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.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 5 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,189 posts, read 13,477,157 times
Reputation: 19519
The History of slavery in the Muslim world dates back thousands of years, and still goes on today in some areas, and Islamic slavery has including the Trans-Saharan slave trade, Indian Ocean slave trade, Barbary slave trade, Slavery in Tunisia, Slavery in Libya, Slavery in Sudan, Slavery in Mauritania, Slavery in Yemen etc.
Whilst the US has a far more recent history of both apartheid and slavery than most western countries.
I suggest you read up on the issue or watch the multitude of on-line videos available on-line.
Americans too had a habit of picking off British soldiers; we consider the American sharpshooters (they were not called snipers at the time) patriots and while I can't find evidence of them shooting British soldiers in the back, they certainly picked them off when they were vulnerable; General Fraser and Sir Frances Clerke (Clarke) General Burgoyne's chief Aide-de-Camp were picked off by a sharpshooter sitting in a tree. British officers were well aware that they were prime targets. (On the other hand, according to legend Captain Patrick Ferguson, a sharpshooter from Scotland, refused to shoot an American officer at Brandywine whose back was turned to him; he later found out that officer was Washington.)
Actually slavery was legal in Britain for a long time. Until the passage of the The Colliers and Salters (Scotland) Act 1775 forced servitude was legal in Scotland. The preamble itself said it "WHEREAS by the Statute Law of Scotland as explained by the Judges of the Courts of Law there, many Colliers, Coal-bearers, and Salters are in a state of slavery or bondage, bound to the Collieries and Salt-works where they work for life, transferable with the Collieries and Salt-works..."
William the Conquerer abolished slavery in some forms, and slavery was not recognized by statute in England and Wales, but it still remained in other forms. A slave could be brought to England; Somerset v Stewart 1772 only determined that a slave brought into Britain could not be forcibly removed, but it did not abolish the person's status as a slave which has been documented by advertisements in British papers until the early 1790's.
Snipers.... the lowest form of life. Surrender was never much off an option for that breed and very few ever reached a POW camp.
Last edited by James Austen; 07-14-2023 at 09:44 AM..
huh.. So.. Just a few points of discussion here.. Maybe some have been brought up before, maybe some you'll call me an idiot over.. I'm not weighing on the possibilities of them, just.. What could have happened.
1 - America returning to a more isolationist mindset. If we weren't going to get involved there. Would we have gotten involved in supplying arms to Afghanistan during the Russian invasion? Beirut? Kuwait?
2 - Would Lyndon Johnson have elected to not run for a second term? (His own second term, technically) in which case, you have an incumbent Johnson vs Nixon (At least I presume) which.. An argument certainly could be made here that Johnson would have won. At least, COULD have won. Which mean, no Nixon presidency.. Which means no Watergate most likely.. But, would there have been something else that.. Perhaps was worse? Without question, it wouldn't have been 301-191 for Nixon I don't think. Does Wallace still run? Probably.
Here, Johnson serves until '72. Who runs in 72? Reagan probably wouldn't be in here, but.. A good chance he runs in '76, either for the Republican nomination or for president. Maybe Nixon comes back to be kicked around a third time? We just push the '68 election to '72?
3 - Obviously.. Assuming that Reagan still winds up president in 1980.. Which may be a stretch (see above) does he still expand the military? Is there Iran Contra? Without Reagan pouring money into defense.. Assuming we do still wind up in Kuwait and then Afghanistan and Iraq.. Do we have the capabilities to defeat the militaries there as we did? Obviously, the guerilla wars that happened after the fall of the governments.. This would have little to no effect on I don't think.
4 - Speaking of the middle east.. Iran. What happens there? Do we perhaps get involved militarily there? I can't see the situation there not still happening with the overthrow of the Shah and the hostages, etc. Though, if we were more isolationist, perhaps..
5 - The money we DIDN'T spend on Vietnam.. What happens to that? Does Johnson push through a Universal Health Care with the excess money as part of the Great Society? I would presume that the original Apollo plan might be followed more.. So, we likely wouldn't be talking about Apollo 17 being the final moon mission. Perhaps the originally planned Apollo 20. Maybe Harrison Schmidt isn't the last person on the moon. This one is probably the most likely of anything I've brought up here. Apollo going further than it did. But, if Apollo goes further, that means, no Skylab. Does that affect ISS? The shuttle program? Again.. NASA is probably where the biggest changes happen.
Others have brought up the counterculture and.. Yes.. That as well is probably one of the bigger things that would not have happened, but, since that's already been brought up..
Here's the one thing that i'm reasonably certain of.. No Gerald Ford or Jimmy Carter presidency. I just really can't see any situation where Ford would have even run(I believe he was quite content in the House), and as for Carter, no situation where he would have won the nomination and the presidency. That was.. A pretty unique confluence of events. Carter, in our timeline, won.. A decently close election. But, no Watergate, no Ford. No Ford, no Carter. Obviously.. Anything is possible, but..
FWIW.. Another thought to bring up here.. Lyndon Johnson died in January of '73. That would have been, if we keep the timelines proper here.. He died on Inauguration day as I recall. So, we might have had a situation where as whoever was the next president was being sworn in, LBJ keels over on live TV. actually, looked it up, he died on January 22nd, 1973. So, two days afterwards. But.. There's a legit possibility if he had won a second term, the stress of the job could have led to an earlier death. That's certainly possible. It's also possible that he may have resigned for health reasons, in theory installing Hubert Humphrey as president for a time, who then runs as an incumbent.
Last edited by Labonte18; 07-14-2023 at 10:40 AM..
As for the original question: It is but an exercise in futile armchair quarterbacking, with the benefits of hindsight viewed through modern day lenses.
Along those lines, one could also ask:
Would there have been any negative consequences for not staying longer in the Korean War to prevent a stalemate and division of the country along the lines of what Vietnam was then: North and South, communist and democratic?
Would there have been any negative consequences for getting involved the 1979 Iranian revolution that ushered in Islamic fundamentalist rule?
Would there have been any negative consequences for not supporting Japan when they were in the League of Nations?
Answers to all those have real-world consequences for us today, just as much as Vietnam possibly would have, had things turned out differently.
We now have a divided Korea, with the communist North Korea under totalitarian rule and armed with nuclear capabilities, the threat of which they regularly use against us as a form of extortion. Same scenario with Iran. And perhaps, if we had done things differently when they were in the League of Nations, Japan would not have attacked us at Pearl Harbor, thus dragging us into WWII.
So questions asked in hindsight are futile exercises in frustration, because you cannot predict with certainty the outcome of any complex events on a global geopolitical scale as they unfold, in an ever-changing world with continuous shifting sociopolitical alliances and needs that have potential to affect us all, whether we are proactive or reactive to it.
That isn't true at all. You can predict future consequences in part because a powerful country can coerce those consequences through foreign policy.
The US never understood Chi was first and foremost a nationalist and if "communism" coerced everyone into adopting a nationalist view that that is what needed to be done.
Rightly or wrongly, the US was racist. Period. If you were not White and also an x-tian you were worthless, but more than that, the US had a right to do whatever it wanted to do.
You can see the racism in the US attempt to murder Prime Minister Nehru of India for the simple crime of declaring neutrality. Only White X-tian Nations like Austria, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland, Yugoslavia, et al were allowed to declare neutrality. That's also why the US attempted to murder Nasser of Egypt and Shishkali of Syria and while the US was not successful in Syria they did manage to overthrow the government.
Had the US not gotten involved in Vietnam, the country would be on a par with South Korea today.
And the reason Vietnam is successful today has to do with the fact that truly benevolent European countries -- obviously not France or Britain -- did not levy economic sanctions on Vietnam like the US did and helped them with their economy.
Both the US and France could have helped Vietnam but both were hell-bent on stealing everything.
Concerning Korea, US racism ran so deep they refused to study the culture. Korea is six clans. That's it. Six. Those six clans historically ran the country. The North Korean leaders were all maniacal. None of them were even remotely on a par with Chi. The North Korean government has to be permanently removed from power for any hope of success.
Truman was weak and pathetic. He should have sought a declaration of war and ramped up the fighting.
The B-52 was produced in 1952 so the war would have been over by 1955. Carpet bombing massed formation of Chinese troops would have put an end to that.
Escalation? Not a chance. That's what happens when governments start believing the lies they tell. Wiping out North Korea would not have expanded the conflict.
You can thank Clinton for giving North Korea not one, but two Plutonium producing nuclear reactors which was just plain stupid.
Regarding Japan, the operative geo-political strategy at the time was the Pacific Rim Strategy. The US had invested decades and $Billions ($TRILLIONs in todays Dollars) into that strategy and the US was not about to let Japan ruin things so conflict was inevitable.
The US abandoned that strategy in favor of the MECAS Strategy (the current operative geo-political strategy) when it was realized the US could never win. That's why Nixon went to China.
About Iran. Carter owns it. He mucked it up because he rejected the sound of advice of General Haig and Ambassador Smith in favor of Neo-Cons Gary Sick and Zbigniew Brzezinski.
Had Carter rolled out the red carpet for Khomeini, Iran would still be an ally. Instead, Carter stabbed Khomeini in the back and then spit on him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World
The History of slavery in the Muslim world dates back thousands of years,...
12 centuries which is not "thousands of years" and it will never wipe the stain off of Britain or the US.
1 - America returning to a more isolationist mindset.
You're an empire with colonies. Isolation is out of the question unless you're willing to surrender your livin' large locust Borg-like life-style and ramp down your Standard of Living to late 1960s/early 1970s.
Since neither you nor 95% of Americans have the courage to do that, you will continue to raid, loot, and plunder.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Labonte18
If we weren't going to get involved there. Would we have gotten involved in supplying arms to Afghanistan during the Russian invasion? Beirut? Kuwait?
Again, that's what happens when governments start believing the web of lies they spin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Labonte18
2 - Would Lyndon Johnson have elected to not run for a second term? (His own second term, technically) in which case, you have an incumbent Johnson vs Nixon (At least I presume) which.. An argument certainly could be made here that Johnson would have won.
No, LBJ illegally overthrew the Greek government and installed the "Colonels" as a military junta and he had other things hanging over his head.
Vietnam under LBJ would have been even worse for America.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Labonte18
3 - Obviously.. Assuming that Reagan still winds up president in 1980.. Which may be a stretch (see above) does he still expand the military?
Yes, he still expands the military.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Labonte18
Is there Iran Contra?
Iran Contra was a nothing burger. It does, however, highlight your lack of knowledge.
Congress closed the loophole which means Clinton and Iran-Bosnia and Iran-Kosovo were actual crimes and had Republicans not blew their wad on Monica Lewinsky and waited a few months, Clinton would have been impeached and convicted in the Senate.
Clinton took your tax dollars and gave them to Pakistan to buy weapons from Iran and had them shipped to Albania where bin Laden's #2 man al-Zawahiri (later killed by Obama in an airstrike in Pakistan) smuggled the weapons illegally into Bosnia and Kosovo under the watchful eyes of the CIA and Iranian VEVAK who were there to make sure no man-pad ADA weapons were among the shipments.
And yes, that was on-going as late as 1999 when the Republican-controlled House and Senate shut it down.
That is not, of course, the reason why bin Laden attacked the WTC in 2001 (assuming he actually did).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Labonte18
Assuming we do still wind up in Kuwait and then Afghanistan and Iraq.
Yes, because that is part and parcel of the current operative geo-political strategy, the MECAS Strategy.
You must control Iraq and Afghanistan so you can eventually gain control of Iran so you have road, rail, and air access to gain control of the Five Central Asia States so's you can smuggle weapons and fund "pro-democracy" groups to foment revolution.
When Russia moves to crush the rebellion, the US and Britain will demand a No-Fly Zone operated mainly out of NATO airbases in Ukraine.
Now you know the rest of the story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Labonte18
4 - Speaking of the middle east.. Iran. What happens there?
Simple.
You seize Khuzestan Province which is mostly Arabs and others and not Persians.
To do that, you need only destroy the four bridges over the Karun River in the Zagros Mountains and stick a brigade-sized unit at the junction of Highway 8 and Highway 10.
It will take years to rebuild just one of those bridges in peace-time. And, why, no, camels and donkeys cannot fly over the gorge.
You now control 80% of Iran's oil and natural gas.
You also control the pipelines and ports and the few ports further south along the Persian Gulf are blockaded by carrier battle groups.
The Iranian government now has ZERO revenues, cruise missile and air strikes on electrical generation plants and communication facilities leaves Iran in the dark with nothing. Not even food.
In less than 30 days starving unemployed Iranians are in the streets and less than 60 days after that the US will install the MEK as the puppet government.
He is Vietnamese and from Vietnam. I don't know what branch. It sounds like they would parachute him and a small squad behind enemy lines for information. He was trained on how to live off the wild there. I'm not sure if he was kept in Laos or caught in Laos, but it was something to do with Laos that kept the US from claiming him for awhile. His own wife didn't think he was alive so maybe nobody knew.
Anyway Bush sent a diplomacy group that claimed him and others in his branch, all Vietnamese, and he was issued a letter declaring him a hero of the United States, which he showed me...because i'd never heard of being able to get into the US on a letter before. Later him and some others released won a case for back pay of wages for 20 years. Of course, at the rate in Vietnam soldier wages so it was like $9K each, but at least they got paid.
I don't know much else. I'm tolerated, but I don't think we're ever going to go on a fishing trip together. Unless it's volunteered (and translated) a good rule of thumb is for Whites to not ask the older Vietnamese generation about the war. For some there's still a layer of anger about being abandoned and losing their country. Sometimes I work in my wife's store and have been surprised by the number that show me their military papers they still carry even now.
But, I do know there were POWs well after the war. Maybe not US POWs, but definitely Vietnamese ones.
Got a recent ping, and thought I'd clarify with what I found out since then, not that I've done much, but over the years I've gotten some answers. He was always good with the ladies and his current one doesn't like my wife so much....but I digress.
Apparently, he was recruited for a unit of approximately 200-300 S. Vietnamese by the CIA in 1960 or 61. At the time, the US was not involved in the war in the North as it apparently didn't want to spark a bigger power into directly entering the fray similar to Korea. My reasoning here is speculations. What I know is because he and the others trained with the Americans, and not the South Vietnamese, the South Vietnamese had no idea who they were. This became important later.
In the meantime, their mission was living off the land and reporting reconnaissance back to their leader. They had studied in many different dialects, but eventually were heard out investigating some 'hill people" that were decidedly communist. Wrong dialect gave them away and someone told the commies. Not sure if they were in Laos or not, just someplace with a dialect they were unprepared for.
Once captured, they were put in POW camps. Torture was a regular occurrence. When the first prison swap took place, the South had no idea who these guys were and thus didn't claim them. The United States officially had no involvement in the north and also didn't claim them. Same went for subsequent swaps. After the war was over, the remained prisoners, as if they were a rogue terrorist outfit. My guess is they knew and knew we knew, but it just was about when things could be said.
At any rate, in 1982 they released him and several from his group from prison. He wasn't sure what the trigger for release was. It may have been diplomatic, but he thinks it more likely that, after being in the bush/Vietnamese POW camp for 20 years....he simply no longer posed the same threat he did as a young man. So the group made their way back South to their original homes to put pieces together. It was John McCain that lead an initative to start tracking down these guys and who was left in prison to finally claim them and get them released. Supposedly they would be allowed into the US. By that point, trust issues were so bad that most didn't believe the US and thought it was a trap by the commies to give a reason to shoot them. A few with nothing left went first to the US, and upon reporting no problems to the others, then the others came. They were allowed to bring children, but by that point his sons were already grown. However, his wife had remarried and had new children, including my wife, and those he brought with her to the United States.
Left alone Vietnam would have evolved like other countries in SE Asia and Eastern Europe into a successful developing country with a robust economy and a rising standard of living. Still communist but to a lesser degree.
The United States in the post WWII era launched into a holy war against the evils of encroaching global communism that supposedly would enslave the world. We were invincible our leaders said and had the most powerful military and could make short work of those funny men in straw hats and rubber sandals.
This ill founded colonial white man superiority attitude resulted in the deaths of 50,000 Americans and thousands of Vietnamese. We bombed Hanoi into the Stone Age and even today Cambodians are stepping on decades old cluster bombs and being maimed or killed.
Left alone Vietnam would have evolved like other countries in SE Asia and Eastern Europe into a successful developing country with a robust economy and a rising standard of living. Still communist but to a lesser degree.
The United States in the post WWII era launched into a holy war against the evils of encroaching global communism that supposedly would enslave the world. We were invincible our leaders said and had the most powerful military and could make short work of those funny men in straw hats and rubber sandals.
This ill founded colonial white man superiority attitude resulted in the deaths of 50,000 Americans and thousands of Vietnamese. We bombed Hanoi into the Stone Age and even today Cambodians are stepping on decades old cluster bombs and being maimed or killed.
58,300 Americans killed or MIA.
Estimated 2.5 million Vietnamese (may be closer to 4m)
Estimated 300K - 400K Cambodians
hundreds of thousands wounded on all sides.
Thousands of G.I.'s with debilitating injuries or PTSD
When one considers the staggering scale of the slaughter, the expenditure of our treasure, the immeasurable costs of lost life and limb and the wounds to the nation's soul that haunt us to this day... the men who perpetrated this war should not have died comfortably in their sleep.
It's difficult to imagine how things could have turned out worse, had JFK and LBJ said a firm "No!" to U.S. involvement in SE Asia. Both the Asians and the Americans would be more whole.
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.
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.
