traitorous SOB

"Peter Stickney" wrote in message
...
In article ,
George Shirley writes:
Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 18:06:14 -0600, George Shirley
wrote:


Ed Rasimus wrote:


The objective of Desert Storm was, as you say. The objective of Iraqi
Freedom was regime change. Regardless of the objective, the fact is
that the US has NEVER after a war expressed any form of imperialism.
We don't keep the territory we take with our blood and treasure. We
rebuild it, establish a democracy and then make a partnership with
them as the become economic giants.

Uh, minor correction there Ed, remember the Mexican War and then the
Spanish American War. If I'm not mistaken we've still got some of the
territory we took from both countries back then. Ceded by treaty but
still taken in war. Personally I'm okay with it, if we had conquered and
kept all of Unidos Estado de Mexico we wouldn't have to worry about
illegal immigrants today. BSEG



Maybe should have said "since the beginning of the 20th Century."
That's absolutely true. We gave the Phillipines back but kept the rest
of the stuff we took before the turn of the 20th. I know a lot of
Filipinos who often state that they wish the US had kept them but they
were way to much trouble to govern as the majority wanted freedom. The
Puerto Ricans can't seem to make up their minds what they want and the
Pacific Islands we are on seem happy with the status quo

That's not quite true - We turned Cuba loose in 1912, IIRC.

And let's not forget the Philippines, which we got from Spain after the
Spanish-American War in 1898. The Tydings-McDuffie Act, enacted in 1934, while
ostensibly providing for their independence, merely formalized their
relationship with the United States in what appeared to be a colonial
relationship. They finally got their independence from us after WWII,
presumably as a reward for being a good, well-behaved colony for a half century
or so.

George Z.