Putin please don't turn into Darwyn.

"Your above examples are exceptions rather than the rule and you know it. Don't forget that they also willingly sign on a dotted line that gives the government permission to send them 9,000 miles from home to fight a war against a tough and determined enemy, despite the fact that there are many douchebags like you will overemphasize the worst in them and stab them in the back, all while they protect your right to say that crap without getting blown up by some al-Qaeda asshole. "

This is my point. If they are smart and know exactly what they are doing, then they don't deserve much sympathy. As for stabbing them in the back, oh noes. How dare people criticise the actions of soldiers. Who knows, what they are doing might actually be wrong. Lol, soldiers don't protect the rights of people, they are simply the armed fist of imperialism. The military has never been used against protestors, nope, never has it ever happened.

I prefer the "military-industrial-complex needs a visibly-downtrodden faction to support to keep raking in profits" explanation to the "we're helping al-Qaeda" one. Would explain why we opposed them in Afghanistan (when their buddies were in power) and helped them elsewhere (when they weren't), all without the tricky "we're helping the guys who caused 9/11" bit.

Gunfighter actively promotes using such force against protesters, at least in the US. Funny how the very people who say the US military is fighting for 'our freedom' are the very ones happy to throw it away at the first opportunity if it helps eradicate their political enemies at home.

Being fair, the average population contains far more even male/female splits and a lot of people who have aged out of the statistical peak age for rapey behavior. Of course, to continue being fair, the average population doesn't brag about its discipline or "all for one" culture.

Visibly downtrodden with shiny weapons and long established ties to said military-industrial complex.

America is ridding the region of secular progressive governments and installing Islamist fundamentalist regimes that will do their bidding. This is what America has done since the 1970s. Funding Islamism to attack leftism. It's how they tried to bring down the USSR. It's how they brought down Yugoslavia (Bosnia - Al Qaeda ties are very strong, just ask the Israelis). It's how they want to bring down Putin's Russia. It's how they want to bring down China. It's how they brought down "problematic" governments in Iraq, Libya and now Syria maybe.

Putin - while we do like secular governments, we like autocrats less than we like Islamists. When push comes to shove and its one versus the other, the United States sides with the people of a country. And no, I'm not talking about popularist movements that "claim" to be of the people, I'm talking about hundreds of thousands of people protesting the government, such as what happened in Yemen, Syria, and Egypt. Bahrain is a notable exception to this, but as with everything in life there are exceptions to the general rule.

And I kept going about enlisted vs officer because if there are officers committing crimes, it signifies a deeper problem within the military. If it is enlisted soldiers, there is still something wrong, but not *as* wrong. Case in point - the Nazis were corrupted from the top down and the officers were the ones knowingly committing the crimes. The ones you cited were mostly committed by NCO's or regular grunts.

"Visibly downtrodden with shiny weapons and long established ties to said military-industrial complex."

Yes, I know, the point was just that the MSM can paint them as downtrodden, not that they actually are.

There are tens of examples of the US happily arming and aiding autocrats perfectly willing to gun down thousands of their citizens.

"When push comes to shove and its one versus the other, the United States sides with the people of a country. And no, I'm not talking about popularist movements that "claim" to be of the people, I'm talking about hundreds of thousands of people protesting the government, such as what happened in Yemen, Syria, and Egypt. Bahrain is a notable exception to this, but as with everything in life there are exceptions to the general rule."

Right, just ask the Hondurans about our 'support' for the people. Oh wait, if it's a democratic movement that we don't like, we call it 'popularist' and support military governments and theocrats. Seriously if you gave this spiel about America's adoration for democracy in Ecador, Bolivia, Argentina or Brazil you'd be laughed out of the fucking room. We always support the juntas, and never support the people. Ever.

Goldfinger, they don't. The US did not side with the people in Egypt, they stuck with Mubarak for a while, they only supported Libya because a lot of the people in the NTC are in their pocket, same with the Syrian NTC. The US has supported autocratic regimes in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, possibly the biggest hypocrisy of the US.

Repulsive- bunch of Americans turning an Australian/New Zealand holiday celebrating their spirit into a discussion on them. height of fucking arrogance

Uzbekistan, Thailand, Indonesia...

Well, to be fair, we started off talking about the spirit of ANZAC forces. It's sadly misplaced. Perhaps if they directed their spirit towards, say, not killing people for spurious reasons, we might look upon this holiday with more approbation.

Hey those half a million Indonesians the Anzacs gloated about being killed off by their (and America's) boy Suharto had it coming. It's only a movement of the people if they support their pocketbooks. It's funny that Sydney here is whining about Americans when his holiday here is nothing but a scheme for his country to be Washington's warmongering puppets.

Chile, Nigeria, Iran...

Taiwan, Greece, Haiti...

You know, I could a lot more of these, goldfinger.

it's not sadly misplaced. They sacrificed their lives for a "Mother Country" and in all fairness it's about our fighting spirit- not necessarily about war these days. Americans just hijacked it... something they are fantastic at and no doubt undisputed world leaders at

Once we side with our true trade partner China, America can go fuck itself. All most of us are waiting for is an election to get rid of that red haired bitch

We prefer to be on the side of winners and comer uppers not has beens

"Once we side with our true trade partner China"

Better stop kissing the feet of the Dalai Lama first, hoss.

That's why you're making a thread about the fucking Anzacs, because you're all about the future. It's also why you have the Butcher's Apron on your flag and the Queen on your currency, because we all know Britain is still a dominant player.

And nevermind that Anzac Day helps perpetuate the continued Aussie presence in Afghanistan and elsewhere, helping out us evil Americans at every turn.

I doubt you'll find that China's a better trading partner than us. A more lucrative one, yes, but they certainly don't play by the rules. And in defense, a few of us started out supporting the ANZAC forces whereas others were attacking them. Then it spiraled into defending armed forces in general, then American armed forces, and then America.

And you know, I do consider that we supported the Egyptian people. No sane government is going to right off of the bat say "We support the protestors over the government" Let's get real here for a second people, and stop living in a fantasy world where other strategic allies aren't looking at your actions. Hypothetically if all of Bavaria were to rise up in protest, we wouldn't immediately be pushing Germany to give concessions to the Bavarians.

And you know, its funny that you think all these people hate us. I know Peruvians, Ecuadorians, Chileans, some people from various African nations, a Sri Lankan, and a couple of guys from Qatar, and none of them have bad opinions about America. Especially my African friends like America. How politically involved they are, I don't know, but they like what America represents, and that is a real thing that people here often forget. I have friends who worked in Ecuador over the summer with aid groups and have only heard positive things. So from my experience, people still do truly look to America as the harbinger of democracy, as one of the few places where you can rise up the social order. But, my experience may not be your experience, so I'm willing to hear your views.

And yes Bob, those are all legitimate. However, I think that in looking into this data (my econometric course kicking in) you have to consider the concept of stationarity. That is, have the underlying causes of action changed? And I would say that after 1991, yes they have, and thus must separate those two time periods into two different sets of data. So while those historical examples you gave are correct, I don't think that is what the United States would do in this day and age.

Good grief.
My best to our Aussie friends, who've been allies and friends for a century. I honor our cousins down under, and look forward to a bright future for all the nations blessed with the heritage of English law and liberty.

" I don't think that is what the United States would do in this day and age."

It's what we've already done in this day and age. Nothing has changed.

" I know Peruvians, Ecuadorians, Chileans, some people from various African nations, a Sri Lankan, and a couple of guys from Qatar, and none of them have bad opinions about America."

Which is why they're in America, and not at home. Seriously you're going with the "I have friends who like America" routine? It's not even about liking America, it's about your fantasy of what American foreign policy conduct is. I doubt any Ecuadorian who is remotely honest & not a comprador would say that America has been on the side of 'the people' and not the juntas and big corporations in Latin America (especially in Ecuador these days). The most recent & flagrant example being Honduras. But Venezuela would have been another case had the US succeeded in their planned coup earlier.

OK, so you're lauding the US for supporting populist movements based upon the criteria that the populist movement must have 1. Involved a significant percentage leading to an inference of majority support 2. Demonstrations lasting for a significant period of time, and 3. Happened since 1991. any other qualifications you want to add to chelp you cling to the thesis that we don't back ruthless autocrats around the world whom we know absolutely routinely violate human rights in complete contrast to our stated policy of supporting human rights for everyone? I just want to know because I have several examples since 1991 of US backed dictators shooting large numbers of nonviolent protestors.

It is an undisputed fact that the U.S., at least since the beginning of the Cold War, has supported dictators, autocrats, etc and has even helped them into power. The United States government does not support Islamism or populist movements or dictatorships on basis of principle, but merely on what course of action will most greatly benefit U.S. interests i.e. military-industrial conplex and other corporate interests (oil, etc).

Putin=Putain- use translator mate to determine what the latter means

"I just want to know because I have several examples since 1991 of US backed dictators shooting large numbers of nonviolent protestors."

He'll just say they're "popularist" (whatever that means) and don't count. Whereas the CIA/NED funded astroturfed Arab springs were 'genuine' protests. Right? Right.

why don't you learn something about Aussies, Putain... we hate the wars that have NOTHING to do with us- hence why we are leaving sooner than planned. Heard of Vietnam- another war u guys lost- just get the fuck out of the region and control ur own people.
no one needs a world policeman called the US anymore- that's what we have the UN for