jack Cope

    “Well I noticed that you were actually wanting to debate, unlike some people who I could care to mention.”

    LOL

    “First you ask what I would have done with Murbark etc. Well, I would have, with my considerable influence over them (since I was giving them all this aid) have pressured them to make changes and be accountable but at the same time not imposing any sort of ‘system’ on them. By making sure that people weren’t dragged out of their homes at night and so on, I’d have made a much more stable nation, rather than one that was a vicious circle. The more a nation oppresses, the more people hate it, so the more it needs to oppress and so on. Again, I feel the US had great powers over these dictatorships yet did nothing worth mentioning so long as they kept ‘on side’.”

    I certainly think it’s debatable how much influence the US had. the middle east was a notoriously unstable region (as evidenced by the fact that the US could ‘install’ regimes) I think what they were shooting for, was stability, and a guarantee on their investments. They only ever got involved with the overthrow of 1 democratic government. (Mosadegh) All they did was take one dictator, and replace him with one they could work with. The US didn’t invent the dictator, it was just the standard mode of government at the time. and the US guys were no better or worse than the rest.

    “My main issue is the transporting of ex-nazis for use by terrible dictatorships in South America. Such a thing, in letting criminals off the hook on the one hand and then letting them continue their crimes on the other, is wrong on all levels. Google stuff like ‘ex-nazi involvement in South America’ and tell me if you agree.”

    Are you suggesting that it was America’s policy to smuggle Nazi’s to South America to continue their crimes? well I am very aware of Nazi communities that grew in South America after the war, I was of the impression that they had to sneak their way there, to escape American and Russian dragnets. Do you have some informed links that say otherwise? I would be interested… but even if it were true, thats small potatoes compared to Liberating France, and Germany (against the Germans will I might add, cause they voted for the Nazi’s)

    “We agree on Japan in some way, in that we should have dealt with their crimes. However, I think the Emperor was just a puppet, it was the people pulling the strings who should hang. But as Eisenhower said on the atomic bombing:

    “I was against it on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender, and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon.”

    It is also true that the second bombing was of no value other than to test a new bomb. That is a war crime as bad as any human experimentation the nazis did in my opinion. Also, why was the bomb dropped on a city? Why not a military target? Or some unpopulated countryside with a note ‘Dear Mr Emperor, next time it’s your palace’? Unless of course they wanted to see the effects which I feel is the sole reason for it being done. As Eisenhower said, and as several Japanese sources support, the Japanese were going to surrender anyway and the Emperor would have issued such a deceleration within a short time. The fact that after the bomb was dropped nothing happened also supports this.”

    Actually, it seems that the Japanese weren’t ready to surrender. Remember, Eisenhower was running for office, thing things he said should be taken with a grain of salt. The Americans actually issued an ultimatum to Japan, which they could have very easily accept. they were warned exactly what would happen, their reply was ‘Mokusatsu’ which essentially means to kill with silence, to ignore. If the Japanese were going to surrender, than why didn’t they? In fact what they were doing was reaching out to the Russians. The simple fact is, the dropping of the Atomic bombs saved lives, both Japanese and Allied. Civillian populations were the workforces that supplied the armies, and considered legitimate targets. There were bomb and munition factories, although Nagasaki was chosen because the weather was clear over the city.

    “For Vietnam… well the domino theory was only proven because the US invaded the surrounding nations. They also supported a dictator, , who had no love for his people (he hatted Buddhists for one thing) and they had no love for him. That really was a key reason for the failure of the war, along with the fact that while communism wasn’t popular, it was the lesser of two evils for the people.”

    I am well aware communism wasn’t popular, but it wasn’t exactly ‘voted in’ Also, I don’t agree that the Domino effect was because of the US involvement, I think just the opposite, had the UN not shown its resolve, the effect would have likely been much worse…. however, I can agree to disagree.

    “And of course the fact that the allies had backed communist guerrillas during WWII so they felt they had a sort of ‘right’ to the nation. I think that the US would have been better to let whatever happen after the French left happen and then just carry out trade, education and other such delegations with Veitnam. Just as it does now in fact!”

    You may be right, but I actually believe that Vietnam was a key battle fought during the Cold war. even though the US ‘lost’ it was still a necessary fight, though a very poorly fought battle.

    ” Even during WWII there were many powerful figures, Henry Ford being one of them, who supported the nazis and used their influence or otherwise.”

    i actually think this is one of the great and benevolent things about the US, people can be openly against government policy without recourse.

    “And yes, the capitalist system is one of these things. For example, we have all the benefits it brings, but try and explain that to the sweatshop workers of Asia or the huge numbers in poverty in the US. It could have been far better.”

    There were sweat shop workers in the US 100 years ago, and that is part of a growing economy. The thing is, these kids line up for these jobs on the whole, and they are saved from being thieves, abused or prostitutes. And I think the notion of poverty in the States is ridiculous. does that mean you only have 1 TV and it’s black and white?

    “Finally, before I go and talk about the soviets, what would I chose… well out of the realistic options you listed the US, but again that’s HIV or cancer… both will kill me. Again, the US could have conducted itself far better but for various reasons it didn’t. I’d be more than happy to welcome a ‘sensible’ and truly ‘compassionate’ US, though I fear it is to late.”

    I think a more accurate comparison would be dying of cancer or cutting off the cancer ridden leg. In fact, exactly what you are seeing now is a more ‘compassionate’ US. By all standards, the US is much more compassionate than the past, and any other empire that has ever existed.

    “Cuba is interesting, Castro was actually not a communist until the US decided to back Batista rather than the liberal regime. Castro ousted Batista (who had been crippled by a US arms embargo) and installed a liberal lawyer as president as he thought the US would welcome the change. Of course, as history shows, they didn’t and even tried to get the Chicago mafia to assassinate Castro. Thus, with few other options, Castro embraced the USSR who loved the idea of putting missiles in Cuba. And why in Cuba? To counter US missiles in Turkey which were, in effect, in the same relative place to the USSR as Cuban missiles would be. Thus spreading communism wasn’t really a factor, it was a fairly lucky chance that they grabbed with both hands.”

    Castro was a ruthless bastard and the best thing for Cuba would have been a bullet through his head 30 years ago. I don’t even believe what is called Communism nowadays, is really Communism, perhaps Stalinism would be a better word. I don’t believe Castro was just trying to Liberate the people, he was after power, and he got it. The Cubans have suffered ever since. And here is a guy the US DIDN’T support, lol.

    ‘Same really for the Eastern Block, Stalin was paranoid that NATO would invade. As you know in both WWI and WWII Russia had faced huge casualties and damage when Russia was invaded from Europe. He wanted a ‘buffer’ of weak nations to stop this from happening. Again, reasons other than communism.’

    You could have stopped with ‘Stalin was paranoid’ but this is exactly the point, how big do you think he wanted that buffer state to be? If given the choice, it would have kept expanding.

    “Really, the USSR and US had a lot in common as we can see from those examples. They both said they were doing one thing but were really doing it for other reasons. Like all the great powers as you said…”

    Agreed, though the difference can clearly be seen in the countries America occupied and Liberated, and the countries the Russians lay waste to. It is a striking difference and probably the cornerstone of why I believe in US benevolence…. in spit of it’s lack of perfection.

    “Anyway, it’s been interesting to have this talk but I fear we are dragging the comments section wayyyyy off course You might like my new blog where I sometimes write about these things if you email me at the.strangers.blog@gmail.com , I’ll give you the address once I’ve finished biulding it. Or we can continue our conversation there to save loonwatch from the history lessons”

    While I don’t agree that the comments are being dragged off course, I think the issues speak to fundamental truths about the US and it’s history, I have sent you an email. Interesting chat indeed…. I think some here could use a history lesson or two…

    Jeremy

  • Jeremy

    Shaykh al-Hajj Dawud Ahmad, M.S.J.D. Says:

    “This documentary shows one example of genuine liberty and genuine federalism. It lasted about as long as America has existed, not as a “perfect” example (which America hasn’t been), but enough of an example that America has implemented some of its principles and features.”

    So, your problem with America is a lack of perfection? I can’t say I have watched the documentary, but it is about Islam in Spain correct? and since as, you say, it lasted as long as America, I assume it must have had all of the following:
    no Slavery
    unrestricted free speech
    equality for women
    equality for Gays and Lesbians
    rights for children
    a willingness to let people vote for their rights
    etc. etc.

    I suppose I could go on. Does your wonderful society (which btw, was never in any serious contention for global Empire) have all of these rights and freedoms?
    I suppose Jews and Christians didn’t have to pay any different taxes and had the exact same rights as everyone else?

    “A “Land of the Free” does not need “equal opportunity” legislation.”

    The USA certainly doesn’t and never did need ‘equal opportunity’ legislation, which is racist by it’s very nature.

  • Hindutvadi Hitler lovers exposed

    @Truth Seeker December 14th, 2011 at 5:25 am:

    Ooh how jealous can you get? Pakistan, Israel & the rest getting oodles of $$$, but the leftovers for the expedient opportunist India who suppoerted the Cold War enemy of the US for decades?

    In 1976 India declared itself to be S-O-C-I-A-L-I-S-T!

    (“The Constitution declares India to be a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic, assuring its citizens of justice, equality, and liberty, and endeavours to promote fraternity among them. The words “socialist” and “secular” were added to the definition in 1976 by constitutional amendment.[3]-Wikipedia”.)

  • Mr Demographics,

    Upon second inspection of your what we shall generously call ‘writing’, I found nothing of substance for me to actually comment on.

    If you wish to ‘debate’ with me I suggest you learn some manners first, for you have none. Your attitude is rather like me asking you ‘where is your Jew gold?’ and then expecting us to have a sensible conversation afterwards.

    You do rather drag your faith through the dirt with your stupidity but, don’t worry, we all know plenty of nice persons of your following so we can safely laugh at you. And on a side note, if you think that your little kiddy rants are somehow annoying us please be aware that they make us feel sorry, not annoyed. Sorry for you that is.

    Anyway, a few tidbits from your ‘writing’:

    “during the British Empire, the imperialists didn’t fly planes into office buildings and ritually sacrifice their children to Moloch”

    Well, it would have been rather difficult for them to fly aircraft wouldn’t it? However, the British where quite happy, like any good imperialist, to sacrifice thousands upon millions of lives for their causes. Just becuase they wore redcoats while doing it doesn’t make them any different. So yes, in reality it was rather a ritual sacrifice on the alter of the ruling monarch, Morloch if you will. How about World War I, where millions of young men were charged into battle, with the full knowledge that most would die, for the gain of a few miles of land?

    “The French Empire never advocated child-marriage, suicide bombs, and Shari’ah.”

    France still has a legal age of marriage around 14 years of age. And during imperial times it was not uncommon for there to be marriages when girls and boys were around 10, from the lowest to the highest classes. The UK for instance had laws allowing marriage at the age of 12 up until the end of the Victorian age. Sharia law was also advocated in their Muslim territories. For suicide bombs, I again turn your attention to military campaigns.

    “Even the Shari’ah-adherent Ottoman Empire was more focussed on the violent collection of jizya, than it was on the satanic teachings of Mohammed. ”

    Yearp, your point? That was after all their downfall.

    “You Mohammedans ought to learn from your moral superiors about how to Imperialize. Because you’re doing a pretty sh!tty job right now. Your empire is constantly under attack.”

    I was unaware that there was a Muslim empire, did I miss the memeo? I’m quite sure we are not imperialism anyone… unless of course you mean the rather laughable ‘theory’ of Muslim demographics your name suggests.

    Which brings me to another point, maybe you should be learning from us! After all if we can magically take over Europe and the US without using an military force, clearly we are the superiors!

    “Your people are illiterate, poor, immoral and ugly. Your future is bleak.”

    Oh, I think that is rather calling the kettle black… and yes, I am certainly most ugly, but wasn’t a Muslim voted Miss USA? As for immorality, poverty and illiteracy… again pot/black/calling… sort them into some sort of sentence and you get my point.

    As for the future, the future is not bleak at all, the future for mankind is very good. It is people like yourself that the future is bleak for, locked in your little circles of hate and stupidity.

    “Even this map is basically an admission that Mohammed is not a particularly powerful god and that your Empire needs to be much improved . . . ”

    I was also unaware that Mohammad was a god… another memo I must have missed!

    “Just a helpful tip.”

    Obliged, but I could have got better tips of the back of a cereal packet.

    Again, as usual I expect no reply as you are incapable of providing one without screaming like a child. With peace.

    Jack

  • “Shaykh al-Hajj Dawud Ahmad, M.S.J.D. Says:

    Jack Cope discloses: 3°8′51″N 101°41′36″E is my approximate location.

    Looks like a fun place to visit for some, but I prefer a bit less neon.

    I really enjoyed this picture of towel-heads waiting for their camels.”

    Indeed, an interesting city which I feel honored to live in, not least becuase I am nearly in the countryside away from all the neon. And yes, our camels are somewhat unique… so are our towels come to that.

    Jack

  • Khushboo

    Porky, I’m no fan of the Pakistani gov’t. but I know that they have allies who can help them. We(Americans) really shouldn’t mess with countries that have nuclear weapons. Our arrogance has gotten us in too much trouble already that will never be forgotten nor forgiven. Both the Left and Right are responsible for that!

  • Jeremy asks: Are you going to share what this other option was?

    This documentary shows one example of genuine liberty and genuine federalism. It lasted about as long as America has existed, not as a “perfect” example (which America hasn’t been), but enough of an example that America has implemented some of its principles and features.

    and really, Slave state?

    A “Land of the Free” does not need “equal opportunity” legislation.

  • Jeremy,

    Well I noticed that you were actually wanting to debate, unlike some people who I could care to mention.

    I apologize for misreading you, I think I was reading so many comments that I got mixed up with what various people were saying. I think we largely agree on most of my points so I won’t go into them to much.

    First you ask what I would have done with Murbark etc. Well, I would have, with my considerable influence over them (since I was giving them all this aid) have pressured them to make changes and be accountable but at the same time not imposing any sort of ‘system’ on them. By making sure that people weren’t dragged out of their homes at night and so on, I’d have made a much more stable nation, rather than one that was a vicious circle. The more a nation oppresses, the more people hate it, so the more it needs to oppress and so on. Again, I feel the US had great powers over these dictatorships yet did nothing worth mentioning so long as they kept ‘on side’.

    For dealing with nazis… I agree that taking nazi technology, even if it was produced via human experimentation or slave labour, could have been worse and someone would have taken it anyway. My main issue is the transporting of ex-nazis for use by terrible dictatorships in South America. Such a thing, in letting criminals off the hook on the one hand and then letting them continue their crimes on the other, is wrong on all levels. Google stuff like ‘ex-nazi involvement in South America’ and tell me if you agree.

    We agree on Japan in some way, in that we should have dealt with their crimes. However, I think the Emperor was just a puppet, it was the people pulling the strings who should hang. But as Eisenhower said on the atomic bombing:

    “I was against it on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender, and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon.”

    It is also true that the second bombing was of no value other than to test a new bomb. That is a war crime as bad as any human experimentation the nazis did in my opinion. Also, why was the bomb dropped on a city? Why not a military target? Or some unpopulated countryside with a note ‘Dear Mr Emperor, next time it’s your palace’? Unless of course they wanted to see the effects which I feel is the sole reason for it being done. As Eisenhower said, and as several Japanese sources support, the Japanese were going to surrender anyway and the Emperor would have issued such a deceleration within a short time. The fact that after the bomb was dropped nothing happened also supports this.

    For Vietnam… well the domino theory was only proven because the US invaded the surrounding nations. They also supported a dictator, , who had no love for his people (he hatted Buddhists for one thing) and they had no love for him. That really was a key reason for the failure of the war, along with the fact that while communism wasn’t popular, it was the lesser of two evils for the people. And of course the fact that the allies had backed communist guerrillas during WWII so they felt they had a sort of ‘right’ to the nation. I think that the US would have been better to let whatever happen after the French left happen and then just carry out trade, education and other such delegations with Veitnam. Just as it does now in fact!

    Anyway, enough of that, it’s not too important. As you say at times you must make terrible decisions, and at others you must chose the lesser of two evils. I think however the US failed in doing this far to many times and thus I cannot agree it was benevolent. I think there were far to many factors within the US, the strong military-industrial complex for one, that was pushing it the wrong way. Even during WWII there were many powerful figures, Henry Ford being one of them, who supported the nazis and used their influence or otherwise.

    So that begs the question… was it ‘better’ than the others? Certainly, and as you say the numbers show it, it was. But it’s rather like saying ‘would you rather have HIV, smallpox or cancer?’. I’d rather have none of them! The US could have conducted itself so much better and so I really cannot call it a benevolent empire. Like I said, the rights were outweighed by the wrongs.

    And yes, the capitalist system is one of these things. For example, we have all the benefits it brings, but try and explain that to the sweatshop workers of Asia or the huge numbers in poverty in the US. It could have been far better.

    Finally, before I go and talk about the soviets, what would I chose… well out of the realistic options you listed the US, but again that’s HIV or cancer… both will kill me. Again, the US could have conducted itself far better but for various reasons it didn’t. I’d be more than happy to welcome a ‘sensible’ and truly ‘compassionate’ US, though I fear it is to late.

    Before we end this interesting talk, I’ll do my bit about communism not wanting to spread itself like you say. As I said, communism’s key texts all point towards communism spreading ‘naturally’ by a dissatisfied proletariat, thus I expect most communists saw no need to actively do much. Your two examples are not really about spreading communism, though your argument it is about spreading influence has some truth

    Cuba is interesting, Castro was actually not a communist until the US decided to back Batista rather than the liberal regime. Castro ousted Batista (who had been crippled by a US arms embargo) and installed a liberal lawyer as president as he thought the US would welcome the change. Of course, as history shows, they didn’t and even tried to get the Chicago mafia to assassinate Castro. Thus, with few other options, Castro embraced the USSR who loved the idea of putting missiles in Cuba. And why in Cuba? To counter US missiles in Turkey which were, in effect, in the same relative place to the USSR as Cuban missiles would be. Thus spreading communism wasn’t really a factor, it was a fairly lucky chance that they grabbed with both hands.

    Same really for the Eastern Block, Stalin was paranoid that NATO would invade. As you know in both WWI and WWII Russia had faced huge casualties and damage when Russia was invaded from Europe. He wanted a ‘buffer’ of weak nations to stop this from happening. Again, reasons other than communism.

    Really, the USSR and US had a lot in common as we can see from those examples. They both said they were doing one thing but were really doing it for other reasons. Like all the great powers as you said…

    Anyway, it’s been interesting to have this talk but I fear we are dragging the comments section wayyyyy off course 😉 You might like my new blog where I sometimes write about these things if you email me at the.strangers.blog@gmail.com , I’ll give you the address once I’ve finished biulding it. Or we can continue our conversation there to save loonwatch from the history lessons 😉

    Jack

  • corey

    @demographics
    yes grace us with your “intellect” or lack there of and see if you can outwit jack I’ll get the popcorn.

  • @Khushboo:You will soon see the begging bowls of Pakistan appearing.It can not survive without American Aid.America could also stop Imorts from Pakistan if it continues restriction on supplies to its army in Afghanistan.It was Khaled Sheikh Mohammad,a Pakistani who masterminded 9/11 attack on America.It was a crime which should neither be forgiven nor forgotten.

  • Mohammedan Demographics

    Jack Cope says: “If I address your points will you reply to them? Or would it be a waste of time?”

    Oh, Jack, go ahead! I’ll take my chances in intellectual battle with a Mohammedan (or someone sympathetic to the Mohammedan) 🙂

    What’ve you got?

  • Sir David ( Illuminati membership number 5:32) Warning Contains Irony

    mmm so truth seeker you think that not a dime should go to none muslim countries . Let me guess which countries you think should be given aid
    either

    a )Hawaii
    b )Disney land
    c )Isreal

    Let us know when you have made this difficult desision

  • Khushboo

    Porky, you dumba$$, Pakistan and US were never friends to begin with. They both used each other. Now that 24 Pakistani soldiers were killed by the US drone, they don’t give a sh!t about our money anymore. They’ll be happier without our interference.

  • Khushboo

    Ron Paul is choosing his words very carefully so as not to tick off the conservatives. He still feels that Israel should be independent and self-reliant. In other words, we should not give them foreign aid. He said that it’s up to them to bomb Iran if they feel that it threatens their national security. In other words, we should butt out. “Israel should be like our best friend” meaning trade with them, be friendly, but don’t give your best friend money. He’s obviously pandering b/c he wants to win the primaries. Ron Paul knows how to play the game but you gotta read between the lines folks!

    Ron Paul 2012
    still stand by my ole man

  • @JD:Not even a DIME of American tax payers money should go to any Muslim country.Pakistan is showing its true colours by stopping supplies to American soldiers passing through Pak-Satan.With friends like Pak-Satan,who needs the enemies.No muslim country is a genuine friend of America and the Christian West.Period.

  • Jeremy

    Fox News

    Are you seriously trying to suggest that Al Qaeda attaining power would not be oppressive? that the theocratic government, and their interpretation of Islam would make their constituents happy?

    That is a bold claim. This is a group that is willing to murder people in the largest numbers they can, and you think it’s a fallacy to suggest that their theocracy would be oppressive.
    The thing is, in a Democracy, the people could vote in a government like that if they wanted to, it just wouldn’t be forced upon them…. which is why pretty much none of what you wrote makes sense to me… perhaps I am missing something.

    Democracy is just a system that tends to lead to better, not worse conditions. However, when the Germans voted the Nazi party into power, It became obvious that the system wasn’t infallible. Regardless of wether the Nazi vote was ‘Legitimate’ or not, it still required fighting against….

  • Jeremy

    Shaykh al-Hajj Dawud Ahmad, M.S.J.D. Says:
    December 14th, 2011 at 2:30 am
    “Jeremy, half-right, continues his praise of history’s most successful, efficient, and comfortable slave state: While you may all see me as an apologist for Americans, I am in the sense that they are better than all the rest. There has never existed a better option.

    Oh, but there has existed ~ and flourished ~ a better option, one that promotes, rather than obstructs, genuine liberty and genuine federalism.”

    Are you going to share what this other option was? or just assert it and leave it intentionally vague, and therefore free from Criticism?

    and really, Slave state?

  • Mohamed S.

    I haven’t read all the posts so I don’t know if someone has posted a better map but here is my humble attempt:

    http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o248/burning_phoneix/mideastusdomination.jpg

  • Danios asks a rhetorical question: I wonder where those silly Muslims come up with the conspiratorial, absolutely irrational idea that the U.S. is waging war against the Muslim world?

    There is actually an answer to that question, although it’s not the answer your excellent map would lead someone to expect. In short, the faithful have been expecting this for over three thousand years ~ precisely as it’s been playing out for the last century. Our people have been tracking events for at least that long ~ I have done little else for over forty years ~ and in that time, to our continuing dismay, have found not one event that even suggests that what we’re watching is anything other than those expected events.

    The most recent turning points include July 29-30th, 70 a.d.; June 8th, 632; May 29th, 1453; January 2nd and August 3rd, 1492; September 13th, 1788; July 28th, 1914; November 2nd and October 25th (November 7th), 1917; September 1st, 1939; August 6th and 9th, 1945; November 22nd, 1963; November 3rd, 1992; and September 11, 2001. There are other “significant dates” marking “significant events,” but these fifteen are all connected along the top two lines of a timetable that’s been running for over three thousand years.

    Sir Jack has it right: People just don’t question enough. Looking for answers and finding only lies and half-truths wears most people out. But the questions that people need to ask are a little too simple for our “educated” and “sophisticated” minds:

    “Why don’t people want me to read that book?” “What’s the purpose of blocking that website?” “What difference would it make if I were to check out, for myself, what all the liars say are lies, that they won’t repeat so I might see that they are?”

    Truth is where you find it ~ stop looking and you’ll never find it. All the events of those dates above were “old fairy tales” or “conspiracy theories” until the six o’clock news started reporting things that nobody would recognize.

  • Scott writes: I think many Muslims including myself really wanted Paul to win…

    The average political IQ of America’s muslims will probably come out of the basement before that of the rest of the voters.

    After hearing this though I feel Muslims now don’t really have any good candidates, unless Paul if he were to reach office as President would take a stance against Zionism.

    Ron Paul doesn’t want to join John F. Kennedy any more than Obama does.

Powered by Loon Watchers