Uh-Oh, are the politicans fibbing again(RE:Iraq)?

[quetzalcoatl9]

When was the last time a European went flying all over the US telling them that they needed to fix the situation down in Alabama, lol.

QUOTE]
Not Alabama, but Iraq. Or did you miss Galloway?

Iraq is not in our own backyard, let alone on our own continent. Kosovo, however, WAS in the backyard of Europe, who sat and did nothing until Clinton held a massive PR campaign to convince other NATO leaders that it needed to be done. You see, Europe has a tendency for inaction and criticizes those who do actually take action.

The reference to "Alabama", and the ludicrous example that it poses, was to illustrate this point. (It also was a tongue-in-cheek joke about Alabama, but I don't think that you got it).

Thanks for playing, try again next time.

 

[Mercator]

I, however, do have sources that it was Clinton who pushed for the decision to send NATO into Kosovo, not a European:


QUOTE]
True. The EU and the UN have not always been decisive enough. Since you rightly put out that the US is an important player in the UN, we are all guilty of the same "crime". In the meantime the EU has learned and is using it's power. In Macedonia they have prevented a repeat of Kosovo. But that name does not sound so familiar , just because it was prevented to escalate.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

I, however, do have sources that it was Clinton who pushed for the decision to send NATO into Kosovo, not a European:


QUOTE]
True. The EU and the UN have not always been decisive enough. Since you rightly put out that the US is an important player in the UN, we are all guilty of the same "crime". In the meantime the EU has learned and is using it's power. In Macedonia they have prevented a repeat of Kosovo. But that name does not sound so familiar , just because it was prevented to escalate.

I give the EU credit for that.

I also give them credit for the re-newed science initiatives of the ESA, whose missions I find quite interesting and resourceful.

 

[Mercator]

The fact of the matter is that if Europe needed us again, we would defend her again, regardless of how evil or stupid you may think we are. Does that count for nothing?
If you don't like the arrangement, then write your senator or whatever it is that you have over there.

I seriously doubt that. You did not defend Poland, Austria, Belgium, Holland nor France against Hitler's invasion.

 

[Mercator]

Antics such as this lead to me believe that regions of the world where the US provides military defense are quite happy to leave it that way since they couldn't afford it anyway: this makes the US the de facto world police force. We clean up the mess of others, and then get spit on.

If you don't like the arrangement, then write your senator or whatever it is that you have over there.

The UN is the police force. They have constantly 60.000 to 80.000 peacekeepers in hot spots around the world. If you would detach your 130.000 soldiers to the UN in stead of invading a country for the wrong reasons, the world would be a better place. Besides, face it, you're already overstrechted with the invasion in Iraq. You cannot control such a country, no wonder that teh Iaranians are laughing behind your back. That is what you got with Bush's actions: worldwide ridicule and the sense that your huge military power is far form invincible.

 

[The Smoking Man]

The UN is the police force. They have constantly 60.000 to 80.000 peacekeepers in hot spots around the world. If you would detach your 130.000 soldiers to the UN in stead of invading a country for the wrong reasons, the world would be a better place. Besides, face it, you're already overstrechted with the invasion in Iraq. You cannot control such a country, no wonder that teh Iaranians are laughing behind your back. That is what you got with Bush's actions: worldwide ridicule and the sense that your huge military power is far form invincible.

But that would make the erroneous assumption that the USA was in favour of what the UN stands for, wouldn't it?

Look at the use of the Veto since 1972 when China officially took her seat in the UN:

http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa03.html

The USA has officially used her power 70 times to deny the 94% of the world population represented by the UN the right to democratic use of the UN itself.

The statistics show that the votes have been consistently the USA and one or two others voting against a resolution and then enforcing their will on the remainder with the Veto.

The USA has also stated repeatedly that they will not recognize the world court if it decides to side against a US citizen.

In other words, the USA uses the whole UN process as a tool to enforce US policy onto the rest of the world while refusing to be the subject of its authority.

VERY convenient.

 

[Art]

Iraq is not in our own backyard, let alone on our own continent. Kosovo, however, WAS in the backyard of Europe, who sat and did nothing until Clinton held a massive PR campaign to convince other NATO leaders that it needed to be done. You see, Europe has a tendency for inaction and criticizes those who do actually take action.

The reference to "Alabama", and the ludicrous example that it poses, was to illustrate this point. (It also was a tongue-in-cheek joke about Alabama, but I don't think that you got it).

Thanks for playing, try again next time.

I wish that when people post references they would read them first! The links you posted ALL referred to Clinton's efforts to keep the coalition together AFTER the bombing campaign was in full swing.
Per the link I posted (if you read it) Britain and France were the first to deploy forces in the region. In the case of the British on Feb 19th 1999. At that time the US had sent an envoy Holbrooke through the Contact Group, to try to negotiate a peaceful settlement with the Serbs. It was after the ceasefire he negotiated broke down that the US agreed to support a bombing campaign under the auspices of NATO but would still not commit ground forces. This air campaign (and thus the US military involvement) began on Mar 24th 1999. Geez you never let facts stand in the way of a good theory do you?

 

[The Smoking Man]

Wow.

Where does one start?

Don't twist words, of course Pearl Harbour had everything to do with it, but we also could have continued to sit back while Hitler decimated Western Europe. And it is a fact that the Chinese did benefit; that that was not our objective doesn't really matter.

Could you? ... Or did you come to realize that the 'Tripartite Agreement' did not include you in "The new World Order" and that if you didn't join in the war at that time, when Europe fell, you were next?

Now of course all nations opposed to the agressor 'benefitted' from the agreement. How galling that must have been in the end.

As a 2nd generation European-American, I see Europeans like a fickle girlfriend. Europe was more than happy to side with the US because it was clear that we had no aspirations for conquering Europe, and were an ocean away anyway...

How ironic then that Europe sees the USA as an abusive boyfriend who seems full of 'love' when he wants something.

The people experiencing the greatest 'benefit' was the USA who saw a 'world war' settled befor the obstacles of the Atlantic and the Pacific were overcome and the war was fought on her soil.

Advantageous geography is in no way an indication of 'higher moral value'.

What if it became known that ensuring the security of oil is a national security issue, because without it we would be in serious trouble. Our military, which consumes a large fraction of our oil, would not be able to operate without it ...

Is there any comodity that can NOT be declared a 'national security issue'? Steel? Plastic? You're the people who developed the $10,000 coffee pot for gosh sakes specifically for use in Bombers. The plane can crash with no survivors but the coffe pot will survive.

Yes, we've noticed the Unocal bid shennanigans.

So is this the prelude to Bush finally admitting that oil WAS the issue in Iraq but it is okay because it is a 'National Security' issue?

It makes no difference who is in office. In fact, it is most likely that the Democrats will win the presidential election in 2009 - and when they do, I guarantee you that military actions will continue, because it is a national security council issue on both sides of the aisle. The "good cop/bad cop/dems/republicans" that you may see is a scam. Clinton has already expressed his support for the war on Iraq. Infact, he had been predicting that we would need to go to war with Iraq (over WMD no less!) for many years now.

The first truth you've said.

Yup ... America is for Americans and the general feeling in the USA is that you have all the rights and freedoms outlined in your various government documents. Cool. This is the reason you have divergent opinions on matters.

OUTSIDE the country however is a different matter.

You're right. It doesn't matter who is in power in the USA because taht which makes you unique as a nation and your respective parties differ stops at the border.

For example, you deliberately bypass your laws protecting the rights of foreign nationals simply by not returning these people to your country but by dropping them off in a 3rd location where illegal methods of interrogation CAN take place.

You see nothing wrong with securing a foreign national from the sovereign territory of Italy and smuggling that individual to a third nation, Egypt for torture.

Thus, your pristine reputation of truth, justice and the 'American Way' can still be played on re-runs of Superman and kids can still salute the flag.

NATO is led by the US and US forces. It is nice that it is a European alliance, but everyone knows that when NATO does something it is the US doing something. ...

That would be why Bush served Burgers and Freedom Fries to Chiraq at the last NATO meeting and he stated they would talk again when you 'elected someone with a brain'?

I have been honest in giving credit to Europe when it is justified. Just be a man and give credit where credit is due.

Well, here's a thought then. Apologize to the French. They were proven right on 100% of the issues while you have been proven to have attempted the deception of the whole UN.

 

[The Smoking Man]

CLINTON was the one flying all over Europe trying to convince them that NATO needed to do something!

When was the last time a European went flying all over the US telling them that they needed to fix the situation down in Alabama, lol.

Of course, it only makes sense that the US would play the lead role in an organization like NATO, for obvious reasons.

The Secretary General does NOT make strategic NATO decisions, that happens on the council, which the US has a de facto strong presence on.

Have you still got that problem of failing to recognize that the EU are separate and distinct nations and not states of the same country?

Have you failed to realize that the EU is currently working with many of the nations trashed by the uprisings there and pulling them and their economies back from the Brink?

Most of what you have said has been a lot of war mongering and chest thumping.

The remainder of the NATO nations are also concerned with the thing you forgot about in your rush into Iraq ... 'what happens when you win'.

Let's face it, Americans just LOVE to play cops and do commando rolls into ditches and stuff.

The rest of the world realized something about 'hearts and minds' and 'teaching a man to fish'.

Why do you think you've been cooling your heels in the hall while Europe has been negotiating with Iran?

 

[Rev Prez]

Republican during Lincoln and Republicans today are completely different, they are hardly even the same party.

I assume you take that as an article of faith, and either way its not worth debating in this thread.

If you say so Reverend.

I'm no Reverend.

I wouldn't put my money on that bet, nor would I say that any "extraordinary first order shift" has occurring, merely that people are less enthusiastic about Bush now more than ever, and that is not saying much since he only won by 1% this past election.

The President had a higher disapproval rating just before the 2004 election than he did in July of 2001. He went on to win by a 3 million vote margin and, more importantly, expanded his margin in the electoral college. So what's the big deal?

Rev Prez

 

[Rev Prez]

Certainly;
First NATO is currently led by a British leader Lord Robertson
http://www.nato.int/cv/secgen/robert-e.htm

What a ridiculous thing to say. Lord Robertson is the Secretary General--he is the chair and spokeperson for a mutual defense committee. SACEUR and SACLANT, the military commanders of forces deployed under NATO mandate, are and always have been Americans.

And here's a chronology of action taken in the Kosovo campaign
http://www.kosovo.mod.uk/account/chrono.htm

Which doesn't say a damn thing. Determined Falcon was primarily a US operation, with American air and special warfare assets forming the bulk of deployed forces.

Rev Prez

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

I seriously doubt that. You did not defend Poland, Austria, Belgium, Holland nor France against Hitler's invasion.

That is true, but we certainly drove him back out (with the help of other Allied forces - but mostly US troops). Have you forgotten that little detail, which happened to cost us 200,000 troops, some of whom were family members of those of us? Are you just going to pass off that detail, like a fart in the wind?

I wish that when people post references they would read them first! The links you posted ALL referred to Clinton's efforts to keep the coalition together AFTER the bombing campaign was in full swing.
Per the link I posted (if you read it) Britain and France were the first to deploy forces in the region. In the case of the British on Feb 19th 1999. At that time the US had sent an envoy Holbrooke through the Contact Group, to try to negotiate a peaceful settlement with the Serbs. It was after the ceasefire he negotiated broke down that the US agreed to support a bombing campaign under the auspices of NATO but would still not commit ground forces. This air campaign (and thus the US military involvement) began on Mar 24th 1999. Geez you never let facts stand in the way of a good theory do you?

Oh yeah? Try this one, from August 12th 1998:

http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1998/kosovo.htm

It is becoming increasingly apparent that the Clinton Administration has set American policy on a course that is likely to lead to some sort of U.S.-led NATO military intervention in the troubled Serbian province of Kosovo within the next few months, perhaps within weeks.

Just give up already...you can do it, just say "quetzal, you were right."

Here is an interesting snipet on the Kosovo war (from Wikipedia), that will maybe help answer all the rest of you out there who have expressed your valued opinions on the matter:

The legitimacy of NATO's bombing campaign in Kosovo has been the subject of much debate. NATO did not have the backing of the United Nations to use force in Yugoslavia but justified its actions on the basis of an "international humanitarian emergency". Criticism was also drawn by the fact that the NATO charter specifies that NATO is an organization created for defence of its members, but in this case it was used to attack a non-NATO country which was not directly threatening any NATO member. NATO countered this argument by claiming that instability in the Balkans was a direct threat to the security interests of NATO members, and military action was therefore justified by the NATO charter.

Many on the left of Western politics saw the NATO campaign as a sign of US aggression and imperialism, while right-wingers criticised it as being irrelevant to their countries' national security interests. Veteran anti-war campaigners such as Noam Chomsky, Edward Said, Justin Raimondo, and Tariq Ali were prominent in opposing the campaign. However, in comparison with the anti-war protests against the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the campaign against the war in Kosovo aroused much less public support.

Interesting that it wasn't popularly seen as "a sign of US aggression and imperialism" when Europe was involved (except by Noam Chomsky, but who listens to him anyway?). There were no WMD in Kosovo, Kosovo was not threatening the rest of Europe in any way whatsoever. Certainly Kosovo did not attack the rest of Europe.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

The President had a higher disapproval rating just before the 2004 election than he did in July of 2001. He went on to win by a 3 million vote margin and, more importantly, expanded his margin in the electoral college. So what's the big deal?

ok, whatever dude. i will bet you a beer that he (Republican) loses...and that is coming from someone who voted for him (Bush)

 

[Rev Prez]

ok, whatever dude. i will bet you a beer that he loses...and that is coming from someone who voted for him.

Dun, the guy isn't running again!

Rev Prez

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

Dun, the guy isn't running again!

Rev Prez

I mean the Republican (either McCain or Guilliani)

 

[Art]

What a ridiculous thing to say. Lord Robertson is the Secretary General--he is the chair and spokeperson for a mutual defense committee. SACEUR and SACLANT, the military commanders of forces deployed under NATO mandate, are and always have been Americans.

Perhaps things have changed in Bush's America even more than I thought. Here in europe the military still take their orders from civilians.

 

[Art]

Oh yeah? Try this one, from August 12th 1998:

http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1998/kosovo.htm

This is simply a party political rant aimed at the Clinton administration by the Republican party whilst in opposition. Here's a sample quote from your source

The only missing element appears to be an event -- with suitably vivid media coverage -- that would make intervention politically salable, even imperative, in the same way that a dithering Administration finally decided on intervention in Bosnia in 1995 after a series of "Serb mortar attacks" took the lives of dozens of civilians -- attacks, which, upon closer examination, may in fact have been the work of the Muslim regime in Sarajevo, the main beneficiary of the intervention.

I hate to disapoint you but the US does not lead NATO although they are generally the biggest contributor in terms of fire power when action is taken. However the decision whether action is taken is determined by consensus of the 26 member countries. During the Kosovo campaign the NATO SG was Javier Solana, a Spaniard.
If the US were the dominant member do you not think they would have used this position to get NATO to attack Iraq?

 

[Art]

Interesting that it wasn't popularly seen as "a sign of US aggression and imperialism" when Europe was involved (except by Noam Chomsky, but who listens to him anyway?). There were no WMD in Kosovo, Kosovo was not threatening the rest of Europe in any way whatsoever. Certainly Kosovo did not attack the rest of Europe.

Precisely. When the US intervenes soley on a humanitarian basis they have wide popular support from the rest of the world which is the point I made when I raised Clinton's support of the Kosovo campaign as an example of America being praiseworthy.
Try to understand few if any of us here are anti-american; it is the current administration we have a problem with as do a majority of americans.

 

[Rev Prez]

Perhaps things have changed in Bush's America even more than I thought. Here in europe the military still take their orders from civilians.

I think you need to actually bother looking up how NATO is organized. You're making some pretty silly remarks.

Rev Prez

 

[Mercator]

Iraq is not in our own backyard, let alone on our own continent. Kosovo, however, WAS in the backyard of Europe, who sat and did nothing until Clinton held a massive PR campaign to convince other NATO leaders that it needed to be done. You see, Europe has a tendency for inaction and criticizes those who do actually take action.

The reference to "Alabama", and the ludicrous example that it poses, was to illustrate this point. (It also was a tongue-in-cheek joke about Alabama, but I don't think that you got it).

Thanks for playing, try again next time.

So you DID miss Galloway, or you probably do not want to be remembered about it.

 

[Muaddib]

It would seem that it is the present US government that the world requires protection from! The US had worldwide support for it's attack on Afghanistan because we accepted the legitimacy of the attack against the Taliban who were providing a safe haven for OBL and refusing to hand him over. The attack on Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with America's defense and everything to do with America's economy. We do not support wars where the objective is to secure oil for American industry.

The attack on Iraq had nothing to do with the defense of America?... Well intelligence agencies from the US, and other countries, including Russia said otherwise. The only reason why Russia, China, France, Germany and a few others didn't want a war in Iraq was because they were getting themselves rich off the Oil For Food program...while they were selling banned technology and other military technology to Iraq instead of selling them what was needed for the Iraqi people like food, medicines, water treatment parts, etc, etc.

Which is why most of the world thought America under the Clinton administration was a much nicer friendlier entity than it is under the paranoid Bush regime. Also FYI it was Nato who provided support for the Bosnian muslims of which America is just one member.

Yeah, the communist Chinese government surely loved the Clinton administration...they were spying on the US, stealing and buying what they could not steal from our military secrets like never before...

 

[Art]

The attack on Iraq had nothing to do with the defense of America?... Well intelligence agencies from the US, and other countries, including Russia said otherwise. The only reason why Russia, China, France, Germany and a few others didn't want a war in Iraq was because they were getting themselves rich off the Oil For Food program...while they were selling banned technology and other military technology to Iraq instead of selling them what was needed for the Iraqi people like food, medicines, water treatment parts, etc, etc.

Yeah, the communist Chinese government surely loved the Clinton administration...they were spying on the US, stealing and buying what they could not steal from our military secrets like never before...

......

 

[Muaddib]

So is this the prelude to Bush finally admitting that oil WAS the issue in Iraq but it is okay because it is a 'National Security' issue?

If oil was the whole issue about Iraq it would have been a lot cheaper and better to have just bought the oil, but that was not the whole issue with Iraq...and of course we could have also have kept all the oil of iraq since the first Gulf War, since the whole country was under ours for the taking if we wanted to...

You see nothing wrong with securing a foreign national from the sovereign territory of Italy and smuggling that individual to a third nation, Egypt for torture.

Italy saw that there was nothing wrong with trying to become heroes by not letting know to the US and other coalition countries that they were going to sneak into a third country, Iraq, release a hostage and then try to get him out by driving through checkpoints in Iraq like they had no breaks in their vehicle. Perhaps the french special forces are not smart enough to realize that insurgents have been using that same tactic for suicide attacks against coalition forces...

BTW, perhaps you should watch a couple of the videos on how insurgents really torture people.

 

[Muaddib]

......

That's your argument?...

Case closed. :zzz:

 

[Art]

That's your argument?...

Case closed. :zzz:

I'm sorry I thought you were trying to be humorous. In general, serious contributors post sources to back their assertions. As you never do I assumed your postings were intended to be a little 'comic relief'

 

[The Smoking Man]

If oil was the whole issue about Iraq it would have been a lot cheaper and better to have just bought the oil, but that was not the whole issue with Iraq...and of course we could have also have kept all the oil of iraq since the first Gulf War, since the whole country was under ours for the taking if we wanted to...

You will find that oil agreements with hostiles can be broken and the oil directed to other countries.

For example: if Iraq had got upset with the USA (What are the chances?) they could quite easily have sold their complete supply to the Chinese.

What Shrub saw was the opportunity to take over the second largest field in the world however he did not anticipate the abuse of the fields reducing output to sbout 20% with only a possiblility of 80% recovery.

You will also find that Bush Sr. actually respected the UN decision to not continue on to Baghdad so speculating on what you 'cudda' done is about as fruitless as a punch drunk, aging boxer saying 'I cudda been a contenda'!

Italy saw that there was nothing wrong with trying to become heroes by not letting know to the US and other coalition countries that they were going to sneak into a third country, Iraq, release a hostage and then try to get him out by driving through checkpoints in Iraq like they had no breaks in their vehicle. Perhaps the french special forces are not smart enough to realize that insurgents have been using that same tactic for suicide attacks against coalition forces...

BTW, perhaps you should watch a couple of the videos on how insurgents really torture people.

Maybe you should actually take a look at what I said.

The US Government violated the sovereign nation of Italy and kidnapped someone from within their borders.

They then removed that person from the country ... presumably with no travel documents.

They moved them to a third nation other than America so that they could engage in torture and avoid US law.

What would have been the response of the USA if Italy had kidnapped Prince Bandar Bin Sultan and taken him to China for 'Questioning'?

 

[Mercator]

The attack on Iraq had nothing to do with the defense of America?... Well intelligence agencies from the US, and other countries, including Russia said otherwise. The only reason why Russia, China, France, Germany and a few others didn't want a war in Iraq was because they were getting themselves rich off the Oil For Food program...while they were selling banned technology and other military technology to Iraq instead of selling them what was needed for the Iraqi people like food, medicines, water treatment parts, etc, etc.





QUOTE]

The US is and was always the biggest profiter in Iraq. The Us is and was the biggest importer of Iraqi oil, legal and illegal. Get your facts right.

 

[Mercator]

If oil was the whole issue about Iraq it would have been a lot cheaper and better to have just bought the oil, but that was not the whole issue with Iraq...and of course we could have also have kept all the oil of iraq since the first Gulf War, since the whole country was under ours for the taking if we wanted to...

.

You did. Check the US import figures of oil coming form Iraq and compare them with the French, Russian and German figures, you will see your claims are ridiculous. The US has always bought the bulk of Iraqi oil, directly or via middle men.The whole picture changed when Saddam wanted EUROS in stead of DOLLARS for his oil. Do I have to explain to you what that would have meant to the US if they did not intervene? I probably will have to.

 

[Hurkyl]

The US is and was always the biggest profiter in Iraq. The Us is and was the biggest importer of Iraqi oil, legal and illegal. Get your facts right.

This contradicts nothing Muaddib said...

 

[Mercator]

Italy saw that there was nothing wrong with trying to become heroes by not letting know to the US and other coalition countries that they were going to sneak into a third country, Iraq, release a hostage and then try to get him out by driving through checkpoints in Iraq like they had no breaks in their vehicle. Perhaps the french special forces are not smart enough to realize that insurgents have been using that same tactic for suicide attacks against coalition forces...

QUOTE]
hahaha you should start writing novels.

 

[Mercator]

This contradicts nothing Muaddib said...

Then I have only one advise for you: read again!

 

[Hurkyl]

Then I have only one advise for you: read again!

Okay. I still don't understand how your assertion:

"The US is and was always the biggest profiter in Iraq. The Us is and was the biggest importer of Iraqi oil, legal and illegal. Get your facts right."

has any bearing, if true, on Muaddib's assertions.

Maybe you can explain how, if your assertion is correct, it demonstrates the falseness of, for example, the claim that France was selling banned technology to Iraq.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

This is simply a party political rant aimed at the Clinton administration by the Republican party whilst in opposition. Here's a sample quote from your source

Nonetheless, this article came out several months before NATO went into Kosovo. Are you saying that because it came from Republicans that it is somehow untrue and therefore we never went into Kosovo?

I have made it abundantly clear that Clinton was responsible for the Kosovo action, which you still irrationally deny (although I have no idea why). If you go back and read the sources that I have posted, you will see that (as usual) I am right.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Maybe you can explain how, if your assertion is correct, it demonstrates the falseness of, for example, the claim that France was selling banned technology to Iraq.

Maybe I can help.

Go here: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=2766

What he is saying is that there were far worse products being supplied to Saddam from America.

You do tend to look beyond your borders for scapegoats.

For example, are you aware that Halliburton under Dick Cheney was fined for selling Neutron Pulse Generators to Lybia?

These 'dual use' devices are also used as nuclear detonators.

In light of the fact that good ole' 'Moe' reveled a fully operational nuclear program, we can see that Cheney himself had a lot more impact on the stability of the world than the French did with Saddam considering they still seem to be looking for any WMD in Iraq.

 

[Mercator]

Okay. I still don't understand how your assertion:

"The US is and was always the biggest profiter in Iraq. The Us is and was the biggest importer of Iraqi oil, legal and illegal. Get your facts right."

has any bearing, if true, on Muaddib's assertions.

Maybe you can explain how, if your assertion is correct, it demonstrates the falseness of, for example, the claim that France was selling banned technology to Iraq.

Omitting the US from his statement is tantamount to trying to hide the truth. It's like saying that America was colonized by Sweden. That's undoubtfully true, but it ommits the real big scale colonists.