American Leadership

No, most of the targets hit in the Persian Gulf War were military targets like air defense, the electric grid, and command and control facilities. Some collateral damage was done which destroyed other buildings but that was not the intent. Anything saying otherwise is propaganda. What the US should have done was continued the fighting during the first Persian Gulf War instead of stopping after 100 hours. It was like if Hitler had been allowed to stay in power after World War II (had he not killed himself) or Slobodan Milosevic being allowed to stay in power after the Kosovo War. The embargo (which was by the UN before the war, not the US by the way) should not have been kept on and Saddam should have been removed from power.

1991 would have been a much better time to accomplish this rather than 2001 because Islamist radicalism was not nearly as widespread then as it is today. It is the Islamists who are responsible for the violence and the deaths in Iraq, not the United States. What has the United States been doing in Iraq? Trying to provide security for the people, building up the infrastructure, and supporting the government that the people elected. What have the Islamists been doing in Iraq? Bombing markets and mosques, trying to spread the violence, destroying the infrastructure, trying to take over in a greedy power grab. Do you honestly think they would stop if the US was not there? It wont. It wont stop until either the Islamists are defeated or one of the Islamists (probably al Sadr's Mahdi Army) takes control of the country and makes it into something similar to what Afghanistan was under the Taliban, a harsh dictatorship where people are murdered by the government every day.

 

I am from France and currently live in Ireland.

I don't see any "leadership" of the USA, beyond having established the english as the international english language (thanks partly to the UK a century ago), conquering any country that smell oil, establishing a worldwide operating system that needs 1000 times the power of the hardware had ten years ago, to do about the same things the software was doing ten years ago, and releasing tons of movies full of special effects, good looking characters and with cheap stories, and where americans invariably save the world.

If USA has some leadership, it should really apply it to itself first, as for some years now, let say since the beginning of this new century, it has mainly been about various disasters.

I don't say us french are better, we sure have some business to do with our own stuff and we are arrogant our way, but we don't invade some random country for fancy reasons. I don't say either that USA cannot be be leaders, this country has proven marvelous accomplishments in the past, but right now... 1$=£0.5, internet saturated by american spam and porn, all our mails scanned by tens of CIA services while Ben Laden is still free, billions of dollards spent into "so, who has the biggest d##k?" missiles. rofl

Funny how a country where most people cannot tell where the other countries really are on a map keep on talking about leadership of the world.

The less you know and the more you think you know.

 

Yeah, it seems like we have to involved in everything, yet you have to be somewhat involved I think we get TO involved, but i still like america

 

@Jissé - Hey remember that time the US saved France from Germany in WWI? And then again in WW2? And how France got the US dragged into Vietnam because France didn't want to give up their colony there after WW2? And that terrible Algerian War of Independence where the French massacred Algerian civilians? Or the 1956 Suez Crisis where France and Britain tried to steal back the Suez Canal from Egypt and the US told you to stop being a **** to Egypt? Or France's failure to end the Civil War in Côte d'Ivoire after they sent troops there in 2003? Or the destruction of a Greenpeace boat by the French Military? Or how about when France built Iraq a nuclear reactor in 1975?

 

USA didn't save anyone in WW1 or WW2. They just came in at the end to get some bragging rights. All you're proving is your chauvinism and ignorance, so I suggest you stick your head out of your ass once in a while.

 

It is known that the USA didn't want to intervene in WW I first. This country said first it is the problem of the Europeans. Then suddenly a German submarine attacked a US ship; so the USA intervened.

Same thing happened for WW II . Remember that the USA, which was highly pro-white race and which had a president from the Ku Klux Klan approved the nazi ideology ! It was in the 30's (if I remeber well)

You must know that the uSA supported the spanish dictator Franco just to get business with Spain, and the resistance failed because the USA gave weapons to that dictator.

Remember finally that Saddam was a big friend of the USA, and has finally been hung thanks to the complicity of the USA. Something interesting now : when has Saddam been hung ? On the Islamic feest day 'Aid Al Kebir. This is the muslim Christmas !
What would you have said if Slobodan Milosevic was hung on a decmber 24, on Christmas ?

The USA has just one rule to offer to us, one lmessage : we do what we want !

 

So GM_k Great Britain and France would have been a lot better off without billions of dollars of war material during WW2? The U.S. may not have enetered WW2 until it was attacked, but it definetly provided the supplies to give Britain and France a chance. Or maybe your sour because since the U.S. came in the Soviet Union wasn't able to take over all of Eroupe, which would have been perferable to you right?

I tend to dislike disscussions like this because I tend to get pissed when I see several Anti-American posts made for the wrong reasons. The U.S. has done some disgraceful things, but the WW1 and WW2 are not apart of them.

 

Alright, first. Let's not get too carried away guys. I don't want this topic to get locked

2nd, being the history nut I am, I wanna clarify a few things: US Presidents during the 30s were Herbert Hoover and FDR. The KKK member president that you're thinking about was Warren Harding, who was president during the 20s. And I doubts people can say too much bad about FDR...he was one of America's greatest presidents who led the US out of the Depression and was a stalwart leader for the Allies.

The US entered WWI because of the Zimmerman Note, which was a Telegram sent by the Germans to Mexico saying that if they went to war with the US, Germany would give Mexico back the land it lost during the Mexican-American War. Granted, there's a strong possibility that the British made it up and sent it to Woodrow Wilson, but it got public mad and put us in WWI. In fact, America did kinda save the Allies in WWI. If the US didn't join, then there was still a good chance that the Germans would have taken Paris and England would have been forced to accept defeat. US brought fresh troops and supplies to the front.

The US did not enter WW2 near the end. We entered at the end of 1941, the war started in 1939; before that, as Kerwyn said, we were supplying supplies heavily to France and Britain. I doubt Britain could have held if it wasn't for the large amount of materials the US was supplying Britain before it entered the war.. Originally, we just wanted war with Japan for a justified reason, but then Germany and Italy declared war, so we joined up in Europe and N. Africa. I think it is largely agreed as well that it was less the Americans entering the war that turned the tide as much as it was the Soviet Union entering the war that saved the Allies.

Now that we got the history stuff done, on with my saying.

I am a proud American. I would stand by my country. Just because I'm patriotic though, does not mean I am ignorant. I realize that American decisions haven't always been the best, but neither were the decisions of the British, or the French, or the Soviets. Frankly, out of all the world powers there have been, the US is the one that has at least tried to do its part for the world instead of seeking out policies of Imperialism or whatnot.

No matter what, a nation is going to police the world. It started with the Romans, it eventually progressed to the British and the French, then the Soviet Union and the US, and now just the US. There will always be the main power that will poke its business into other countries. I'm not saying its good, it's just how the world works. I can tell you now though... I believe that the world would be a far worse place if the US didn't get involved then if the US did get involved. Take for example Rwanda...the US did not get involved there partialy because of the Somali incident and we were still in a backlash. International aid did not come and look what happened. The Europeans had a genocide in Kosovo and Bosnia, in their own backyards, and they would do nothing. The US had to eventually take the lead to help stop this. It was American air power, American soldiers, American supplies that helped keep the peace before UN and NATO troops took control

Again, the US is not perfect. No country has. The US did support the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan, which eventually led to the Taliban. But you have to realize, it was a Cold War battleground. Nobody expected that this decision, in a country that most people couldn't find in a map, would one day bite us in the a**. And neither would you have. We did support Sadaam Hussein, but that was because we would rather have had the tyranny of the Hussein than the tyranny of the Ayatollahs. That would eventually come back to hurt us.

I can say now, that the reason for going into Iraq was not to take out Sadaam. Bush attempted to change a centuries long old tradition of government by marching in and hoping democracy would kick in. It was not a conspiracy for oil as many would like to believe, not saying it wasn't part of the reason possibly, but it wasn't the whole reason. It was foolish to go in like that and it wasn't our place. The point is we are there and it would be more irresponsible of us to get out and leave our mistake than it would be to stay in and clean it back up.

America may have its problems...but damnit, at least we try. I personally would rather have America policing the world than having had the Soviet Union (Sorry Gm_K, I like Socialism, but not the Soviet gov't ) or have China policing the world. Through it all, I think America has the potential to gain its respectability back. It definitely can be a leader, as long as we learn from our mistakes.

PS: I've actually heard that our presidential race has actually brought back a bit of respectability to America. Is this true?

 

i havent read ismyship post yet, but if i am right, it was canada that helped teh most in WW2, and no the USA. and for USA; it's leadership has too much of a black-white view(some europian countires do too though), especially with israel and palestina, giving total support to israel, and denying the palistinans any rights

 

actually mongolia was alot better off under communism, partly because of the Soviet Unions help (in the likes of sunsidies etc) after which, unemployment has risin by 120% and the deathrate by 70% (help me out with these numbers, i think ive mixed them up).

i think america should help you the poor countries, i.e. african nations like Malawi.

and yes itsmyship, however if Obama loses and another repub is voted in that respect will go down the drain...

i predict the USA will fall in status to China, you can already see the beginings of it.

 

@ GM_K
Even though America didn't do much against Germany in WW2 (comparatively) due to russia annihilating Germanys sixth army and making Hitler ^$&% himself in 1943 which helped considerably in the nazis ultimate downfall. They did stop Japan from expanding its empire over all of Asia. Ever heard of the pacific war? and don't say the Russians were the reason for it as well because their invasion into Manchuria and China happened a few days after the A bombs were dropped and its unlikely the Japanese even knew they were getting crushed in China before they surrended. WW2 was not just a war against Germany and its allies in Europe, a large portion of it was also in the pacific basically starting when Japan invaded and took a decent chunk our of China in the early 1930's.So i think America did save alot of Asian nations from being taken over and argueably Australia.

@Itsmyship
The presidential race has to some extent brought a bit more respect back to your country because its seen as an end to Bush and his iffy foriegn/economical policies. But i do kinda agree with overmind saying that if the repub's get in it'll just be silly. Since all of Australia's media at least was purely focused on Hillary vs Obama.

 

I do remember. I know there are a lot of blood, guilt and mysteries in the background of this country (France), I don't say France should rule the world. I sure would not be a better place if our gouvernment (not the current one, I just say on the whole) would have some worldwide leadership. We are leaders in luxury products, and do great stuff with food and planes and so on, but yes, we have flaws as well, and are sure not innocent in any way.

From my understanding, US got involved into WWII because Hitler abused too much of his submarines, ordering them to sink everything at will (ref Mauritania etc), and because somebody in the white house told the leaders a Europe ruled by the germans would somehow be a less interesting market than what it was before the war / afterwards, if they are vanquished. And yes I know the outlines of the Marshall plan. I know most of our streets, our houses etc have been rebuilt thanks to US money.

But all these facts, and even if they were much better, will not change for me the other fact that the actual America should not rule the world, and should seriously consider STFU given the current situation, and focus for a while on the education, the health etc of the people of their own country. US has the potential of being a leader yes, but they are much more currently a threat than a leader to me.

I am not a patriot of France.
I am a patriot of Europe.
I would not be a patriot of USA in the current situation.
I would vote Obama if I could.

 

Yeah, because being a leader in luxury products is really something to feel proud about...

The US did not get involved in World War Two because of the west, they got involved because of the east. The Japanese were spreading out in every direction and had already taken the whole of the East Asian coast. It's unfortunate that the US only realised this once they bombed Pearl Harbour, but that was that stage that truly showed how aggressive an invasive they had become. While some might believe they did little to help Europe and stop Hitler, you may wish to remember that there was a war waging over here as well. The US pretty much saved Australia from being invaded as all our troops were over fighting in Europe and the Allied Forces were practically refusing to send them back, and when they did agree to, sent them to help out their own forces in South-East Asia instead of Australia where they were needed. After all the support that we had given them, they did not offer even our own troops back, and in fact tried to keep them for as long as possible, when we needed their support. And all that's not to mention that they pretty much ended the eastern war, so although you might say that they did nothing to stop Hitler and only joined at the end for bragging rights, you're dead wrong and pretty narrow minded as well.

I'm not a pro-American or anything, but to say all this about them hardly doing anything in the war, etc, is just ludicrous.

 

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against Americans, just paragon's nationalism and trolling. I am not a patriot of any country. I can give a long, boring post and some shocking facts about WW2, but this discussion will bring nothing to it.

 

So why did you say:

They did save a heck of a lot of people and they definitely didn't just enter for bragging rights. They pretty much saved and ended the Pacific war by themselves. The reason they practically did it by themselves was because the European nations obviously weren't going to send aid and were even fighting not to send back our own soldiers.

 

well america indeed saved a lot of butts ou there, but that is not who matters, it is now 50 years later, most people who made america defend the pacific are dead, they're genes might be inactive for a couple of generations.
It is about america now

 

Excuse me, but usa didnt want to enter the war because it wanted to be on good terms wih germany if it won. It was afraid that if germany did win and usa would be on the loosing side, then usa would be outgunned and outnumbered. Only after germany and japan signed an alliance did usa start to give any aid. And then, it waited until victory was pretty much certain, 1944. I told you, I am not interested in discussing this. The thread is not about this, and it sure is useless to try to say anything about the us to americans. As I have said, I have nothing againt americans, so I am just going to leave it at that. Paragon is a *****, and he deserves to be flamed.

 

well, america's biggest problem is(according to me) their EGO, they thik of themselves as not only the mightiest country(which they are), but also as the biggest, most important, smartest and richest country in the world, and they have a thing with thinking that their government system is the only good.

this is a generalization, i know there are a lot of exeptions to it, but it just appears this way to me, an inhabitant of europe

 

There's nothing wrong with not entering a war in order to remain on good terms with both sides, and there's not really anything to show that that was the case. At least, nothing I'm aware of anyway. Besides, it's not as though America is just there to jump into any war that Europe's involved in.

Also, if they were supposedly staying out of it in order to not be on the loosing side, why would they join when the Germans started gaining support? If anything that'd be even more reason to stay out of it, but they didn't. They did the opposite as the situation was getting out of hand and required their involvement.

The reason they joined near the end of the war was because they practically ended it. Victory was not certain either as that was when the Japanese were at their greatest. I said before, it's a shame that they had to be bombed before they realised how out of hand the situation was, but they did save a heck of a lot of people, though it's also a shame that so many innocent Japanese civilians had to die in order to stop the war but think of how many others would have died if the war had dragged on, and definitely did not join it for bragging rights.

If you don't like paragon and want to flame him, not that that's any reason to flame someone, then don't just make useless, inane statements like the US didn't save anyone and that they just came for bragging rights.

 

Typical ignorant response. America came in and ended those wars. In 1918 the Americans were sending 10,000 troops to France each day. The German Spring Offensive of 1918 was stopped by American and Australian troops and the counteroffensive was successful because of the large number of American troops.
In World War II American involvement led to the victories in Africa, Italy, and France. Everyone knows that Britain sure wasn't going to be able to do any of that without America. And while Russia did do a lot of harm to Germany, they were running low on their own supplies and even if they had pushed all the way through Europe, nobody would have liked that and everyone would have been at war with Russia just like what actually happened. America also defeated Japan without the help of any Europeans.

@Itsmyship - the Zimmermann telegraph wasn't made up. It was deciphered by British code-breakers in Room 40 because they had taped into the wire that went across the Atlantic from Europe since it ran through Britain. They also got a copy from the telegraph office in Mexico City by bribing one of the employees for it. And Zimmermann made a speech confirming its authenticity.

As for the Mujahedin, during the Soviet-Afghan war money and weapons went through Pakistani ISI who distributed it to the Afghan mujahedin. Much of this went to the Islamists because the ISI favored them. To counteract this the US began to deal with some of the moderate mujahedin directly (such as Ahmed Shah Massoud). Saudi Arabia also matched US funding for the mujahedin. When the Soviets left in 1989, the United States started to draw down their aid. They also completely cut their aid to Pakistan after Pakistan got nuclear weapons. The Soviet puppet government was still in place until 1992 when Massoud's forces captured Kabul. The Islamists hated Massoud. The main Islamist leader in Afghanistan during this time was Hekmatyar. He was a ruthless leader who had killed most of the moderate and royalist mujahedin commanders, including one of Massoud's brothers. There had been a civil war within a war throughout the Soviet-Afghan war between Massoud and Hekmatyar and this war lasted until 1994 when ISI stopped funding Hekmatyar in favor of the new force known as the Taliban.

Also important to note, US funding stopped in 1992. After this point the US ceased to care about Afghanistan. The Taliban came to be because the US ended their involvement in Afghanistan. Had the US helped the moderates to set up their democratic government like they had been trying to do then Islamist terrorism would not have had a place to grow throughout the 90s. See, Massoud could have been a warlord just like the other ones because he had to power and support to do it. But he didn't. Throughout the wars he had an elected council decide what to do.

@overmind - Mongolia's death rate is 6.16/1000 people and their unemployment rate is 3%. The average deathrate for the entire world is 8.32/1000 people and the average unemployment rate is 30%. Mongolia is actually 31st best for unemployment. So, unless Mongolia was a shining paradise with no unemployment and no deaths then I think your figures are off... And the US is not going to fall to China in status. China's per capita GDP is $5,300. It is a country full of poor people. I made more than that in a part-time job I had in college where I basically did nothing.