USA in constant war to test out new weapons?

Great Debates
41

[QUOTE=Ale]
Holding the present US to the same standards as, let´s say, the Huns, Imperial Brittain or the Persians is a retrograd stance, in my opinion.
[/QUOTE]

Wouldn’t think of it my good man. Who should we compare the US to, ehe? How about the OTHER major superpower at the time? Wonder how the Soviets would stack up…

(we could always compare them to our wonderful Euro bretheren when THEY were on top…how about, say, the period from the late 1890 to 1950? That is 60 years just like our last 60 years. How do you suppose, say, France or the UK would hold up? Germany? I’m guessing that Belgium would be safe in any case…)

-XT

42

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Wouldn’t think of it my good man. Who should we compare the US to, ehe? How about the OTHER major superpower at the time? Wonder how the Soviets would stack up…

(we could always compare them to our wonderful Euro bretheren when THEY were on top…how about, say, the period from the late 1890 to 1950? That is 60 years just like our last 60 years. How do you suppose, say, France or the UK would hold up? Germany? I’m guessing that Belgium would be safe in any case…)

-XT
[/QUOTE]

If I go out and kill just one random bloke I´m better than Charles Manson, whoopity doo, yay me!

Saying that the US is better than Soviets or Nazi Germany is setting the bar so low that you´ll need a paleonthology team to unearth it.

43

If I compare apples to oranges then…well, it’s not much of a comparison, is it? I said we could compare them to the Europeans too if you like…why is that not acceptable? :stuck_out_tongue:

Seriously…if you just want to bash on the US, well I think that is what the OP intended. If you want to have a thoughtful discussion then we need to compare apples to apples…which means we need to compare the US to OTHER superpowers either during the same time frame or in the past. Why do you think this would be an invalid comparison?

-XT

44

[QUOTE=xtisme]

Um…wasn’t that the Cole incident? Maybe some of these are counted if the US is bombed instead? Perhaps New York and Washington DC are on the list to??
[/QUOTE]

The Cole was bombed during the final days of the Clinton Administration, which ended well before 2002.

45

It is our hypocrisy. We do not compare ourselves to the old aggressive reigns,but we are no different. We pretend to seek peace but stick our noses into every government we choose.We spend incredible amounts of money an weapons of mass destruction. We are constantly at war or in a police action of our choosing. There has been very little times of peace in America.
But do we start wars to test weapons. I do not think so but I can see how someone might believe that. The Abombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki carried an element of that …

46

[QUOTE=Tuckerfan]
The Cole was bombed during the final days of the Clinton Administration, which ended well before 2002.
[/QUOTE]

I assumed it was a typo. I know of no other incident in Yemen involving the US…do you?

-XT

47

[QUOTE=xtisme]
I assumed it was a typo. I know of no other incident in Yemen involving the US…do you?

-XT
[/QUOTE]

IIRC, we aided the government in going after some AQ camps located there. IOW, a perfectly justifiable case of US military action, IMHO.

48

[QUOTE=Tuckerfan]
IIRC, we aided the government in going after some AQ camps located there. IOW, a perfectly justifiable case of US military action, IMHO.
[/QUOTE]
A Predator launched a missile that killed an alleged Al Qaeda member.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-11-04-yemen-explosion_x.htm

49

[QUOTE=gonzomax]
We do not compare ourselves to the old aggressive reigns,but we are no different.
[/QUOTE]

Assuming you meant we DO compare ourselves to those old ‘aggressive reigns’, then I’d say that we ARE quite a bit different. One has but to look back at history for every other nation that has been a superpower and do a comparison. I think the US will come out favorably.

Certainly if we want to compare the US to, say, post WWII Luxemburg or Belgium we don’t fare as well…

[QUOTE=gonzomax]
We pretend to seek peace but stick our noses into every government we choose.
[/QUOTE]

Show me a nation that is a superpower (or even a regional power) and DOESN’T stick their noses into the affairs of other governments and then we can talk…

[QUOTE=gonzomax]
We spend incredible amounts of money an weapons of mass destruction.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, we do. Part of that is a hold over from the old cold war days. Part of it however stems from a series of wars the US got dragged into that we were totally unprepared for…and what it costs us in terms of men and money to try and spin up to fight when we had let the tools of war rust. Personally I’d like to see our defense budget cut to a certain extent…and I would love to see our nuclear arsenal greatly reduced. But I can see the historic reasons the US wants to make sure that if there ever IS a next time we are prepared, and can give our troops the best equipment and training we can.

[QUOTE=gonzomax]
We are constantly at war or in a police action of our choosing.
[/QUOTE]

Horse. Shit.

Even your own list doesn’t show that. Again, how does the US stack up wars wise to OTHER superpowers? Britain? France? The Soviet Union? And how does the military actions the US has been involved in stack up destruction and lose of life wise to those other powers? Especially considering the relative technologies available to them at the time they WERE superpowers?

[QUOTE=gonzomax]
There has been very little times of peace in America.
[/QUOTE]

Again, complete BS. The last 60 years is notable because there HAS been relative peace world wide…and part of that is BECAUSE of the US. Compare the last 60 years to the previous 60 years. See any difference??

[QUOTE=gonzomax]
But do we start wars to test weapons.
[/QUOTE]

And yet there has been no evidence of this shown except to the faithful.

[QUOTE=gonzomax]
The Abombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki carried an element of that .
[/QUOTE]

Are you seriously suggesting that the US A) started the war with Japan and B) Did so to test a bomb we didn’t even start developing until AFTER the war started?

Seriously?

-XT

50

[QUOTE=Tuckerfan]
IIRC, we aided the government in going after some AQ camps located there. IOW, a perfectly justifiable case of US military action, IMHO.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Ravenman]
A Predator launched a missile that killed an alleged Al Qaeda member.
[/QUOTE]

I thank you both. I guess I missed this…I should have tried to Google it instead of thinking it was a typo. Not exactly the most egregious use of bombing I could think of…unless a chicken or puppy was also harmed in the vicious bombing attack.

I’m guessing some of the other one’s I questioned have similar stories behind them.

-XT

51

[QUOTE=xtisme]
I thank you both. I guess I missed this…I should have tried to Google it instead of thinking it was a typo. Not exactly the most egregious use of bombing I could think of…unless a chicken or puppy was also harmed in the vicious bombing attack.

I’m guessing some of the other one’s I questioned have similar stories behind them.

-XT
[/QUOTE]

Could be. Part of the double edged sword nature of modern US military technology is that we can now go after people in the past whom we would have ignored. In some ways, that’s a good thing, in that we can wipe out a potential bin Laden before he ever get’s started, with minimal loss of life. In other ways, however, it makes us look more aggressive, in that we’re using high tech military gear to go after someone in the past we would have either ignored and hoped that they didn’t do much, or sent a sniper team after (or ensured that if they were captured by a government friendly to the US they were quickly and quietly executed).

52

http://www.adbusters.org/media/flash/hope_and_memory/timeline.swf

Show me the moments of peace .

53

:rolleyes:

-XT

54

[QUOTE=Wildfire**MM]
this is an acusation that I hear now and then - that USA are in a constant war (more or less) to test out their new weapons

true or false ?

If true - how does this differ from the nazis who performed human experiment on people
[/QUOTE]

Well thats certainly a new one on me and I thought I heard all the loony toons conspiracy theories up to and including the U.S. instigated 9/11 themselves for various evil reasons.

So this allegation that "You’ve heard now and then "who did you actually hear it from?
Obviously I don’t mean names and addresses but what sort of people are they?
Are they for example Western hating fanatics prepared say to make up and air any sort of lies no matter how pathetic hoping that just by letting them loose there will be SOMEONE dumb enough or vindictive enough to spread the B/S further?

Is there any sort of bias jnherent in the originators such as their being Serbian,Russian or Islamists?
The allegation is a nonsense ,you can do good fundamental weapons testing without having to go throughout all the political hassle of justifying yet another war to the electorate,losing support when relatives of voters die and of course the financial cost .

So to answer your question,False,this is a pretty obvious attempt at starting/spreading a sick,malicous rumour about the U.S. with absaloutly no evidence or justification by some sick malicous people who I would not be stunned with astonishment to find out had tried the same tactics in the past .

So the second part of your question doesn’t arise and trying to equate the actions of the U.S.A. with the organising of mass execution camps of the sort that the NAZIs or Russians in a slower but just as effective manner instigated is a non starter.

I’m sure that not even for one minute that some one as obviously perceptive as yourself believed such a silly,not to mention sick allegation but was merely making use of it as a good subject for flexing debating muscles.