Originally posted by Metal Brain How many commonwealth nations sent troops to Vietnam?
This site seems pretty authoritative:
http://www.warbirdforum.com/homework.htm
quote:
In addition to the United States, with more than 500,000 troops in the country at the height of the war, the following nations sent significant combat forces to South Vietnam: Australia, New Zealand, Thailand, South Korea, and the Philippines. There were small contingents (up to 30 men) from Taiwan and Spain, and 34 other nations provided non-combat support. As individuals, many Canadians enlisted in the U.S. Army and fought in Vietnam.
Originally posted by whodey After watching the news today, it seems evident that Obama plans to attack Syria. I use the news simply to determine which way the masses are being herded, and both Fox News and CNN are talking about Assad war crimes while conveniently ignoring the Al Qaeda backed terrorists war crimes that are fighting Assad.
First we must come up with new terms. This i ...[text shortened]... lucky Democracy police action.
2. Freedom loving skirmish.
3. Cruise missiles gone wild.
Does the United States have any responsibility to act as world policeman? Can it afford to do so?
The US will continue to be the dominant world power as long as other regions are destabalized, and have no chance of growing their power and influence.
The US will keep doing what its doing around the globe for our entire lives and beyond.
Originally posted by SmittyTime The US will continue to be the dominant world power as long as other regions are destabalized, and have no chance of growing their power and influence.
The US will keep doing what its doing around the globe for our entire lives and beyond.
That's because the US in controlled by big business. We must play world police so that big business can make money in screwed up regions of the world.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra Trivial answers to both questions are no and yes respectively.
Can it afford to do so, and still take on presumed domestic social programs? The most often cited, Norway and Finland, don't take on the role of super world cop, and military leader.
The US national debt is reaching a critical mass that will make all such questions truly irrelevant. We won't be able to do any of the above.
Originally posted by normbenign Does the United States have any responsibility to act as world policeman? Can it afford to do so?
The US is not acting as a world policeman. If it were the world's policeman, then the genocide in the Sudan would have never occurred. The bottom line comes down to political power and how to achieve it. The terrorists that oppose Assad are no more righteous than he. The US has simply calculated that their political power will be enhanced by toppling Assad.
It's like Saddam when he used chemical weapons against the Kurds. Who cares about the Kurds? No one, that's who, so the US did not take action against Saddam at that time. I would say that there are elements within Syria, possible the Muslim Brotherhood, that the US is trying to support. On the opposite side like Russia and Iran who oppose them.
Originally posted by whodey The US is not acting as a world policeman. If it were the world's policeman, then the genocide in the Sudan would have never occurred. The bottom line comes down to political power and how to achieve it. The terrorists that oppose Assad are no more righteous than he. The US has simply calculated that their political power will be enhanced by toppling Assa ...[text shortened]... that the US is trying to support. On the opposite side like Russia and Iran who oppose them.
All so very true.
Reagan also supported Iraq while Saddam used chemical weapons against Iran. The hypocrisy never ends.
Originally posted by JS357 This site seems pretty authoritative:
http://www.warbirdforum.com/homework.htm
quote:
In addition to the United States, with more than 500,000 troops in the country at the height of the war, the following nations sent significant combat forces to South Vietnam: Australia, New Zealand, Thailand, South Korea, and the Philippines. There were small contingents ...[text shortened]... -combat support. As individuals, many Canadians enlisted in the U.S. Army and fought in Vietnam.
Originally posted by whodey The US is not acting as a world policeman. If it were the world's policeman, then the genocide in the Sudan would have never occurred. The bottom line comes down to political power and how to achieve it. The terrorists that oppose Assad are no more righteous than he. The US has simply calculated that their political power will be enhanced by toppling Assa ...[text shortened]... that the US is trying to support. On the opposite side like Russia and Iran who oppose them.
Some regions make money for big business, other regions do not. We only play security forces for important regions.
Originally posted by whodey The US is not acting as a world policeman. If it were the world's policeman, then the genocide in the Sudan would have never occurred. The bottom line comes down to political power and how to achieve it. The terrorists that oppose Assad are no more righteous than he. The US has simply calculated that their political power will be enhanced by toppling Assa that the US is trying to support. On the opposite side like Russia and Iran who oppose them.
A lot of people are hoping for some kind of 'Arab Spring' - a modifying of the culture to be more suitable to its young people (demographically some of the countries have a lot of under 25s fuelling facebook / twitter revolutions) - I think its the responsibility of anyone who wants a bit of freedom in a digital age to support this, not just people in the UK or US. Assad, seems to be crushing this and sticking to militaristic rule, with chemical weapons - but just last week 100s of his supporters were killed.
The UK is threatening to bomb him in 2 weeks. And I think they should but stick closely to military targets he could use against his people- to warn him democracy won't be threatened especially when its so clearly being asked for.
Originally posted by whodey After watching the news today, it seems evident that Obama plans to attack Syria. I use the news simply to determine which way the masses are being herded, and both Fox News and CNN are talking about Assad war crimes while conveniently ignoring the Al Qaeda backed terrorists war crimes that are fighting Assad.
First we must come up with new terms. This i ...[text shortened]... lucky Democracy police action.
Originally posted by whodey The US is not acting as a world policeman. If it were the world's policeman, then the genocide in the Sudan would have never occurred. The bottom line comes down to political power and how to achieve it. The terrorists that oppose Assad are no more righteous than he. The US has simply calculated that their political power will be enhanced by toppling Assa ...[text shortened]... that the US is trying to support. On the opposite side like Russia and Iran who oppose them.
People don't really care if they are killed by poison gas, machetes, or AK47s. It seems to be true, that as long as the people being killed are black Africans, without control of oil, we don't give a damn.
Is one mode of genocide more favorable than another? The only thing Russia gets out of US involvement is a broke and bankrupt US.
Who is up for another war?
26 Aug '13 18:00
Back to Top