Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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)
 
Old 12-31-2015, 11:03 AM
 
13,626 posts, read 20,684,914 times
Reputation: 7630

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWiseWino View Post
Sorry, but when you idea of intervention is honoring a defense pact against what was perceived as foreign aggression in a bordering country then so be it. Both Tibet and India were an are border disputes not intervention. So call me when the Chinese secret service foments a coup in the Congo.
LOL!

Seems your definition of intervention is rather elastic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-31-2015, 09:40 PM
Status: "A solution in search of a problem" (set 22 days ago)
 
Location: New York Area
34,546 posts, read 16,622,216 times
Reputation: 29705
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWiseWino View Post
Both Tibet and India were an are border disputes not intervention.
I'm not sure what rule of grammar you're violating. Or maybe because it's New Year's Eve your posting is a bit askew.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWiseWino View Post
Sorry, but when you idea of intervention is honoring a defense pact against what was perceived as foreign aggression in a bordering country then so be it. Both Tibet and India were an are border disputes not intervention. So call me when the Chinese secret service foments a coup in the Congo.
Who was the defense pact between? China and itself?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2016, 08:22 AM
 
Location: P.C.F
1,973 posts, read 2,258,004 times
Reputation: 1626
Your spinning history to suit your day dreams... We invaded Iraq because (on the public side ) GW Bush was absolutely Positive that Iraq had The Perpetrators of 911 THEY DIDNT.. and they had for sure WMD THEY DIDNT! Saddam was a ruthless tyrant but he keep his ruthlessness a long ways from our shores so I do not care and he kept numerous groups like Isis playing duck and cover duck and cover.. Once he was gone Isis grew at an alarming rate.. Everyone was too busy to keep the hammer down on them and we have what we have now.. Iraq's Democratic form of Government is barely that .. and in name only.. I could go on but its draining and of no real worth.. 6000 dead and over 150,000 wounded US Troops and some will always be glad to try a justify those facts.. Iraq is a Double Bush Failure THATS what I think.






Quote:
Originally Posted by danielj72 View Post
Your politics are showing. Vietnam was a total failure, much of the blame for that lies upon the divided loyalties of Americans during the 60s and 70s. The other major cause for the failure was poor decision making from the top. Our leaders were not there to win the war, they were fighting a war to preserve the status quo. We did not really have a cause, many people really did not know what we were fighting for and there seemed to be little real national interest involved. It is easy to see how these things could have worked against us there.


Iraq was a totally different circumstance. We got involved in Iraq because we were trying to remove threats from the muslim middle east in response to the 9-11 attacks. Iraq was holding dangerous chemical weapons and they were training terrorists. There was real justification for the war. The Iraq war did drag on like Vietnam, but once more troops were sent (the surge) the opposition fell apart. Today there is democratically elected government in Iraq and the threat has been removed. ISIS is threatening what we did there, but in the end I think that nation will hold. As long as ISIS does not destroy the Iraqi government (ISIS is being pushed back in Iraq recently), I think the Iraq war will go down as a successful endeavor. You can debate whether or not the Iraq war was worth it, but what is not in question is the fact that the US won that war and that the current Iraqi government is way better than the bathist regime we removed. Vietnam was a total disaster, Iraq is nothing of the sort.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2016, 07:18 PM
 
Location: Iowa
3,317 posts, read 4,105,125 times
Reputation: 4611
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielj72 View Post
Your politics are showing. Vietnam was a total failure, much of the blame for that lies upon the divided loyalties of Americans during the 60s and 70s. The other major cause for the failure was poor decision making from the top. Our leaders were not there to win the war, they were fighting a war to preserve the status quo. We did not really have a cause, many people really did not know what we were fighting for and there seemed to be little real national interest involved. It is easy to see how these things could have worked against us there.


Iraq was a totally different circumstance. We got involved in Iraq because we were trying to remove threats from the muslim middle east in response to the 9-11 attacks. Iraq was holding dangerous chemical weapons and they were training terrorists. There was real justification for the war. The Iraq war did drag on like Vietnam, but once more troops were sent (the surge) the opposition fell apart. Today there is democratically elected government in Iraq and the threat has been removed. ISIS is threatening what we did there, but in the end I think that nation will hold. As long as ISIS does not destroy the Iraqi government (ISIS is being pushed back in Iraq recently), I think the Iraq war will go down as a successful endeavor. You can debate whether or not the Iraq war was worth it, but what is not in question is the fact that the US won that war and that the current Iraqi government is way better than the bathist regime we removed. Vietnam was a total disaster, Iraq is nothing of the sort.
I pretty much agree with your outlook on this, Vietnam was a just about a total waste, but for the military experience of jungle warfare. In WW2 we had a taste in Burma, but that was just a small force with lots of help from the locals. In Vietnam we learned what real jungle fighting is all about, with the enemy all around you, the tunnels, the booby traps, trip wires, better use of helicopters ect ect. If we should ever have to fight in that kind of environment again, our experience in Vietnam could be invaluable.

As you said, the new Iraq government is still there and the people of various islamic sects are much more free to do as they please, than they were under the rule of Saddam. They can kill each other with much less impunity now, I bet they like it much better now. I hate to see Iran gaining so much power from Iraq's weakness, as Iran is still a sponsor of terrorism, but so has been Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, none of which has a real healthy social structure as far as human rights go. At least Iran is somewhat stable and the people are living a slightly more westernized lifestyle, Iran is more similar to Turkey than it is to Saudi Arabia. Iran may be able to provide some type of desirable state model that is desperately needed in the region. If I had to live in either Iran or Saudi Arabia (at gunpoint) I would choose Iran. They may have a chance to evolve a little more now, will be interesting to see what happens in Iran, but NO WAY should they be allowed to build nuclear weapons, and I'm not sure dropping sanctions against them was a good idea either, but we shall soon see what direction Iran wants to go.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2016, 05:47 PM
 
2,220 posts, read 2,784,365 times
Reputation: 2716
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macgregorsailor51 View Post
Your spinning history to suit your day dreams... We invaded Iraq because (on the public side ) GW Bush was absolutely Positive that Iraq had The Perpetrators of 911 THEY DIDNT.. and they had for sure WMD THEY DIDNT!
Thousands of gassed Kurds could not be reached for comment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2016, 05:15 PM
 
28,572 posts, read 18,607,056 times
Reputation: 30812
Quote:
Originally Posted by MidValleyDad View Post
It is generally believed that the 'Domino Theory' that was talked about at the time has generally been discredited.
Umm, well, the Vietnamese certainly made a run for the Thai border that looked a lot like a few dominoes falling down. Had that happened ten years earlier, Thailand might not have stood. Thailand supported the US during the Vietnam war...for its own defense.

But the so-called "domino theory" never meant geographically contiguous nations. Rather, the major purpose of US involvement in Vietnam never about Vietnam, it was about the Soviet Union. It's purpose was to stop Soviet success in the Third World all over the globe. In that, the US achieved its aims. The Soviet Union was nearly as heavily involved in the Vietnam war as the US...and could afford it far, far less. In fact, the Soviet Union never recovered and the cost of the Vietnam war caused the Soviet Union to significantly reduce its support to Cuba and North Korea, and halted Soviet gains globally throughout the Third World. In major geo-political terms, the US did win the Vietnam war.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2016, 05:17 PM
 
28,572 posts, read 18,607,056 times
Reputation: 30812
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickB1967 View Post
Thousands of gassed Kurds could not be reached for comment.
The US was a hearty supporter of Saddam Hussein while he was gassing Kurds.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2016, 06:45 PM
 
2,803 posts, read 3,153,863 times
Reputation: 2701
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk View Post
Umm, well, the Vietnamese certainly made a run for the Thai border that looked a lot like a few dominoes falling down. Had that happened ten years earlier, Thailand might not have stood. Thailand supported the US during the Vietnam war...for its own defense.

But the so-called "domino theory" never meant geographically contiguous nations. Rather, the major purpose of US involvement in Vietnam never about Vietnam, it was about the Soviet Union. It's purpose was to stop Soviet success in the Third World all over the globe. In that, the US achieved its aims. The Soviet Union was nearly as heavily involved in the Vietnam war as the US...and could afford it far, far less. In fact, the Soviet Union never recovered and the cost of the Vietnam war caused the Soviet Union to significantly reduce its support to Cuba and North Korea, and halted Soviet gains globally throughout the Third World. In major geo-political terms, the US did win the Vietnam war.
I think that's not realistic. The Vietnam war increased oil consumption and prices, the primary export product for the Soviet Union. The Soviet economy fell apart after the oil and commodity prices collapsed in the mid-80s. The Soviet economy benefited from our Vietnam war. The best the US could have done was investing and developing fracking technology in the 1970s. That would have done in the USSR and made us less dependent on the Sheiks. Obviously we did the opposite.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2016, 07:01 PM
 
28,572 posts, read 18,607,056 times
Reputation: 30812
Quote:
Originally Posted by Potential_Landlord View Post
I think that's not realistic. The Vietnam war increased oil consumption and prices, the primary export product for the Soviet Union. The Soviet economy fell apart after the oil and commodity prices collapsed in the mid-80s. The Soviet economy benefited from our Vietnam war. The best the US could have done was investing and developing fracking technology in the 1970s. That would have done in the USSR and made us less dependent on the Sheiks. Obviously we did the opposite.
No, OPEC increased oil prices four hundred percent in the mid-70s, and the world price of oil went up with their increase. The Soviet economy suffered from Vietnam and didn't utterly collapse then because of the OPEC increase.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2016, 10:17 AM
 
14,984 posts, read 23,784,233 times
Reputation: 26473
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk View Post
The US was a hearty supporter of Saddam Hussein while he was gassing Kurds.
I thought this topic was on Vietnam?
Anyways I wouldn't say the US was a "hearty supporter", there was absolutely no relations of any time from the 1960s to mid 80s. When the Iran-Iraq broke out the US supported Iraq with intelligence and some munitions, but we went behind there back and supported Iran as well during this war - all the maintain that delicate balance of power leaving both countries incapable of victory. Pretty successful.

The US has always supported the Kurds. They remain still, along with Israel, some of our biggest allies and friends in the middle east (unfortunely strained in the last few years under the current US administration).
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
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

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
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top