Talk:Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad

This article should not be an after-blunder public relation for the Pentagon. "Instances of use of United States Armed Forces Abroad" must tell the reader who, where, when, how, and why but also give an insight as to the net outcome of the operation.

By writing that the United States launched an anti-terrorist strike against such and such country on such and such date, we are implying by lack of additional relevant information that the strike met its objectives (anti-terrorism). If the missile fell on civilians casually going about their business with no terrorists in sight, it no longer is an anti-terrorist operation, the net outcome is the killing of innocent civilians regarless of the original intent, which cannot be verified anyway because it would require believing people who have been shown on the public record to be liars.

--JG Estiot 00:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I respectively disagree. On the wikipage List of U.S. foreign interventions since 1945, ideologues from both sides began to "tell the reader who, where, when, how, and why but also give an insight as to the net outcome of the operation".

I argued on the talk page that:

I think that every entry should be no more than one concise sentence each. Otherwise, it fails to be a list, and become either:

a) Long laundry list of American attrocities added by "anti-Americans"

b) Long Justification of American actions, added by "apologists"

...I simply want the battle between the two of us on this page to go to other pages, not on this one. If we can agree on ground rules/boundries, then we can build this list, and let the battles about the details of the particular incidents go on elsewhere.

For example: did America have a part the overthrow in Chile? We can both agree: yes. Therefore, it should be on the list. How much influence did America have? That can be argued on another wikipage, not here. I think we should simply state the event, and add a wikipage link to a page.

Every list that I have seen on wikipedia, except for this one, is sparce. It lists the events in one sentence. (I can give stark examples of this, if needed.)

I think my same argument at List of U.S. foreign interventions since 1945 applies just as well here. A list, by its nature, is not suppose to be all encompasing and include the "who, where, when, how, and why but also give an insight as to the net outcome of the operation"--a reader can click on a wikilink about the particualar operation if they want to learn all of this. Like I said on Talk:List of U.S. foreign interventions since 1945, lets keep the partisan battles on other pages.

I would consider myself an "anti-american" and my ideological opponents definatly would too. I think that America is an international bully, based on Americas bloody shameful history, I do not doubt that civilians were killed.

JG Estiot, with your contiribution though, I suggest on the deaths of the Pakistanis, to add a wikilink to a detailed article about this incident, then include the DNA evidence there. What would the name of this article be? Maybe I should look for this article later...I would be very interested to read this article.

Again, I have no problem with what you wrote, it should just be sourced and shouldn't belong on any list page, otherwise the entries stop looking like lists.

I hope this helps. Thanks for your comments and efforts. Travb 02:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re Travb 02:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

If this is to be a concise listing, then let's make it consistent. It should not justify the actions of the successive American governments by going as far as quoting the U.S. Presidents. Examples:

"President Bush stated that the Iraqi repression of the Kurdish people had necessitated a limited introduction of US forces into northern Iraq for emergency relief purposes."

"President Clinton reported that on April 9, 1996 due to the "deterioration of the security situation and the resulting threat to American citizens..."

"On October 7, 2001, US Armed Forces "began combat action in Afghanistan against Al Qaida terrorists and their Taliban supporters."

In the case of Afghanistan 2001, you could easily state that they invaded a sovereign country. The excuses given by the Americans to breach sovereign borders are often exercises in Public Relations and have little to do with the truth.

--JG Estiot 23:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This list is copied from an american militay official, so it is very apologist (imperialist). Look at the first edit on this page. I pruned down a lot of the garbage. The day I pruned out the garbage, I deleted so much that someone thought I was vandalizing and reverted my edit and warned me to stop vandalizing.

Go ahead and make those changes, I welcome it. Please make it as neutral as possible to avoid a revert war.

Remember, the overwhelming evidence is on our side. I have found the more neutral a person is, the better chance of getting across the ideological message they are trying to convey.Travb 00:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion on Talk:List of alleged United States foreign interventions since 1945[edit]

Please see the discussion on Talk:List of alleged United States foreign interventions since 1945

Regarding:

....and a possible merge of all four....Travb 07:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]