It's only fair? What a bizarrely irrelevant analysis.

In non of those USA military conflicts has the goal of the USA to gain territory. In the current Russian 'excurussian' their goal is to gain territory, specifically Crimea.

War is war and people dying for some other mans wants.

right in a way. Cheney/Bush wanted control of Iraq's oil. No need to make it another state, that's expensive, use THEM to run the show. It's much more efficient, and who wants those ME Brown people as part of the US anyhow.

Russia did it the way the British Empire did it, sort of. We learned that you don't have to have all those 'subjects' with the right to come and live on our territory. You want to steal and/or control other people's resources, just find one of their own, willing to sell them out, preferably a 'strongman' like Saddam, he was one of our favorites until he got a bit arrogant, to control the population for us, just finance them and supply them with weapons so they can keep the people down.

We have a whole gang of them right now, in Iraq, in Uzbekistan, in Bahrain, the Saudis, great friends of ours, we leave them to their own devices, if they cooperate. And if they get a little out of hand, we invade their countries and dispose of them. Like Saddam. And Noriega, Who we ARMED and financed and supported.

There are many ways to control populations, see our policies under Reagan in South America eg. All those US backed coups and then the installation of Dictators, like Pinochet who we protected even after we didn't need him anymore when he was wanted for war crimes.

Which way is better? It's a tossup I suppose. For the people. We'd have to conduct a poll to find out which oppressed people is happier. Living under Mubarak, or Pinochet or Karamov, or the Bahrain Dictatorship. Or Georgia, Crimea. Iraq, Afghanistan. Pakistan, Somalia.

Russia is just more open about their reasons. The US would feed people shit sandwiches, citing 'teh terrorists'

Someone will be along any minute to call you a Pootie Lover!

Here's the thing, there is a theory on DU, among a small group admittedly, that if you are a curious person, someone who is interested in facts, or in history, you are a threat to the US.

The same theory was in effect during the Bush Occupation of the WH. Anyone who asked questions, who had a genuine interest in understanding why we were involved in all those wars, was a 'Saddam Lover'. Period!

The theory is that an educated population is a threat to democracy, it is 'terrorist' to question the government.

I, eg, have been 'accused' of watching enemy news media. Lol!

We are a DEMOCRACY dammit and facts are for when we are not at war!

As a few Bushbots said to me long ago when the Iraq War began. 'Okay, Lieberal, you've had your say, NOW GET ON BOARD and support the troops!! Naturally I refused to support Bush's lies which made me a 'commie traitor'. Not sure why 'commie' but to them, it made sense.

Stop looking for facts. It's a threat to democracy.

Thanks for the links. I suggest people follow them.

A long list composed mostly of cases where the US has used military force to try to prevent atrocities, and a long list composed mostly of cases where Russia has tried to maintain and extend its territory, often in spectacularly brutal fashion.

I don't think it proves what you think it proves.

Nuance used to be something that was mostly ignored by the right. What is going on in Ukraine and geopolitically is just more complex than the jingoism that seems to pervade the discussion.

Not invented by the US just perfected by us.

Look at miles traveled to do the war thing, Russia again is way under the US.

There is nothing for the US to be proud about in its empire building war machinations.

If you have a hard time with people posting facts, or facts remind you of "Turds" that is your problem not mine.

Rather than the shirtless power and land grab that it is.

Rather than just post the list and later hi t around about what your analysis and conclusions are re: that list, why don't you just tell us directly what you think that list tells us about the current situation of Russian troops controlling border access into and out of Crimea?

OK. I will accept that. I wanted to "prove" that the situation is nuanced. You are on the side of not wanting nuance. You win.

And traceable logic rather than post some Wikipedia "facts" on prior military adventures and say "it's nuanced".

Yes, any reaction by the U.s. government has been and will be nuanced as well.

But it sounds like from your body of work you are trying to blame everyone but Putin for Putin's actions.

Noriega, wait, that was a Reagan lie, the students who needed rescuing airc. Turned out they didn't.

We're good, they'r bad. Got to remember Bush is gone so we have to adjust our thinking on all the killing and destruction we have wrought in Iraq.

Could you tell me, because I'm confused, 'for what noble cause did we invade Iraq'?

are the good guys?

Lol! Help, it's exhausting watching the transformation from 'we oppose these Imperial Wars' to 'All of our wars were good wars, all of theirs were bad'. Was there a memo I didn't get?

Sigh, what a journey it has been, from 'Bush is Bad' to 'War is good'.

I just can't do it!

Which apparently makes me a Putin Lover!

I used to be a Saddam Lover! In case anyone was wondering!

And this one is also about stealing oil

Largely it own selfish interest if that's a good cause.

The US only fights for freedom and democracy

The most appalling possibly being Guatemala where the Dulles Bros , at the time Sec. of State and Head of the CIA , were protecting their own interests in United Fruit. Chile , copper , was partly about protecting ITT's donations to the Republican Party.

George H. W. Bush 1976–1977

Bush's confirmation as the Director of Central Intelligence was opposed by many politicians and citizens who were still reeling from the Watergate scandal (when Bush was the head of the Republican National Committee, and a steadfast defender of Nixon[citation needed]) and the Church Committee investigations. Many arguments against Bush's initial confirmation were that he was too partisan for the office. The Washington Post, George Will, and Senator Frank Church were some notable figures opposed to Bush's nomination. After a pledge by Bush not to run for either President or Vice-President in 1976, opposition to his nomination died down.

Bush served as the DCI for 355 days, from January 30, 1976, to January 20, 1977.[7] The CIA had been rocked by a series of revelations, including disclosures based on investigations by the Senate's Church Committee, about the CIA's illegal and unauthorized activities, and Bush was credited with helping to restore the agency's morale.[8] On February 18, 1976, President Ford issued Executive Order 11905, which established policy guidelines and restrictions for individual intelligence agencies, and clarified intelligence authorities and responsibilities. Bush was given 90 days to implement the new order, which called for a major reorganization of the American Intelligence Community and firmly stated that intelligence activities could not be directed against American citizens.[9] In his capacity as DCI, Bush gave national security briefings to Jimmy Carter both as a presidential candidate and as President-elect, and discussed the possibility of remaining in that position in a Carter administration.[10]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Director_of_Central_Intelligence#George_H._W._Bush_1976.E2.80.931977

like over a 100,000 dead Iraqis, drone murdering wedding parties in Yemen, Pakistan and other middle eastern countries. Imposing economic austerity on tens of millions through the violent IMF?

Propaganda is thick on this board

the middle east, and Asia have been mercy missions is quickly approaching either severe and complete delusion or awe inspiring dishonesty.

No need to even tally the victims as you said because we can't make any "incredible acts of aggression" without mass killings.