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 06-19-2019, 04:41 PM
 
267 posts, read 110,908 times
Reputation: 410

Advertisements

Grenada would have taken over the world
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-19-2019, 08:56 PM
 
5,097 posts, read 2,482,126 times
Reputation: 4657
What if the US had avoided all post WW2 wars?

That would be different from reality. What if none of the wars that are mentioned here happened? Subtracting USA involvement, the wars would still happen. In many cases, many wars started independent of the USA, and intervention failed to stop or quickly resolve the wars.

If the USA had never interfered with the politics of another country, then all of those wars would have been avoided. Funny thing about politics - Conservative government means war (e.g.: Trump v Korea, Bush v Iraq), Liberal means hand-outs - and the cycle continues every 2 terms. I hope the next liberal is not as extreme as Trump.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2019, 12:22 PM
DKM
 
Location: Thousand Oaks, CA
2,816 posts, read 1,003,285 times
Reputation: 2844
Quote:
Originally Posted by llowllevellowll View Post
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?
I'm guessing you haven't been to Iraq and did not closely know anyone who has. They were armed with billions of dollars of equipment from the Soviet Union and France in the 80's war with Iran, literally bought by the boatload with oil money. You got to be kidding me in this day and age to claim this old Soviet propaganda trick that somehow we armed Iraq. It was USSR equipment that we were destroying there one bomb at a time.

You bet we politically agreed with Iraq fighting our enemy Iran but that doesn't mean we created his massive army which we destroyed twice later.

Have you ever met an Iraqi Kurd or Shia who have seen entire families killed to teach their community to obey Saddam? I have. Tell them they are misinformed and that they should wish for Saddam to come back instead of choosing their own government like now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2019, 03:55 PM
 
Location: San Josť, CA
3,264 posts, read 5,781,014 times
Reputation: 3176
Quote:
Originally Posted by DKM View Post
I'm guessing you haven't been to Iraq and did not closely know anyone who has. They were armed with billions of dollars of equipment from the Soviet Union and France in the 80's war with Iran, literally bought by the boatload with oil money. You got to be kidding me in this day and age to claim this old Soviet propaganda trick that somehow we armed Iraq. It was USSR equipment that we were destroying there one bomb at a time.

You bet we politically agreed with Iraq fighting our enemy Iran but that doesn't mean we created his massive army which we destroyed twice later.

Have you ever met an Iraqi Kurd or Shia who have seen entire families killed to teach their community to obey Saddam? I have. Tell them they are misinformed and that they should wish for Saddam to come back instead of choosing their own government like now.
Earth to DKM.

Without the U.S. meddling in those affairs and without the CIA's Ba'athist backed coup in 63, Saddam probably would have never been in power in the first place.

My response to you was that you can't say "Saddam would still be killing..." if the U.S. had never meddled into Iraqi affairs in the first place.

So, yes, you are severely misinformed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-21-2019, 11:41 PM
 
Location: Montgomery County, PA
14,639 posts, read 9,697,151 times
Reputation: 12182
Quote:
Originally Posted by bus man View Post
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.
Well, that happened to Vietnam and we still got our iPhones and big screen tvs. Maybe we would end up with the jobs too. Life goes on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2019, 12:13 AM
 
Location: Montgomery County, PA
14,639 posts, read 9,697,151 times
Reputation: 12182
Quote:
Originally Posted by llowllevellowll View Post
Earth to DKM.

Without the U.S. meddling in those affairs and without the CIA's Ba'athist backed coup in 63, Saddam probably would have never been in power in the first place.

My response to you was that you can't say "Saddam would still be killing..." if the U.S. had never meddled into Iraqi affairs in the first place.

So, yes, you are severely misinformed.
You think if Saddam wasn't there John Adams would take its place? Do you know these gentlemen?

King Faisal , Abd al-Ilah of Hejaz, Nuri al-Said, Abd al-Karim Qasim, Abdul Salam Arif. They were all hanged by their successors. I'll spare you the pictures of their mutiliated bodies. This was long before Saddam and long before US had any say in what was happening. Your knee jerk blame America explanations reeks of intellectual laziness.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2019, 12:32 AM
 
Location: San Josť, CA
3,264 posts, read 5,781,014 times
Reputation: 3176
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyRider View Post
You think if Saddam wasn't there John Adams would take its place? Do you know these gentlemen?

King Faisal , Abd al-Ilah of Hejaz, Nuri al-Said, Abd al-Karim Qasim, Abdul Salam Arif. They were all hanged by their successors. I'll spare you the pictures of their mutiliated bodies. This was long before Saddam and long before US had any say in what was happening. Your knee jerk blame America explanations reeks of intellectual laziness.
I'll take that as a compliment compared to the things people are going to think of an OP replying to responders on his own thread with that triggered hyperbole.

The point of your own thread seemed obvious enough to everyone else. These are points in history that were altered, for better or for worse, due to what really amounts to an aggressive approach to foreign policy, hold the laughter. Why ask the question if you don't want to know some of the rather grizzly details? I find it sort of bewildering that someone who would purport to have an interest in history would simply skip over the details of U.S. foreign policy post-WWII and not assess somewhat significant humanitarian blame for some of the decisions it has made particularly over these 70 years. That would appear a bit more intellectually lazy to me.

Last edited by llowllevellowll; 06-22-2019 at 12:50 AM.. Reason: lol I just noticed this was the OP
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.

© 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