Sick of it

[GQBlues]

I agree to a point, but I also think you need to give me more credit than that.      I voted for Obama, not because of what the media told me, but because I studied his platform and beliefs and decided he best represented what I wanted in a president.  That, and he wasn't a Republican.      But you're very right in that we have our own sheep.  Back in 2003, the vast majority of the U.S. had bought the administration's line that Iraq was somehow directly involved in 9-11.  And then you have something like 40% of Americans who think 9-11 was somehow an inside job to give Bush an excuse to go to war with Islam.  There are very few people who despised Bush as much as I did, but come on.  That's simply lunacy and it's downright embarrassing as an American.

Roykirk-

That's a new one with me (Saddam being implicated by Bush as having to do with 911). What I remember was he stated a report that a terrorist cell exist in Iraq. Whether you believe it or not, or whether it's true or not is left for debate. These were media-induced flashpoints. Just as those silly coffins coming in from the Iraq/Afghanistan wars. The media succeeded in guiding your belief into what they wanted you to believe...just as you insinuate your baba going through with *her media*.

What did you harvest from your dislike of Bush? You helped elect a president who caused MORE deaths in Afghanistan, including drone bombings in Pakistan. You helped elected a president whose leadership caused far more US deaths in those wars, yet the media stopped those coffin coverage like they did prior to the '08 election.

Gitmo, Big Brother, IRS, Berdahl, Syria, Benghazi, TARP, deficits, the-almost 1 trillion spending Stimulus*, etc...how are those coming along? I could go on and show how you much of a media sheep you were but I don't think it's necessary.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/nbc-wsj-poll-obamas-foreign-policy-rating-plummets-even-without-n133461



*"The federal government changed the name of the U.S. food stamp program to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in 2008. According to the Wall Street Journal, Walmart is the retail chain that receives the single greatest economic benefit from SNAP. Americans participating in SNAP spend around 18 percent of their monthly food allowance at Walmart. In fiscal year 2012, this amounted to 14 billion dollars in SNAP benefits spent at Walmart stores.*

18% of the SNAP provisions represents 14 billion dollars?!? We spend nearly 80 billion/year on the SNAP programs per year?!? That's just for food stamps...

[Shadow]

1. A wide row of people from a low angle gives the impression of a mass demonstration. In reality there seem to be no more than 3 rows of people, making it about 150.
2. The red/black nazist flags are kept out of the shot, the blue-yellow is made prominent.

A year ago, only 13% of Ukrainians supported NATO membership.  Now it is 47%.  It's going to happen.  Even with the feckless Obama in charge.  The anti-Americans can't stop this train.

So after taking away the Crimea and the Southeast there is still no majority for a NATO membership?   

[lordtiberius]

1. A wide row of people from a low angle gives the impression of a mass demonstration. In reality there seem to be no more than 3 rows of people, making it about 150.
2. The red/black nazist flags are kept out of the shot, the blue-yellow is made prominent.

so what?  The idea that you are pro-Nazi because one despises what Putin is doing is silly.  The fact there is so much Pravvy Sektor merchandise for sale, is that a CIA plot too?

So after taking away the Crimea and the Southeast there is still no majority for a NATO membership?   

suit yourself

[fathertime]

.  Would the world have been more stable if Saddam Hussein had been left in power?  Based on my time in Vietnam in the 1960s and a few years ago, the good guys won that conflict.

Hi Gator,


I don't see what you are saying here.  It would appear to me that the world would have been more stable had Saddam remained in power, but we can't say for sure.


 From what I've read, we (the USA) spent around 1.7 trillion on Iraq...I believe that was mostly wasted money.  Had we spent 1.7 trillion here at home, my god our country's infrastructure and education could be so much better...not to mention our border could have been closed to illegals, and we could have been even more of a magnet for the world's best and brightest. I imagine there are some hidden benefits to creating these wars but I'm no longer for US intervention without a genuine significant vital US interest.


Fathertime!   

[Shadow]

so what?  The idea that you are pro-Nazi because one despises what Putin is doing is silly.  The fact there is so much Pravvy Sektor merchandise for sale, is that a CIA plot too?

Indeed. That you are nazi because of despising Putin is silly. The fact that Pravi Sektor are fascists is not.

[roykirk]

Roykirk-

That's a new one with me (Saddam being implicated by Bush as having to do with 911). What I remember was he stated a report that a terrorist cell exist in Iraq. Whether you believe it or not, or whether it's true or not is left for debate. These were media-induced flashpoints. Just as those silly coffins coming in from the Iraq/Afghanistan wars. The media succeeded in guiding your belief into what they wanted you to believe...just as you insinuate your baba going through with *her media*.

What did you harvest from your dislike of Bush? You helped elect a president who caused MORE deaths in Afghanistan, including drone bombings in Pakistan. You helped elected a president whose leadership caused far more US deaths in those wars, yet the media stopped those coffin coverage like they did prior to the '08 election.

Gitmo, Big Brother, IRS, Berdahl, Syria, Benghazi, TARP, deficits, the-almost 1 trillion spending Stimulus*, etc...how are those coming along? I could go on and show how you much of a media sheep you were but I don't think it's necessary.

Gitmo, Big Brother, and many others, were products of the Bush administration.  With that being said, that's precisely why I also consider Obama's tenure to have been a failure.  He had the opportunity to right many of these wrongs, but he basically capitulated to advisers, military leaders, and politics.  As someone said earlier, it's amazing to me that Fox News and the Republicans hate Obama so much, when he's in fact continued most of the Bush Doctrine.  And don't get me started on Syria and Libya because Obama was screwed no matter what he did.  Most Americans like me didn't want him to touch those places with a 10 foot pole, but he was pressured by the war hawks that America HAD to do something.  And once he did do something, he was criticized endlessly by the same hawks who told him to get involved.  I'm an isolationist at heart.  Leave these other countries to fend for themselves until we get our own house in order. 

[GQBlues]

Gitmo, Big Brother, and many others, were products of the Bush administration.  With that being said, that's precisely why I also consider Obama's tenure to have been a failure.  He had the opportunity to right many of these wrongs, but he basically capitulated to advisers, military leaders, and politics.  As someone said earlier, it's amazing to me that Fox News and the Republicans hate Obama so much, when he's in fact continued most of the Bush Doctrine.  And don't get me started on Syria and Libya because Obama was screwed no matter what he did.  Most Americans like me didn't want him to touch those places with a 10 foot pole, but he was pressured by the war hawks that America HAD to do something.  And once he did do something, he was criticized endlessly by the same hawks who told him to get involved.  I'm an isolationist at heart.  Leave these other countries to fend for themselves until we get our own house in order.

Then you're misguided since you targeted your dislike to Bush instead of the song you seem to singing now when the ball rolled unto Obama's court. You're an isolationist at heart waiting for the next CNN/MSNBC telecast?

Obama didn't have clue when he campaigned for presidency. Yet you voted for him. Today, he's still clueless...

Do you even know the latest report on Obamacare, which has nothing to do with the military complex, is that 76% of the premium of this silly *law* is now slated to be paid by the government (translation: US taxpayers)?

[lordtiberius]

Indeed. That you are nazi because of despising Putin is silly. The fact that Pravi Sektor are fascists is not.

What do you have against Ukrainian Nationalism?  Is it illegal to be Ukrainian?

[lordtiberius]

I don't see what you are saying here. 

say it isn't so

It would appear to me that the world would have been more stable had Saddam remained in power,

3 million dead under sanctions


Halabjah


Such a good neighbor

but we can't say for sure.

From what I've read, we (the USA) spent around 1.7 trillion on Iraq...I believe that was mostly wasted money.  Had we spent 1.7 trillion here at home, my god our country's infrastructure and education could be so much better...

  I imagine there are some hidden benefits to creating these wars but I'm no longer for US intervention without a genuine significant vital US interest.

Oh these people who have never been to Iraq or war are their greatest critics . . .

[CanadaMan]

I feel a little guilty making a political comment in a thread that was intended to end political comments on Russia.
I won't be talking about Russia though. 

About the US, we too have overstepped our boundaries yet out intent in the past 150 years has never been acquisitive.  Our intent has been more noble albeit misguided such as build the first democracy in an Arab country.  Would the world have been more stable if Saddam Hussein had been left in power?  Based on my time in Vietnam in the 1960s and a few years ago, the good guys won that conflict.

The U.S. has never been acquisitive?  WTF???
Noble intent? WTF???

Yes the world would have been more stable if Saddam Hussein (the same man the U.S. had previously supported) had been left in power.

What does Vietnam have to do with the Middle East?

Do you think the U.S would have attacked Iraq if it didn't have huge oil deposits?

[GQBlues]

...Do you think the U.S would have attacked Iraq if it didn't have huge oil deposits?

The US would not have attacked Iraq had the UN, France, Russia, and despite Germany not being in the SC, Germany kept their hands clean and upheld resolution 687 and held Iraq liable for violations of the conditions of cease fire.

The inspectors would've gone back *unrestricted* to Iraq and confirmed their inspections. But since those silly entities had their hands on Iraq's oil - ILLEGALLY - they sold us out!

I'm not sure why this ignorance prevails. We weren't even BUYING Iraq's oil to justify an invasion, we were buying mostly your country's oil at the time.

[Shadow]

What do you have against Ukrainian Nationalism?  Is it illegal to be Ukrainian?

It is not even illegal to be a fascist. Or a Christian.

[fathertime]

Oh these people who have never been to Iraq or war are their greatest critics . . .

You have no more ‘authority’ than anybody else, in your case perhaps less…you have behaved dishonorably and have proven to be a rather poor example of America…you are welcome to have a sip of your favorite coffee….and you can count on us ‘critics’ of American foreign policy to remain present…whether you like it or not!


Fathertime! 

[lordtiberius]

You have no more ‘authority’ than anybody else, in your case perhaps less…you have behaved dishonorably and have proven to be a rather poor example of America…you are welcome to have a sip of your favorite coffee….and you can count on us ‘critics’ of American foreign policy to remain present…whether you like it or not!

Have it your way . . . .

[Gator]

Hi Gator,


I don't see what you are saying here.  It would appear to me that the world would have been more stable had Saddam remained in power, but we can't say for sure.

Maybe I was too abstract. 

I disagree with you about Putin.  I contend Putin would have been aggressive even if the US had been passive over the past 20 years.   Keep in mind that we have been passive towards Putin.   After Putin invaded Georgian territory, we did nothing to dissuade him from repeating such aggression.  No diplomatic pressure.  In fact we did the opposite - we hit the Russian reset button as if nothing was wrong.  Putin is a bad apple. 

I am not saying we should have used military force regarding Georgia or Ukraine.  To the contrary I cite Iraq and Vietnam as examples of where our intervention cost 60,000 American lives (and more than a million Iraqi and Vietnamese lives) and a huge amount of money only to have failed in our misguided missions. 

The communists prevailed in Vietnam and based on my personal observations the average Vietnamese citizen is better off today than if we had succeeded in preventing the reunification of the country. 

And look at Iraq.  The WMD were not there, yet that was not the reason we invaded.  The higher goals were to 1) create a democracy in an Arab nation and 2) establish a permanent American military base in the Middle East knowing there would be many conflicts in the future.  Noble yet stupid!   Saddam Hussein today would have been a good buffer against Iran (another country where I worked and know fairly well) and against ISIS.  Yes, Saddam would have tortured and murdered many Kurds and Shia but net-net there may have been more Iraqis alive today if we stayed home.

From what I've read, we (the USA) spent around 1.7 trillion on Iraq...I believe that was mostly wasted money.  Had we spent 1.7 trillion here at home, my god our country's infrastructure and education could be so much better...not to mention our border could have been closed to illegals, and we could have been even more of a magnet for the world's best and brightest. I imagine there are some hidden benefits to creating these wars but I'm no longer for US intervention without a genuine significant vital US interest.

That's a lot of money with hardly anything to show for it.  In Vietnam and Iraq, our military did the heavy lifting.  And soon after we pulled out the national forces collapsed.     Hopefully we have learned our lesson and will not repeat our intervention mistake a third time.

[lordtiberius]

We lost Iraq and Vietnam because the people of this country do not have the political will to win anymore.

[Gator]

The U.S. has never been acquisitive?  WTF???

I wrote "Not in the past 150 years."    Actually longer.  I agree that we stole much territory from Mexico, yet I believe that was the last time we planted our flag.  There was the Spanish-American War but Spain declared war first.  We gave the Philippines its independence.  While we kept Puerto Rico  and Guam, we have Muzh to and the Molina brothers to show for it. 

Noble intent? WTF???

Yes debatable, but can you please be more scholarly than "WTF."

Yes the world would have been more stable if Saddam Hussein (the same man the U.S. had previously supported in his conflict with Iran) had been left in power.

What does Vietnam have to do with the Middle East?

Odd........I am bashing America and you question it.  ....sheesh.  To answer your question, it has the same relevance as the Middle East has to do with Russia.  BTW, we encountered Russians in fighting Vietnam and none when fighting Iraq.   

Do you think the U.S would have attacked Iraq if it didn't have huge oil deposits?

That was far more of a reason for invading  Iraq in 1991 after it invaded Kuwait.  The whole world was with us so it had to be about oil.  Oil was less of a reason for the second and complete invasion in 2003.

[Shadow]

Maybe I was too abstract. 

I disagree with you about Putin.  I contend Putin would have been aggressive even if the US had been passive over the past 20 years.   Keep in mind that we have been passive towards Putin.   After Putin invaded Georgian territory, we did nothing to dissuade him from repeating such aggression.  No diplomatic pressure.  In fact we did the opposite - we hit the Russian reset button as if nothing was wrong.  Putin is a bad apple. 

I am not saying we should have used military force regarding Georgia or Ukraine.  To the contrary I cite Iraq and Vietnam as examples of where our intervention cost 60,000 American lives (and more than a million Iraqi and Vietnamese lives) and a huge amount of money only to have failed in our misguided missions. 

The communists prevailed in Vietnam and based on my personal observations the average Vietnamese citizen is better off today than if we had succeeded in preventing the reunification of the country. 

And look at Iraq.  The WMD were not there, yet that was not the reason we invaded.  The higher goals were to 1) create a democracy in an Arab nation and 2) establish a permanent American military base in the Middle East knowing there would be many conflicts in the future.  Noble yet stupid!   Saddam Hussein today would have been a good buffer against Iran (another country where I worked and know fairly well) and against ISIS.  Yes, Saddam would have tortured and murdered many Kurds and Shia but net-net there may have been more Iraqis alive today if we stayed home.


That's a lot of money with hardly anything to show for it.  In Vietnam and Iraq, our military did the heavy lifting.  And soon after we pulled out the national forces collapsed.     Hopefully we have learned our lesson and will not repeat our intervention mistake a third time.

Putin never invaded Georgian territory. On the other hand Medvedev gave the order to stop Georgian troops overrunning Russian peace forces in South Ossetia.

[Wayne]

The history of the Ukrainian Bandurist Chorus can be traced directly to the 12th Archeological Congress in Kharkiv, Ukraine, in 1902. Hnat Khotkevych, a prominent writer, ethnographer, and composer, first presented the question of forming a professional orchestra of bandurists here.  He provided stimulus for a renewed interest and remarkable growth in the bandura’s popularity at the beginning of the 20th century, and amateur bandura ensembles rapidly formed throughout the country.
The first professional bandurist chorus was formed in Kyiv in 1918 during the height of the country’s brief period of independence.  Under the direction of bandura virtuoso Vasyl Yemetz, the first chorus initially had 15 members.  Another such chorus, in Poltava, Ukraine, was formed in 1925 under the direction of Volodymyr Kabachok.
The mid-1920s were marked by a period of resurgence of Ukrainian arts and culture, and the Chorus developed into a professional touring troupe.  As the Chorus membership, expertise, and repertoire were continually refined and enhanced, the bandura was transformed from a folk to a classical concert form.
     The Chorus’ history rapidly evolved into a turbulent one.  The ideals of the bandurist - God, truth, freedom, and human dignity heralded through song - were a threat to the then-newly formed Soviet Union.  Under Joseph Stalin’s rule, artists and intellectuals were arrested, exiled or executed in an attempt to eradicate every remnant of Ukrainian culture.
Hnat Khotkevych was executed in 1938 in Kharkiv and his compositions were banned throughout the Soviet Union. Many conductors, chorus members, and blind bandurists-minstrels were also accused of enticing the populace to nationalism and were executed. In 1935 the remaining members were forced to reorganize into the State Bandurist Chorus of the Ukrainian SSR.
In the years that followed the Chorus was exploited and persecuted by both the Soviets and the Nazis. It was not until 1949 that through the assistance of allied forces many of the Chorus’ members emigrated from refugee camps to the United States where many established a home base in Detroit, Michigan.
Freedom was a great blessing but not without its difficulties. Most of the members, in order to support their families, had to learn new skills that were often unrelated to their musical ability and experience.  Approximately 90 percent joined Detroit’s automotive industry labor force.  This, however, did not prevent the bandurists from launching a series of concerts in their newly adopted homeland. The Ukrainian Bandurist Chorus was reborn.
Notwithstanding these difficulties in a new land, the Ukrainian Bandurist Chorus took part in concert tours throughout North America.  In 1958 the Chorus embarked on a triumphant concert tour throughout Western Europe.  The ensemble performed in England, France, Germany, Switzerland, Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands, all while garnering critical acclaim in leading newspapers.  Upon its return, the Chorus continued its mission of sharing the beauty of the bandura with North American audiences. 
During the 1960's and 1970's, the ensemble released many more recordings, continued giving concerts, and toured Australia in 1980.  The late 1970's and 1980's also saw the educational involvement of the Chorus grow as it began sponsoring bandura seminars and summer music camps. 
Hryhory Kytasty, (1907-1984), long-standing conductor of the Chorus was a driving force in re-instilling Ukrainian choral and bandura art in North America. Considered a legend in his own time, this composer, conductor, performer, and teacher was a role model and inspiration to young bandurists.  He continued the legacy of the bandurist (also known as a kobzar) and furthered the art of the bandura in the free world.
Today, the majority of Chorus members are 2nd and 3rd generation Americans and Canadians. Fortified by a whole new generation of young musicians, the Chorus has captivated audiences in major concert halls in the United States, Canada, Europe, Australia, and Ukraine for more than 50 years. The Chorus has performed for such noted personalities as former President Richard Nixon, former President Ronald Reagan, movie star Jack Palance, and former President of Ukraine Leonid Kravchuk.
In June 1991, under the directorship of Wolodymyr Kolesnyk, the Chorus completed a historically triumphant 14-city tour throughout major cities of Ukraine. The performances, which encompassed traditional ballads and instrumentals, were received with great enthusiasm and rave reviews, especially in areas of Ukraine where national consciousness had been most dormant.
As a tribute to its role in preserving and perpetuating the legacy of Ukrainian music, the Chorus was selected by Ukraine’s Council of Ministers as the recipient of the Taras Shevchenko Ukrainian State Prize, the highest award that can be bestowed for excellence in the contribution to the arts.  The Chorus returned to Ukraine again in 1994, touring the russified regions of southern Ukraine and Crimea.
Under Artistic Director and Conductor Oleh Mahlay, the UBC celebrated its 50th Anniversary in North America in 1999. In the spring of 2001, the UBC presented a series of Sacred Music Concerts to various communities in North America. Returning to Ukraine for a third visit in August of 2001, the Chorus had the distinct honor of representing the United States in Kyiv during Ukraine's 10th Anniversary of Independence Celebration.  Performances were presented in various venues around Kyiv, including the Concert Palace of Ukraine and the U.S. Ambassadors residence.
After a 45 year hiatus, the UBC returned to Western Europe in 2003 with a series of concerts in England, France, Germany, and Austria.  One of the many highlights of the tour was a Recital in the famed Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris.  In 2004, the UBC participated in the Stratford Summer Music Festival, shared the stage with Paul Plishka of the Metropolitan Opera in the production of Bandura Christmas International, and toured Western Canada in November of 2005. The UBC brought the “Bandura – The Soul of Ukraine” tour to the eastern United States and Canada in October of 2007. The 10 day, nine city tour included performances at the Max M. Fisher Music Center in Detroit and Baldwin Wallace-College in Berea, Ohio. 
From 2008 - 2009, the UBC worked under the directorship of Adrian Bryttan. Over the course of his term as Artistic Director and Conductor, Mr. Bryttan introduced innovative compositions to the extensive repertoire of the Ukrainian Bandurist Chorus.
In 2010, Maestro Bohdan Heryavenko was elected the Artistic Director and Conductor of the Ukrainian Bandurist Chorus. In his two years with the UBC, Maestro Heryavenko led the ensemble in a return performance at the internationally-renowned Stratford Summer Music Festival; conducted the very successful Western Canadian Concert Series of 2011; directed the UBC for the 50th Anniversary Concert of St. Nicholas Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy in Chicago attended by his Beatitude Sviatoslav; and conducted the benefit concert for the Ukrainian Language Studies Program at the University of Pittsburgh in October of 2011.
On August 1, 2012, Oleh Mahlay returned to the Ukrainain Bandurist Chorus as Artistic Director and Conductor.

The current Ukrainian Bandurist Chorus

February 26, 2013    

[Gator]

We lost Iraq and Vietnam because the people of this country do not have the political will to win anymore.

Or did we come to our senses?!  To Obama's defense, Maliki did not want a permanent  American base in Iraq.  I still contend that we should have set up three separate states in Iraq. 


We could have bombed North Vietnam into the Stone Age as we did in Germany and Japan  if that is what you mean by political will to win.  Do you believe that was warranted? 

[Gator]

Putin never invaded Georgian territory. On the other hand Medvedev gave the order to stop Georgian troops overrunning Russian peace forces in South Ossetia.

A short statement.  To keep it shorter, you are wrong.   

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_war


I understand your point about Putin.  However, I contend that even when Medvedev was President, Putin was pulling Medvedev's puppet strings. 

[Shadow]

A short statement.  To keep it shorter, you are wrong.   

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_war

I do not consider revisionist wiki articles a trustworthy source. You are wrong.

[lordtiberius]

Or did we come to our senses?!  To Obama's defense, Maliki did not want a permanent  American base in Iraq.  I still contend that we should have set up three separate states in Iraq. 


We could have bombed North Vietnam into the Stone Age as we did in Germany and Japan  if that is what you mean by political will to win.  Do you believe that was warranted?

These are threads that are rich in speculation, only tangentially connected to the issue at hand and let's face it, ancient history.  The fact is the world knows we are unreliable and incompetent which is almost as bad being powerless.  Even if there was a will to intervene anywhere - we don't have a commander in chief.  All we have is prayers . . .

[Gator]

I do not consider revisionist wiki articles a trustworthy source. You are wrong.

I first said "you are wrong."       You seem to have the same opinion as Russians, so you should read Wiki and other sources rather than listen to your wife. 

Please correct the facts as I recognize them.  I consider them very relevant and similar to the conflict in Ukraine:

1.  South Ossetia, part of Georgia's sovereign territory, has long been in conflict with Georgia and as early as 1990 had announced it wanted to secede from Georgia.  Georgia did not agree to the secession.

2.  Tensions escalated in the 1990s and a joint peacekeeping force of Georgian and Russian troops was stationed in South Ossetia.  Part of South Ossetia was controlled by "Ossetian militia," similar to the pro-Russian separatists and "little green men"  in today's eastern Ukraine.

3.  In January 2008 Mikheil Saakashvili  was re-elected President of Georgia on a pro-Western platform such as joining NATO and maintaining territory integrity (sound familiar to Ukraine?).

4.  Tensions continued to mount and on 1 August 2008 the Ossetian militia shelled Georgian villages with artillery.

5.  On the evening of 7 August 2008 Georgia responded by attacking in large force the Ossetia militia and the Russian peace keeping forces embedded with them (your point).  Later Georgia testified before the UN Security Council that it responded also because Russia had sent tanks into Georgia on 7 August 2008.

6.  Within a few hours Russia hit South Ossteia with an even larger counterattack (obviously Russia was ready to attack).  Russia quickly routed the Georgia forces and continued its attack into Georgia, occupying four Georgia cities, defeating the Georgian Navy, and downing Georgian planes.   

7.  A diplomatic intervention led by France created a ceasefire on 12 August (hence, the term "four day war"). 

8.   On 8 August 2008, South Ossetia was part of the sovereign territory of Georgia.  After the war South Ossetia declared its independence from Georgia.  Only a few countries recognize it today as not part of Georgia.

[CanadaMan]

I agree with most of your points in post #139, except for the reasons the U.S invaded Iraq in 2003.
A "higher goal" was not to create a democracy there. I'd be curious to see any official statement of that being the case.
9/11 enabled/emboldened the U.S to attack Iraq, nothing more, nothing less.

I wrote "Not in the past 150 years."    Actually longer.  I agree that we stole much territory from Mexico, yet I believe that was the last time we planted our flag.  There was the Spanish-American War but Spain declared war first.  We gave the Philippines its independence.  While we kept Puerto Rico  and Guam, we have Muzh to and the Molina brothers to show for it. 

You might think the definition of "acquistive" is gobbling up countries and increasing the size of your empire. I don't. I use the standard dictionary definition  of the word.

So let's see if I got this right; when the U.S. was in Iraq all these years they didn't touch any of the oil reserves there; that would have been downright acquisitive and most certainly not a noble thing to do.

Oil was less of a reason for the second and complete invasion in 2003.

No oil in Iraq, no invasion. Simple.