no matter how i look at it,


it's still below the belt

Half of the basic and primitive (instinctive) nature of ANY human being drives her/him to DOMINATE AND CNTROL OTHERS. The other half of the same human being's nature, is to AVOID being controlled and dominated by others.

NO AMOUNT OF 'SWITCHING SIDES' WILL ALTER THAT!!!

US thirst, hunger and obsessive fixation to keep imposing its agenda on other nations of the world, will keep creating nations that will AVOID their control and domination.

It is the one lesson of thousands of years of war, that US for one, and humanity as a whole hasn't learned yet.

On that basis, yes US is that bad!!!

Viol...If the US wanted to control and dominate the world..we could have done so already. Over the many years, we have come to the aid, and have liberated many countries (see WW1 and ww2, as examples) and have never once tried to "annex" them as our territories as so many other countries would have done in the past. Not only do we not seek to conquer, how many countries can you name that actually help their"enemys" rebuild after losing the war? I think if you look back in history it has only been in recent years (last 100 years or so) that the "practice" of countries conquering other countries has stopped..(last time was Saddam invading Kuwait)..could this be becuse others know Americans will be there to protect and defend them if needed? Although there are still conflicts and war in our world today (maybe you think all caused by us) in a historical perspective...it is a much more peaceful place then had been in the past.

'searchin',

With all due respect to you, I would like to offer a few couterpoint observations on the comments you are submitting here. I must candidedly admit, between friends and fellow posters, that the comments struck me like the preview of an upcoming 'Walt Disney' movie!

you wrote:
'... If the US wanted to control and dominate the world..we could have done so already...'

The US does dominate the parts of the world which serves its interests. Annexing is of colonial vintage. Gaining control of complete socio-economic blocks doesn't require annexing. Why take the burden which comes with annexing a country, when you can gain effective control simply by throwing arms and money in the hands of a selected few 'natives', whom take of the dirty job for you, and saves you the burden!!!

you wrote further:
'... Not only do we not seek to conquer, how many countries can you name that actually help their"enemys" rebuild after losing the war?...'

You almost got a tear out of me here, ... until I snapped back to reality.

REBUILDING IS HUGE BUSINESS!!! IT IS A LARGE PART OF WAGING WAR IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!

It pays to rebuild. Huge money; absolutely! It all goes in the bottomless pockets of big cigar smoking American Captains of War Industry Inc., and their closed circle buddies. Ask Uncle Cheney and his playground buddies from the 'Halliburton' acrobatics team!!!

You wrote yet further:
'... I think if you look back in history it has only been in recent years (last 100 years or so) that the "practice" of countries conquering other countries has stopped.
... could this be becuse others know Americans will be there to protect and defend them if needed?... '

Again, almost a tear. Have you heard of the fall of 'monarchies' and the rise of the 'free' and 'sovereign' nation concept??? This is the concept (French revolution) which saw the birth of the US as an independent and sovereign country (1776 that's more than 200 years ago!!!) from Monarchist England. As for Hitler and World War II, do we need to point out that this was the foremost aberration of the 20th century: a lunatic whom figured he was 'THE KING OF HIS WORLD'!!! He just hadn't realized that the world had gone through profound change since Napoleon!!!

And you finally wrote:

'... Although there are still conflicts and war in our world today (maybe you think all caused by us) in a historical perspective...it is a much more peaceful place then had been in the past... '

You need to give me your source for the part asserting '... much more peaceful place then it has been in the past.'

And the part '...(maybe you think all caused by us)...':
NO I wouldn't go that far.
Remember, I'm the one whom dislikes generalizations on such matters.

The fact of the matter is there are exceptions (US causing conflicts) where the US have had no involvement. To be clear about the list of conflicts that the US caused and fueled most often single-handedly, simply follow US geo-political self interests of the past present and future.

No the information is not on a site which ends with 'DISNEY.COM'!!!

Voil..my friend..has drinking all that very good wine clouded your memory? Your statement "You need to give me your source for the part asserting '... much more peaceful place then it has been in the past.' " makes me wonder ...The history of our past "civilizations" is pretty clear. In ancient times..almost the whole globe was at war..Persian Empire trying to conquer all of what is now Europe and the Middle East, Mongolians trying to conquer "Eur-Asia". The Roman Empire...I could go on..but I think you catch my drift..even in more "recent" history...The Japanese trying to conquer China and vise versa..Britain, France and Spain's "colonialiazation" of many parts of the world, far from there own country (that still exist today). I suppose they just sailed there and said "you don't mind if we just make your land ours" and peacefully went on there way.Our Planets past has seen very dark times and I would assert the dark times were more frequent and longer then in present day terms.

'SEARCHIN' my pal,

I'm surpeised you would say that given your presumed interest in fine wines. You should know that it is the sulphur and chemical preservativeof 'CHEAP WINES' that '... cloud one's memory'. Try good wines 'searchin', I promise they don't affect your senses other than in a very soothing manner.


As for the rest, the comments you present here are again vague and, how should I say, ... hopelessly general.

For starters, you write:

"... much more peaceful place then it has been in the past.'
...The history of our past "civilizations" is pretty clear.
In ancient times..almost the whole globe was at war..."

Now all these generalities might clearly convey YOUR PERSONAL OPINION AND IMPRESSION that the past was much less peaceful than the period we live in, BUT IT IS FOUNDED ON NOTHING OTHER THAN A VAGUE AND PERSONAL IMPRESSION, and the fact that it is yours, dear respected friend, does not make it any less vague.

For debating sake, let me offer some FACTS about conflicts in the world for this so-called 'MORE PEACEFUL' period you seem to be found of.

********************************************************

Conflicts from recent memory: past 15 years or so!!!

MIDDLE-EAST (alone)
Iraq vs Desert Storm
Iraq govt. (Sunni) vs Shi’a (Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq)
Iraq vs Kurds
Israel vs Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and others
Israel vs Palestinian Authority, the infamous Al-Aqsa intifada
Iran vs Kurds
Turkey vs Kurds
Israel vs Lebanon

ASIA (alone)
Afghanistan: Kabul govt. vs Taliban and other sorts of regional ‘warlords’
India vs Jammu & Kashmir liberation front
India vs Assam and Manjour insurgents
India: Hindu vs Muslim communial violence
India vs Pakistan
Indonesia vs Christians & Muslims in the Maluccan & Sulawesi Islands (REMEMBER THAT ONE SEARCHIN?!?!?)
People’s Republic of China vs Ulghur East Turkestan Indepence Movement
Philippines vs Moro Islamic Liberation movement
Philippines vs New People’s Army
Philippines vs BIG AND BAD ‘Abu Sayyaf’
Indonesia vs Aceh separatists
Indonesia vs West Papua separatists
Myanmar (Burma) vs minorities
Myanmar (Burma) vs National League for Democracy
People’s republic of China vs Tibet
Sri Lanka vs Tamil Ealam
Solomon Islands : Malaita Eagle Force ad Isatabu Freedom Movement

AFRICA (alone)
Algeria vs Armed Islamic Group
Burundi : Tutsi vs Hutu
Democratic Repubic of Congo vs indigenous rebels
Liberia vs Liberians United for Reconciliation and Democracy
Nigeria communal violence
Somolia : different conflicts between different political and race factions
Sudan vs Sudanese People’s Liberation Army
Uganda vs Lord’s Army
Angola vs Unita
Chad vs some sort of Movement for Democracy and Justice
Ethiopia vs Entrea
Guinea Bissau vs ‘army rebels’
Republic of Congo vs ‘Ninja’ rebels
RWANDA: Tutsi vs Hutu
Sierra Leone vs Revolutionary United Front
Zimbabwe ….

EUROPE (alone)
Russia vs Chechnya

LATIN AMERICA (alone)
Columbia vs National Liberation Army
Columbia vs Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia (FARC)
Columbia vs Autodefensas Unidas de Columbia
Peru vs Sendero Liminoso
Armenia vs Azerbaijan
Kosovo : Albenians & Serbs
Macedonia vs Transdniester Region
Republic of Georgia vs Abkhazia
Serbs. Croats & Bosnian Muslims
United Kingdom vs IRA splinter groups

AMERICAS
World-Wide War on Terror: US vs ‘terrorists with presumed global reach’
Haîtian government vs opposition factions
Mexican government vs Zapatista
Venezuelan govt. vs legal opposition
***********************************************************

We haven't touched on potential and developping tensions between US vs Iran, US vs North Korea, US vs Venezuela, etc., etc.

As for these Ancient Times you are referring to, and old and wise 'world history' teacher of mine had 'fun' reminding us that:
"... ancient times' is for nostalgics, not historians nor people interested in history. For historians and fans of history, there are only documented facts or unvalidated information for specific dated periods. And still there is lots of room for interpretations..."

Imagine when there are no facts provided. Interpretations, impressions and opinions become as clear as mud!!!

Sipping wine, as you or I might find ourselves doing, thinking of nothing other than where we should anchor to watch the sunset, does not alter the brutal and violent state of OUR planet.

These times might be more peaceful for you or me personnally, on an egocentric perspective 'searchin', but our somehow peaceful refuge of a personal perspective as little to do with the ever renewable world's violence perspective.

Given the partial knowledge and large interest I have in world affairs, I certainly do not share this personal and general impression that '... THESE MORE PEACEFUL TIMES'.

Not that it is necessary, after all there would be no debates without differnet points of view, but maybe we will find it easier to agree on fine wines which do not '... cloud the mine'.

And you seem to forget, Searchin, with modern weapons the smallest conflict can effect the whole world, were as in earlier times it was only the region this conflict took place.

dont forget Panama and Grenada!!

OK, 15 years. damn Im getting old!!!!
I started to say the Falklands too!!!

Voil My freind..I'm surprised you didn't add these to your list:
Texas Police vs speeder
Crack head vs Mom
Little girl vs Neighbors girl.
Small skirmishes inside ones country can hardly be compared to the brutal killing machines of the past(notice I said small skirmishes..not all out civil wars)). As for Kurds vs Iran,Turkey vs Iraq, etc, etc...they have been in conflict for hundreds of years...at least now they (comparatively speaking) don't invade and slaughter each other on the scale and frequency they use too....As for your contention that there are more (in quantity) of global conflicts...you may or may not be right, would be very difficult to prove or disprove...but I stand by my assertion ( or opinion) that in terms of massive, lethal wars...the last 25 years has seen less then in the past.

I think the "peace" one tends to see or get caught up in, comes from an entirely 'American' perspective. When we consider that the greatest conflict we've had since Nam, and before Iraq, was Desert Storm - it seems quite peaceful. However, just because a conflict takes place in this world that does not call us into it's realm, does not make it any less of a conflict, to many others.

Back to the topic - thinking about a transferred allegiance in the case of Al-Qaeda, made me think of another such transfer. Many years ago, there were many members of the KKK who suddenly changed sides. Many of these members held high office within that group, for many years, even through generations. Why did they change allegiance? Because the world changed for them, because they found themselves with family members who were less than perfect and those imperfections were not forgiven. A child with a physical handicap, or a mental instability, was under attack, and the parent too. Many were told to destroy their infants or to leave their young handicapped children deep in the woods to die. It was 'expected' in order to maintain status and protect the 'aryan' nation.

These,too, were once people ready and willing to kill, for their beliefs, UNTIL it meant submitting their family to the same.

So do we believe, do we trust, do we forgive - can such people really change, or just change to protect their own?