why does the usa hate fidel

[SGOS]

And speaking of Vietnam, when I graduated high school I just wanted to experience the rest of my life, preferably with all my arms and legs.  Is that too much to ask?  So we all put up a big stink about it.  We began the great American protest, and while we were protesting being used as cannon fodder, women and minorities hijacked our protest and started protesting for their right to be treated equally.  Of all the gall!  Women were yelling about equality, and blacks were sick of riding in the back of the bus.  And now we were looking like fools, just another group of protesters whining about getting shot to bits in a jungle.

But we didn't want to look like a bunch of babies so we joined together with the women, the minorities, and anyone else with an axe to grind and decided to chill out by smoking pot.  By today's standards it was second rate pot, but we smoked it in mixed groups and would all sit around saying things like, "Man, I'm like.. really wasted."  Back then you could buy a lid for $10.  No one knew how much a lid weighed.  The dealers would just put it in a baggie so it was about 20% full and roll it up to about the size of a double wide stogy. 

I have no idea how you buy pot today.  Does it even come in lids?  How much does it cost?  Whatever.  You could smoke a lid in a week, and never once end up on the floor feeling like you had been decapitated (we had to use LSD for that).  But there was a bright side to everyone "dropping out."  Some college kids would buy pot by the kilo, and sell it off at a profit.  These kids later became respected members of the merchant class, selling dry goods or owing convince stores selling munchies to the next generation of pot smoking youth.  No one had ever heard of a kilo, let alone how much pot was in a kilo, but it's as close as America ever came to adopting the metric system.

But we at least ended war for good.  Well, almost.  Then everyone started snorting coke, and then everyone wanted to go to war again, and it was once more off to the races.  We invaded Afghanistan, partly because it was the hideout of bin Laden, but probably because that's where the really good drugs came from.  Then in a drug induced frenzy, we decided to invade Iraq, because... well, just because.  Thank God for drugs.

[widdershins]

We screwed Russia during WWII, Russia in turn hated us for it and became our enemy, then in the '50s as a political move communism in general started being associated with the devil and God was added to our money and pledge.  It was purely a political pandering move to gain popularity by demonizing a common enemy.  From that point anyone associated with Russia was the devil, and Cuba was the closest devil we had.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

We screwed Russia during WWII,

DAFUQ?

[Baruch]

DAFUQ?

I think he was implying, we delayed the Normandy invasion deliberately.  I see that we delayed it for good reasons.  Of course the Soviet Union and the Republic of China did most of the fighting and dying in WW II.  But you can't stop American ignorance.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I think he was implying, we delayed the Normandy invasion deliberately.  I see that we delayed it for good reasons.  Of course the Soviet Union and the Republic of China did most of the fighting and dying in WW II.  But you can't stop American ignorance.

Well, I'm an American and I'm not ignorant of the facts. Most of the ships used in the Normandy landing didn't exist in June of 1943.

[Hydra009]

World War II was a heady affair, well by the Allies, anyway, but ever since then, wars deadly and savage as they might be, haven't accomplished much.  But in spite of all the wars that have been fought but not won since then, the US seems to be living as though we are still the nation that wins the fights we pick.  We go into them with flags flying and yelling, "Remember WWII!"

But for the last 60 years, every attempt to recapture the old vim, vigor, and days of glory  turns out to be a humiliating disgrace.  It must be the fault of the young, starting with the lily livered young of my youth.  We just don't have enough respect for our leaders.  We let them down, and they have turned against us and now devote their time to feathering their pockets at a corporate buffet.

Are you saying that the US hasn't had any military victories since WWII?  That in the past 60 years, everything has been "a humiliating disgrace"?

Don't get me wrong, I can understand and agree to some extent with a critical assessment of US foreign policy - there's plenty of disgusting and horrendously awful stuff to pick from - but I think you're exaggerating its flaws by heavily implying that every military action since WWII has been a failure.

The Korean War, while inconclusive, at least repelled the North Korean invasion of South Korea and ensured the continued existence of South Korea, albeit next to a dangerously unstable pariah state.  The war was needlessly bloody (peace talks could've prevented a lot of deaths on both sides) and the propaganda surrounding it - the Domino theory - was bullshit, but the US did achieve some of its goals there.

The US got involved in Bosnia and Kosovo and helped put an end to those wars and its associated genocide.  Many of those responsible were tried in international courts.

The US got involved when Kuwait was invaded by Iraqi forces.  The US helped ensure the continued existence of Kuwait by expelling those invaders.

Even Operation Enduring Occupation in Afghanistan and Iraq - which practically everyone except John Bolton agrees was a disaster - even that achieved its military goals of deposing the Taliban and the Baath Party.  It's the "nation-building" part that failed.

[SGOS]

I think you're exaggerating its flaws by heavily implying that every military action since WWII has been a failure.

Yes, I tend to exaggerate, often because I have a good time doing it.  Sure there have been a couple of bright spots in US Military interventions, but I think you were searching pretty hard for them.

The Korean War, while inconclusive, at least repelled the North Korean invasion of South Korea and ensured the continued existence of South Korea, albeit next to a dangerously unstable pariah state.  The war was needlessly bloody (peace talks could've prevented a lot of deaths on both sides) and the propaganda surrounding it - the Domino theory - was bullshit, but the US did achieve some of its goals there.

This may hold up.  I don't know enough about the Korean War to contest this one, and I don't know what specific goals you refer to.  But from what you are saying, it sounds like the bloody conflict could have been prevented.  How is having a war a success if it could have been prevented?

The US got involved in Bosnia and Kosovo and helped put an end to those wars and its associated genocide.  Many of those responsible were tried in international courts.

This conflict did cross my mind when I posted.  I wasn't sure about how much of our involvement had a positive effect, but I was on a roll, so I ignored it.

The US got involved when Kuwait was invaded by Iraqi forces.  The US helped ensure the continued existence of Kuwait by expelling those invaders.

Yes, we drove Iraq out, and that was great, but our biggest mistake was giving Iraq permission to invade Kuwait in the first place.  That war could have been avoided had we not told Saddam we were not interested in his disputes with his neighbors.  He asked our ambassador for clarification about this specific issue twice from what I recall, and was assured we would not get involved.  As I understand, he looked at the ambassador like he couldn't believe what he just heard, and asked a second time.

Even Operation Enduring Occupation in Afghanistan and Iraq - which practically everyone except John Bolton agrees was a disaster - even that achieved its military goals of deposing the Taliban and the Baath Party.  It's the "nation-building" part that failed.

Afghanistan, maybe, but I recall the goal was to kill bin Laden.  Enduring Occupation is not a success in my mind, until it ends "enduring."  Saying we are achieving military goals by not leaving, doesn't do much for me.

But I strongly disagree with you on Iraq.  It sounds like you are saying we accomplished a goal or two.  But when Saddam skeedaddled out of town, and GW landed on an aircraft carrier under a banner "Mission Accomplished,"  I almost shit my pants laughing.

First, whatever happened to "Freeing the Iraqi People?"  That was the number one headline propaganda for the invasion, and that was nowhere near accomplished, and it's hard to make a case that the Iraqi people are free today. 

Second, Bush advisors, specifically New American Century, wanted to rebuild a western style Democracy in Iraq (actually they didn't specify Iraq, just anyplace in the Mideast), and had been pressing for it for 20 years before Bush.  That was the end goal, at least for the guys that were actually running the oval office, and whatever kind of democracy we can call what exists there today, the outcome looks like a disaster to me.

However, while I blame the US for the mess in Iraq today, I still allow for the possibility (perhaps a 30% chance) that without our involvement, Iraq might still be as bad as it is today.  But I doubt it.  Perhaps ISIS would have invaded Iraq anyway.  I can't say for sure that this would not have happened.  But I can say for sure that I didn't believe the power vacuum we were creating had better than a 50-50 chance of a positive outcome.

I also wonder about what seems to me to be continuing destabilization of the Mideast.  I wonder if we had anything to do with that.  I don't know.  I just wonder about it.

[Hydra009]

Yes, I tend to exaggerate, often because I have a good time doing it.

Well, okay.  With that admission, I can let it slide.  There's no point in arguing against a position that doesn't exist.

[Unbeliever]

Yes, I tend to exaggerate, often because I have a good time doing it. 

[Shiranu]

I'll agree with you on Kosovo (though that was an international initiative and not an American)... but I don't think I can agree with Korea. Ours (and the South Korean's) desire to go all the way to the Chinese border is what got China involved in the war; particularly MacArthur's rhetoric and leading a full scale invasion into the North. China (understandably) did not like the idea of the U.S. military sitting on it's door step and retaliated. If it wasn't for our desire to have an "absolute" victory... Korea likely would not be in the situation it is today. The North Koreans were broken and on the edge of collapse... sitting it out and letting them starve or surrender would have had more-or-less the same effect and likely would have kept China out of it.

Which once again goes to the globalization I mentioned earlier... the world has changed to the point where wars are won at the diplomacy table and not on the battlefield. Unfortunately we haven't seemed to learn that yet (and I would include WW2 in that list of failed wars simply because it was the diplomatic actions of France after WW1 that created the situation).



,

[Baruch]

After a war starts ... then win it.  But the only way to really win, is to not start any wars to begin with.  And that usually requires diplomacy.  Failed diplomacy leads to wars ... so how is that winning?  Or is winning, just Americans, and not other people, feeling temporarily good about themselves?

[Hydra009]

I'll agree with you on Kosovo (though that was an international initiative and not an American)

I am aware of that.  Hence my "US helped" wording.  If I had instead said that it was US-led or unilateral US action rather than a NATO action, then a correction would be warranted.

... but I don't think I can agree with Korea. Ours (and the South Korean's) desire to go all the way to the Chinese border is what got China involved in the war; particularly MacArthur's rhetoric and leading a full scale invasion into the North. China (understandably) did not like the idea of the U.S. military sitting on it's door step and retaliated. If it wasn't for our desire to have an "absolute" victory... Korea likely would not be in the situation it is today. The North Koreans were broken and on the edge of collapse... sitting it out and letting them starve or surrender would have had more-or-less the same effect and likely would have kept China out of it.

I completely agree with all of that and at least some of that should've been obvious from my statement that the war was needlessly bloody - the US invasion of North Korea and Chinese intervention was what I was referring to.

I don't get why people disagree with me by saying stuff I completely agree with.  It doesn't look like we disagree at all.

Earlier I was arguing that US military actions accomplished a lot of its goals and gave specific examples.  The counterargument?  Not everything was a bed of roses.  Well, no kidding.  But it doesn't refute the claim - it just talks past my argument without actually addressing it.

[SGOS]

Earlier I was arguing that US military actions accomplished a lot of its goals and gave specific examples.  The counterargument?  Not everything was a bed of roses.  Well, no kidding.  But it doesn't refute the claim - it just talks past my argument without actually addressing it.

Here's my analysis:
-----------------
I made a claim.
You refuted it and made additional claims.
I conceded, but disputed some of your additional claims.
-----------------

Are you implying I committed a foul or failed to address your issue?

But more importantly to me (really, this is my biggest concern).  Did I do any of those things in a way that you found disparaging or offensive?  I need to know that more than anything.

[Baruch]

Here's my analysis:
-----------------
I made a claim.
You refuted it and made additional claims.
I conceded, but disputed some of your additional claims.
-----------------

Are you implying I committed a foul or failed to address your issue?

But more importantly to me (really, this is my biggest concern).  Did I do any of those things in a way that you found disparaging or offensive?  I need to know that more than anything.

I thought your response #66 was very mature and responsible.  You either love the US or hate it ... and love/hate is irrational, it isn't logical.  Lovers of course, can't tolerate any skepticism toward their beloved.

[Mike Cl]

I thought your response #66 was very mature and responsible.  You either love the US or hate it ... and love/hate is irrational, it isn't logical.  Lovers of course, can't tolerate any skepticism toward their beloved.

This is the problem with the way history is taught in this country now.  It is written by people who only love it.  It would be much more responsible to write about facts--good and bad (yes, depends upon your point of view or bias) and let the student supply the commentary; after they are taught what critical thinking is.  No country is all anything; they all have done horrid things and good/great things.  This country is no different; but the poster child of doing the most horrid things one can think, and acting in the most selfless of manners.  I guess that makes us a country of humans.  But in order to correct mistakes or poor ways of acting, it has to be acknowledged as such.  As it is, millions upon millions still think George Washington chopped down a cherry tree and did not lie about it.