U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-18-2019, 11:35 PM
 
Location: San Josť, CA
3,265 posts, read 5,788,317 times
Reputation: 3202

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Potential_Landlord View Post
Not sure what you're talking about but the US and Vietnam are close allies now. The Communist Eastern Bloc has collapsed completely. Everything has worked out as planned in the end despite serious setbacks and mistakes on the way. Again: if you have BIG goals you will also encounter BIG setbacks. It is how you deal with the setbacks that will decide if you're going to be successful. The BIG goal of first containing and then destroying the communist eastern bloc without provoking nuclear war was one of the biggest endeavors in human history. It worked out beautifully. Better than any endeavors of equal size in history I would say.
I was referring to groups outside of Vietnam.

I'm genuinely curious about your feelings on the U.S.'s armament and financial backing of rebel groups in Afghanistan and Pakistan during the Cold War. Surely you wouldn't believe that this strategy worked out beautifully, but how would you justify it in Cold War terms knowing what we know about the evolution of some of those rebel groups and the subsequent wars that are still taking place because of them?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-19-2019, 05:48 AM
 
12,300 posts, read 18,421,290 times
Reputation: 19200
Quote:
Originally Posted by llowllevellowll View Post
I was referring to groups outside of Vietnam.

I'm genuinely curious about your feelings on the U.S.'s armament and financial backing of rebel groups in Afghanistan and Pakistan during the Cold War. Surely you wouldn't believe that this strategy worked out beautifully, but how would you justify it in Cold War terms knowing what we know about the evolution of some of those rebel groups and the subsequent wars that are still taking place because of them?
I had a long thread about that in the past. That argument has a bit of truth to it, but most of it is overstated. The rebels we backed in Afghanistan during the cold war are not necessarily the same bad guys we faced a decade or two later. Most of the bad guys are not Afghani, but foreigners that came in near the end or after the Soviet's left and took over in the power vacuum. I have to dig out that thread.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2019, 06:05 AM
 
710 posts, read 156,493 times
Reputation: 2482
It should be noted that military intervention always has knock-on effects, much like every medicine has one sort of side-effect or another. It's not a question of no side effects (be it medicine or military) or even no severe side-effects. Radiation therapy has some nasty side-effects. The side-effects of amputation are rather obvious. Yet accepting those side-effects - and the risk of even worse ones - is often calculated to be a better course of action than not pursuing those treatments. So it also is with military action.

World War II is a classic example. For all the suffering of the people of the USSR, the war was a boon to international communism. As a result of repulsing the German invasion, eastern Europe fell into the clutches of Stalin (and his successors), the USSR gained serious influence in the East, and was far better armed both militarily and politically in 1945 as a result of the war. That was a very significant and dangerous side-effect. Yet it was deemed (correctly) that using the USSR as a ward against the even more malignant (and impossible to control/deter) Nazi Germany was the better option.

This is not to say that some military actions are not unwise or even disastrous. But merely because some downsides occurred as the result of a war - maybe even very deleterious downsides - it does not necessarily follow that that war was a mistake.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2019, 10:29 AM
 
12,300 posts, read 18,421,290 times
Reputation: 19200
Let's also not forget the bottom line:
The last 50 years of world history has been the most peaceful in man's existence. There is an argument to be made that this has been accomplished on the US's watch.
If we get credit for all the bad that occurs in the world, we should get credit for the good.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2019, 01:30 PM
 
Location: Montgomery County, PA
14,671 posts, read 9,728,745 times
Reputation: 12236
Quote:
Originally Posted by llowllevellowll View Post
I was referring to groups outside of Vietnam.

I'm genuinely curious about your feelings on the U.S.'s armament and financial backing of rebel groups in Afghanistan and Pakistan during the Cold War. Surely you wouldn't believe that this strategy worked out beautifully, but how would you justify it in Cold War terms knowing what we know about the evolution of some of those rebel groups and the subsequent wars that are still taking place because of them?
The Taliban who fought the Russians are not the same folks who twenty years later flew planes into buildings. The two operations are distinct, unrelated and requiring skills and mindsets that have nothing to do with each other. It's true that the US did not bank the victory and left. Nothing was gained. It's debatable what would have happened if we did nothing. Afghanistan might have become another Soviet state but so what. How could it end up any worse? Bin Laden may have never flourished in a Soviet-dominated Afghanistan.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2019, 01:37 PM
 
Location: Round Rock, Texas
8,385 posts, read 8,381,230 times
Reputation: 6988
Quote:
Originally Posted by llowllevellowll View Post
We would certainly have far more respect around the world today. Our top military stock investors wouldn't have amassed nearly the amount of generational wealth that they have thus far, but domestically, we would likely have a greater budget for necessary social items such as: medicare, social security, and probably at this point, a single-payer medical plan for the lower and middle classes.

What's great about non-interventionist policies is that they don't force you into unnecessary wars later. By not removing Mossadegh from power in 1953, we are less likely to be conjuring up ideas of war against Iran today.

Without arming Saddam and Iran in the 1980s, we are less likely to have needed to remove Saddam from power, or again, to be conjuring up ideas of war against Iran today.

This is to say nothing of the humanity lost. ie. had we never removed Allende from power, we would have never left Pinochet to destroy the livelihoods of innocents in Chile.

If not for the failed Bay of Pigs invasion, there may be no embargo upon Cuba.

If not for a gross misunderstanding of Vietnam, more bombs than we dropped during WWII wouldn't have fell on Laos.

If not for Operation Cyclone, we may have never needed to conjure up wars against the Taliban in Afghanistan. Or, in conjunction with our continuous meddling and support of Israel's enslavement of the Palestinians, it's also possible that we would instead remember September 11th as the day Ford introduced the Pinto.

I think it's incalculable the damage that U.S. modern imperialism has had on our modern globe, but without us, I'm sure that vacuum of power would also be filled with a few lesser evils, so I'm not entirely sure just how much nicer global politics would look today, but I'd have a hard-time believing it would be worse.
That the US “armed Saddam” is a false narrative and oft repeated on similar forums. He got most of his weaponry from the Soviets & the French, along with Germany & China.
But I assume you really believe the world would be better off dominated by the USSR.

The biggest mistake was when Eisenhower screwed up and enforced the separation of Vietnam and made an enemy of Ho Chi Minh. Instead, we should have made an ally of him. US foreign policy since WWII has been like a bull in a china shop.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2019, 01:53 PM
 
Location: Howard County, Maryland
5,677 posts, read 3,653,594 times
Reputation: 16623
All one needs to do is compare modern-day South Korea -- a thriving, prosperous capitalistic democracy -- with the totalitarian, starvation-ridden gulag that is North Korea, to show that the Korean War was a tremendous blessing for South Korea. And as another poster mentioned, if we had stopped our northern advance at Pyongyang (or, probably better, enough north of it to create a buffer zone), China probably wouldn't have gotten involved, and we could have ended it in a much better position than we did.

But at least we tried. If the United States had sat that one out, my guess is that Korea (no "North" or "South") would be a totalitarian, starvation-ridden gulag. And no one would be reading this on a Samsung product, or driving a Hyundai, or doing their laundry in an LG machine, etc. etc. etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2019, 03:07 PM
 
Location: San Josť, CA
3,265 posts, read 5,788,317 times
Reputation: 3202
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScoPro View Post
That the US “armed Saddam” is a false narrative and oft repeated on similar forums. He got most of his weaponry from the Soviets & the French, along with Germany & China.
But I assume you really believe the world would be better off dominated by the USSR.

The biggest mistake was when Eisenhower screwed up and enforced the separation of Vietnam and made an enemy of Ho Chi Minh. Instead, we should have made an ally of him. US foreign policy since WWII has been like a bull in a china shop.
Your first paragraph is either you having no clue what you're talking about or you're simply lying as a means of revisionism. And this "narrative" certainly doesn't start and end on internet forums. https://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/26/w...inst-iran.html Here's an old read. Basically, the U.S. supplied and funded the Iraqi side while at the same time arming Iran. I assumed this was rather common knowledge at this point, but apparently not. It also doesn't go into detail, but let's not forget that it was the coup just after Eisenhower left office that put the Ba'athists in power in the first place, to say nothing of the few thousand or so populists we ordered to be assassinated.

I don't disagree with your second paragraph. Even before Eisenhower, Wilson entirely dismissed Ho Chi Minh, but of all the things Eisenhower screwed the pooch on, I'd probably list the coup of Mossadegh as most detrimental if we're referring to its affect on modern politics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714 View Post
I had a long thread about that in the past. That argument has a bit of truth to it, but most of it is overstated. The rebels we backed in Afghanistan during the cold war are not necessarily the same bad guys we faced a decade or two later. Most of the bad guys are not Afghani, but foreigners that came in near the end or after the Soviet's left and took over in the power vacuum. I have to dig out that thread.
These are solid thoughts, and I think I can agree this one is a bit murkier and probably overstated. What is difficult to quantify, though, is how much of it fell into the wrong hands once the Soviets left. Let's not forget just how much we're talking about. The CIA funneled more than 40 F-16s, anti-aircraft missiles, and more than $20 billion to anyone willing to take up arms.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2019, 04:03 PM
 
Location: Round Rock, Texas
8,385 posts, read 8,381,230 times
Reputation: 6988
Seems you are throwing the "liar" term around rather loosely, as the bulk of Saddam's military machine was acquired prior to his war with Iran, and what little assistance the US provided early on in that conflict hardly made a difference (dual use helicopters) . Note that once he used the WMDs, the US began to withdraw any support. And the vague "article" by the antiwar NYT seems to have forgotten reality, as Saddam had been a close ally of the USSR after he rose to power.

Here are the specific types of weapons the Iraqi Army had at the beginning of the war with Iran:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...n_battle_tanks

Saddam's Air Force was hardly a US supplied outfit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Air_Force
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2019, 04:27 PM
 
Location: San Josť, CA
3,265 posts, read 5,788,317 times
Reputation: 3202
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScoPro View Post
Seems you are throwing the "liar" term around rather loosely, as the bulk of Saddam's military machine was acquired prior to his war with Iran, and what little assistance the US provided early on in that conflict hardly made a difference (dual use helicopters) . Note that once he used the WMDs, the US began to withdraw any support. And the vague "article" by the antiwar NYT seems to have forgotten reality, as Saddam had been a close ally of the USSR after he rose to power.

Here are the specific types of weapons the Iraqi Army had at the beginning of the war with Iran:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...n_battle_tanks

Saddam's Air Force was hardly a US supplied outfit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Air_Force
I didn't necessarily call you a liar. I said you were either lying OR you were misinformed. I'm not sure which of the two it is, but it was certainly one of them.

So, your previous post went from this is a "false narrative" to okay, okay, the U.S. did support Saddam, but it was "what little support he received" and a side note that you don't like the New York Times (but somehow believe that Wikipedia is a more worth-while source). How many other sources would you like? I'll gladly send more if you're honestly interested in learning about it.

Additionally, you skirted over the fact that the U.S. put the Ba'athists in power.

It gets better. It's not like the U.S. regretted their decision to support Saddam in an effort to weaken Iran in the region because even later in the war, the U.S. supplied Saddam with locations of Iranian outposts because they knew as early as 1983 (declassified CIA documents) that Saddam was planning to use mustard gas to assist them on the front lines.

If you'd like, we could also talk about the Iraqi Kurdistan push for independence and how disingenuous it is for us to act shocked that the very same tactics were used by Saddam to gas the Kurds. This, of course, was one of the rich excuses that the Bush administration used when it "liberated" Iraq from its evil dictator. Admit it, that's pretty rich, right?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:44 AM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top