Question: Is there a non-white nation that the US/UK/Israel has NOT

invaded, bombed, or threatened to invade or bomb UNPROVOKED? I can't think of an Asian (WWII aside), Arab, or Asian-Pacific nation that we have not in some way invaded or bombed. At the height of the cold war I don't believe that we ever came close to threatening or invading Russia or their sattelite nations. I might be wrong so correct me. Israel bombed inside of Syria and Iraq and didn't get a gasp from the international community. The Brits have been doing it for centuries. We bombed the hell out of Grenada, a country with no weapons or military. I guess I need some big history lessons but the picture I have in my mind is that we will easily invade, bomb, or otherwise screw over a Muslim or Arab nation without so much as even a sigh. Is it all about the resources these countries have or is it just plain racism?

Turkmenistan?
Albania?
Uzbekistan?

Enlighten me if I'm wrong.

but good point. When is the last time Brazil was threatened with invasion with something other than tourists?

Indonesia?

Outside of threatened invasion.

actually, the US was meddlesome, they opposed the Efforts of the UN to support the independance of East Timor.

n/t

They helped assassinate the elected President Augusto Pinochet because Nixon didn't want a Communist in power threatening American interests there. As a matter-of-fact, the State Department of various Presidents have had a finger in various SA coups. There was also the war on drugs where American military hardware and many times military personnel have been used to raid coca fields in the Andes.

North America is very meddlesome in South American affairs and often it comes with covert military actions.

Pinochet was the leader of the coup. Salvador Allende was the elected President.

Besides that, good post.

American government, who got backing from the US government, specifically under Henry Kissinger, then our SOS. He could not have pulled it off without Kissinger's help.

Sorry I meant Salvador Allende who was the elected communist. I had Pinochet on the brain I guess.

So yes, we've invaded Chile. Britain fought Argentina.

The US invaded Haiti, Grenada, Cuba directly.

Indirectly, we have invaded El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Honduras, Colombia, Bolivia, Chile... That's just off the top of my head.

Chile, Nicaragua, and the rest of the South and Central American coups. That was his little experiment.
My BL is Chilean, lived all over south and central american growing up (during Pinochet's coup d'etat).
For as outspoken as we are here at DU, and in this country as a whole, many other nationalities are mum on their own governments.
I've worked for a french company, with french bosses. Married an Iranian, lived with a moroccan, and managed many arabs and central and south american immigrants.
We are much more vocal than they are imho.


edit spelling

;)

Though that's because usually they were the ones doing the invading.

None of the above have ever fucked with Bhutan.

MojoXN

"followed by a British incursion into Bhutan...British occupation of Assam in 1826, however, led to renewed border raids from Bhutan. In 1864 the British occupied part of S Bhutan, which was formally annexed after a war in 1865"

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/world/A0856915.html

But none of the above has EVER fucked with East Timor, as far as I know. It's kind of sad when I have to name a brand new country in order to fulfill the requirement of non-interference by the U.S., U.K., and Israel.

EDIT: I don't think that any of the above ever fettered with Lesotho, either.

MojoXN

Mongolia was never invaded by western powers and the last time was in 1939 by Japan.

We were one of the few to recognize East Timor as part of Indonesia, for about 20 years, then changed out minds and sent troops in (under the umbrella of the UN) to get the Indonesians out.

Seems pretty cut and dried, until you realise that once we liberated the people, we started liberating their oil and gas fields. We did let them keep a little bit though, which was incredibly generous of us. :sarcasm:

In the past century the United States has either invaded, occupied, or meddled with EVERY damn country in the Americas, not to mention those out of our hemisphere, like the Phillipines(Occupied), Hawaii(Occupied), Iran, Iraq(3 times in one manner or another!), Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Australia(forced the Governor General to dissolve a leftist government), I could go on, out of the about 190 countries on the planet, we probably messed with about half of them, and people here wonder why we are hated around the world, and it isn't just Bush, sad to say.

When Israel invades, it's for self-defense - and everybody goddamn well knows it.

REALLY hope so...

MojoXN

:beer:

Then the thread'll get moved to the Israel-Palestine forum.

Anyway, I'll drink to that, whatever it may be...

:toast: :beer:

MojoXN

The U.S. and England have been imperialist since their inception. Israel didn't aggress at all until they were attacked by the surrounding Arab nations. Each time Israel took land, it was in response to Arab aggression. So, there is a significant difference, both in quantity of imperialistic behavior and in the conditions surrounding that behavior.

Now, the argument that Israel today is possibly racist towards Arabs/Palestinians can be made, at least institutionally. However, it is unfair and untrue to suggest that all Israelis are racist, or even that a majority of them are.

let's keep this civil, please.

Have you heard of al-Nakba? I suggest reading up, for it was a blatant and disgusting land grab.

Here's some more...
"By this time, the militant Zionist group Irgun Zvai Leumi was orchestrating attacks on Palestinian and British targets with the aim of 'liberating' Palestine and Transjordan (modern-day Jordan) by force."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_ip_timeline/html/1929_36.stm

Israel has taken land not in response to aggression, but in an aim for what it wants. This has been done with widespread oppression, cleansing and murder of the Palestinian people. Israel continues to occupy, with unspeakable detrimental effects, the West Bank, and has maintained a siege on the Gaza Strip. The classic tactic of reactionaries is to provoke and then claim empty justification, and this has been Israel's process of land theft since before its official inception.

Perhaps these quotes show the true motivations of Israel...
http://www.jerusalemites.org/zionism/

My favorites:
"There is no such thing as a Palestinian people... It is not as if we came and threw them out and took their country. They didn't exist."
-- Golda Meir Statement to The Sunday Times, 15 June, 1969.

"The very point of Labor's Zionist program is to have as much land as possible and as few Arabs as possible!"
--Yitzhak Navon ("moderate" ex-Israeli president and a leading labor party politician.) Cited on p.179 of Nur Masalha's A Land without a People who cites Bernard Avishai's The Tragedy of Zionism 1985 p.340

"One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail."
--Rabbi Ya'acov Perin in his eulogy at the funeral of mass murderer Dr. Baruch Goldstein.

:puke:

First, not all Jews are Zionists and not all Israelis are Zionists. Also, not all Zionists are violent.

Next, to quote Wikipedia:
"During the 1920s, 100,000 Jewish immigrants entered Palestine, and 6,000 non-Jewish immigrants did so as well. Jewish immigration was controlled by the Histadrut, which selected between applicants on the grounds of their political creed. Land purchased by Jewish agencies was leased on the conditions that it be worked only by Jewish labour and that the lease should not be held by non-Jews.

Initially, Jewish immigration to Palestine met little opposition from the Palestinian Arabs. However, as anti-Semitism grew in Europe during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Jewish immigration (mostly from Europe) to Palestine began to increase markedly, creating much Arab resentment.

There was violent incitement from the Palestine Muslim leadership that led to violent attacks against the Jewish population. In some cases, land purchases by the Jewish agencies from absentee landlords led to the eviction of the Palestinian Arab tenants, who were replaced by the Jews of the kibbutzim. The Arabic speakers before World War I had the status of peasants (felaheen), and did not own their land although they might own the trees that grew on that land. When Jews, who grew up with European laws, purchased land they did not always realise that the villagers on that land owned the trees. This was often a source of misunderstanding and conflict."

So, Israelis, while invasive, were not the first violent aggressors. Your first quote/link merely shows Israeli response to the initial attacks.

I haven't bothered to research your "quotes" as they come from an Arab website that is decidedly opposed to Israel. Whether they are real, or taken out of context, will have to be verified by someone with more time on their hands. However, I can assure you that Arabs have made as many and as horrible quotes about Jews and Israel as these.

If you want to pick a side and root for them, by all means do. But get your facts straight and don't believe the propaganda.

I didn't say you were. I just thought it would be good to get an agreement.

Do you think Israel represents Judaism? It does not. Jews are as connected to Israel as Muslims are to Pakistan. Translation: they are not. Furthermore, the Zionists were the ones who pushed for Israel in the first place.

"A few Zionist immigrants had already started arriving in the area before 1897. By 1903 there were some 25,000 of them, mostly from Eastern Europe. They lived alongside about half a million Arab residents in what was then part of the Turkish Ottoman Empire. A second wave of about 40,000 immigrants arrived in the region between 1904 and 1914."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_ip_timeline/html/1897.stm

It was the wave of Zionist immigrants to the region who were backed by Britain that set off Arab discontent. If India suddenly decided to make New Hampshire the homeland of all Sikhs, I'm not so sure Americans would be too pleased. When such a policy was forced on Palestine, the Arabs acted not unreasonably and protested.

Thank you for largely proving my point. Even when the Zionists DID purchase the land, Arabs suffered because of it. That is wrong. My link shows that Zionists were comitting acts against Palestinians with no justification...other than the theft of land. The initial injustice was the mass immigration of Zionists, displacing Arabs and taking land. Arabs did resist those wrongdoings, but the Zionists carried out terrorist attacks upon Palestinians. Again, comitting wrongs and then playing the victim when those wrongs are opposed. The classic tactic of reactionaries.

Please comment on al-Nakba. Thank you.

You can't research those quotes simply because you are skeptical of the source? Please.

"There is no such thing as a Palestinian people... It is not as if we came and threw them out and took their country. They didn't exist." (Statement to The Sunday Times, 15 June, 1969.)
http://www.answers.com/topic/israeli-palestinian-history-denial

"The Kach leadership...enthusiastically supported the massacre, evoking a Talmudic edict that a thousand non-Jewish lives are not worth a Jew's fingernail."
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/67C726C2-CD4A-40A3-B2AE-182E71838762.htm

That took me about 30 seconds. Who's perception is wrong? Who's believing propaganda?

"Do you think Israel represents Judaism? It does not. Jews are as connected to Israel as Muslims are to Pakistan. Translation: they are not."

Why do you think I'm the one who doesn't understand this? I was pointing it out to you and to all the other people who can't distinguish between Jews, Israelis, and Zionists.

"Furthermore, the Zionists were the ones who pushed for Israel in the first place."

You don't seem to understand the meaning of Israel in Judaism, so I'll explain. Israel is the name of the "promised land." The concept existed long before the current established country. Thus, before the state of Israel was established, all Jews were looking to return to "Israel," though that was interpreted in varying combinations of spiritually, conceptually and physically depending on the individual. The Zionists, who developed as a reaction to anti-Jewish attitudes, especially in Europe, believed Israel to mean Palestine physically.

If the local Arabs didn't like it, they should've taken that up with Britain instead of committing acts of violence against Jewish immigrants, thereby causing the evictions that further pissed them off. The Arabs didn't suffer because of the Jews, the Arabs suffered because they were on the losing side of WWI, and because they didn't understand European concepts of land ownership. Again, their beef should be with Britain or the Ottoman Empire.

Al-Nakba is just the Arab word for what we've already talked about, so I don't understand why you feel I need to address it further.

And, thank you for verifying that you obtain quotes without consideration of their source or veracity, which I suspected.

because stealing land and oppressing a people is always in self-defense...:eyes:

"Those injuns were attacking us! We tried to exterminate them in self-defense!" :puke:

"The German people are peace-loving! We invaded Poland in self-defense!" :puke:

It could go on and on....

Check out the Berlin Conference.

Every country except Ethiopia and another very small state on the West Coast (I forget the name) was occupied and exploited by Europe. And even then, Ethiopia was invaded by Italy...twice.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/fdtcards/Cards_Index.html
Not to forget Lon Nol, Sani Abacha, Carmona, Charles Taylor, and modern support for Ethiopia, Eritrea, Sudan...

as bad as nukes.

Flame-bait.