military meme

[Mushroom]

That was a different war. You should not confuse the French-Indochina War with the Vietnam War. They are two different conflicts.

And before that it was yet another one, largely unnamed from when Japan invaded and conquered Indochina. Not the same war.

And the advisors were sent in as part of the Geneva Accords. As part of the agreement the Soviets would assist and advise North Vietnam, the US would assist and advise South Vietnam. But the ink was not even dry on the peace treaty when North Vietnam started incursions and an assassination campaign against South Vietnam.

Tell me CA, is it "fake"? Or do you really think the Japanese invasion of Indochina, the French-Indochina War, and the Vietnam War are all the same conflict?

Please point out exactly where anything I said is "fake".

 

[ESay]

Try thousands of years. And during all of those thousands of years they were happily hacking up anybody that was not "them". Even during the "Arab Revolt" in WWI, a large number of Arabs fought on the side of the Ottoman Empire. And even among the Arabs, when not fighting the Ottoman, they would often fight amongst each other.

Well, as was everywhere in the world. Including 'civilized' Europe for all of its history.

 

[PeterPilot]

Of course, that meme is a lie.
When was the last time our military went to war to protect us?

USMC General Smedley Butler explained it all a century ago. War is a racket. Protecting the country has nothing to do with it, but the propaganda says the opposite.

 

[Mushroom]

Well, as was everywhere in the world. Including 'civilized' Europe for all of its history.

But Europe largely left its "Tribal Era" over a thousand years ago. Much of the ME still has not left it.

Hell, in North America the tribals would often go around attacking each other less than two hundred years ago. For many of them, being forced onto reservations was the only way to make them stop.

 

[ESay]

But Europe largely left its "Tribal Era" over a thousand years ago. Much of the ME still has not left it.

Hell, in North America the tribals would often go around attacking each other less than two hundred years ago. For many of them, being forced onto reservations was the only way to make them stop.

Yes, here I have to agree. The last 500 years or so was a lost time for them.

 

[Concerned American]

USMC General Smedley Butler explained it all a century ago. War is a racket. Protecting the country has nothing to do with it, but the propaganda says the opposite.

I still remember parts of the boot camp rack time routine.....Good Night Smedley Butler, Good Night Dan Daly-----

 

[Mushroom]

Yes, here I have to agree. The last 500 years or so was a lost time for them.

Ahh, yet another that has swallowed a lot of nonsense.

Most North American tribes were barely aware of Europeans until relatively recently (less then 200 years), or they were just groups that would pass each other and trade.

Don't believe most of the revisionist crap that others try to pass off. But to be completely accurate, for most of the tribes of the US, (especially the Midwest and Mississippi River area), that is roughly the last 550-600 years when the Mississippian Culture collapsed. And that predates the arrival of Europeans.

 

[ESay]

Ahh, yet another that has swallowed a lot of nonsense.

Most North American tribes were barely aware of Europeans until relatively recently (less then 200 years), or they were just groups that would pass each other and trade.

Don't believe most of the revisionist crap that others try to pass off. But to be completely accurate, for most of the tribes of the US, (especially the Midwest and Mississippi River area), that is roughly the last 550-600 years when the Mississippian Culture collapsed. And that predates the arrival of Europeans.

I was talking about the Middle East.

 

[Mushroom]

I was talking about the Middle East.

Then you have to step back about 300-700 years. Which is when after the Dark Ages and multiple plagues, the "Western World" finally allowed them to eclipse the region and surpass them (generally at around the time of the Renaissance). That is generally considered the "beginning of the end" of the Islamic Golden Age.

Interestingly, a lot of our past history and philosophical works were saved by Islam, in times that the Western World was destroying it. Only later to reclaim a lot of it. And now it is almost reversed, with the Western World saving a lot of things that Fundamentalists in Islam want to destroy.

But at that time, the "Middle East" is likely not what you think it was. It was a series of essentially "Occupation zones" of the Ottoman Empire. Primarily broken up into "Eyalet" or administrative zones. Normally named after the major city in the zone, these were for example "Baghdad", "Basra", "Tripoli", and over two dozen others. Only a few like "Syria" and "Egypt" are recognizable as actual "nations" as they already had been when the Turks conquered them. Those were then broken into smaller "Sanjak"s, or provinces. Like Jerusalem, Gaza, and the like.

Under Ottoman Rule, modern Jordan was made up of Maan, Hauran, and almost a dozen other districts. Modern Palestine-Israel was Jerusalem, Nablus, Acre, and the southern part of Beirut. The Ottomans themselves carved up the "nations" when they took over. And hundreds of years later the Europeans were trying to put them back together the best they could.

The Ottomans had done that hundreds of years ago, after WWII the districts were simply mostly changed into nations. The Europeans did not do that, the Ottoman Empire did it hundreds of years before that. And over the centuries, would rule them with greater or lesser levels of autonomy.

 

[Concerned American]

Then you have to step back about 300-700 years. Which is when after the Dark Ages and multiple plagues, the "Western World" finally allowed them to eclipse the region and surpass them (generally at around the time of the Renaissance). That is generally considered the "beginning of the end" of the Islamic Golden Age.

Interestingly, a lot of our past history and philosophical works were saved by Islam, in times that the Western World was destroying it. Only later to reclaim a lot of it. And now it is almost reversed, with the Western World saving a lot of things that Fundamentalists in Islam want to destroy.

But at that time, the "Middle East" is likely not what you think it was. It was a series of essentially "Occupation zones" of the Ottoman Empire. Primarily broken up into "Eyalet" or administrative zones. Normally named after the major city in the zone, these were for example "Baghdad", "Basra", "Tripoli", and over two dozen others. Only a few like "Syria" and "Egypt" are recognizable as actual "nations" as they already had been when the Turks conquered them. Those were then broken into smaller "Sanjak"s, or provinces. Like Jerusalem, Gaza, and the like.

Under Ottoman Rule, modern Jordan was made up of Maan, Hauran, and almost a dozen other districts. Modern Palestine-Israel was Jerusalem, Nablus, Acre, and the southern part of Beirut. The Ottomans themselves carved up the "nations" when they took over. And hundreds of years later the Europeans were trying to put them back together the best they could.

The Ottomans had done that hundreds of years ago, after WWII the districts were simply mostly changed into nations. The Europeans did not do that, the Ottoman Empire did it hundreds of years before that. And over the centuries, would rule them with greater or lesser levels of autonomy.

You speak of these things as if they are different wars when in reality they were continuations of the same religious disputes over time. A good example would be the Ottoman/Persian Wars of 1700s. Sunni vs. Shia. Hmmm, where've we heard that as recently as the 1980s when Iran and Iraq went after it for eight years--Again Sunni vs. Shia.

 

[ESay]

Then you have to step back about 300-700 years. Which is when after the Dark Ages and multiple plagues, the "Western World" finally allowed them to eclipse the region and surpass them (generally at around the time of the Renaissance). That is generally considered the "beginning of the end" of the Islamic Golden Age.

Interestingly, a lot of our past history and philosophical works were saved by Islam, in times that the Western World was destroying it. Only later to reclaim a lot of it. And now it is almost reversed, with the Western World saving a lot of things that Fundamentalists in Islam want to destroy.

But at that time, the "Middle East" is likely not what you think it was. It was a series of essentially "Occupation zones" of the Ottoman Empire. Primarily broken up into "Eyalet" or administrative zones. Normally named after the major city in the zone, these were for example "Baghdad", "Basra", "Tripoli", and over two dozen others. Only a few like "Syria" and "Egypt" are recognizable as actual "nations" as they already had been when the Turks conquered them. Those were then broken into smaller "Sanjak"s, or provinces. Like Jerusalem, Gaza, and the like.

Under Ottoman Rule, modern Jordan was made up of Maan, Hauran, and almost a dozen other districts. Modern Palestine-Israel was Jerusalem, Nablus, Acre, and the southern part of Beirut. The Ottomans themselves carved up the "nations" when they took over. And hundreds of years later the Europeans were trying to put them back together the best they could.

The Ottomans had done that hundreds of years ago, after WWII the districts were simply mostly changed into nations. The Europeans did not do that, the Ottoman Empire did it hundreds of years before that. And over the centuries, would rule them with greater or lesser levels of autonomy.

Not sure what you wanted to say with this post. What put an end to the Islamic Golden age - the Arabs caliphates in various shapes - was the Mongol invasion, and the destruction of Baghdad by Tamerlan. The Ottoman Empire came only after that. The final expulsion of Muslims from the Iberian peninsula also happened after that.

The Middle East was not only the Ottomans. The various ruling dynasties of Persia, who in reality weren’t Persian at all, except of the Zend dynasty, also had a great influence on 'the Middle East'.

 

[Rigby5]

I don't get why those people were so crazy about the 1991 war. Wasn't the first Gulf War considered as a just cause? I somewhat understand the stance concerning the Iraq war in 2003, though.

Fearing that the Soviet Union may be involved in one way or another? It was 1991, and it barely could do anything. I saw a documentary a while ago about that and it was said that Soviet bureaucrats were impressed by this military operation. Even one of the main Soviet newspapers (maybe Izvestia, I don't remember properly) issued an article called 'That is how professionals fight'.

Totally wrong.
Desert Storm was one of the most disgusting injustices.
Saddam had asked the permission of the US ambassador Glaspie to punish Kuwait for stealing oil, and they are on video giving it.

Desert Storm is NOT how "professionals" fight.
We negotiated an Iraqi retreat and then illegally massacred them with their hatches open, with a hyperbaric weapon.
Totally disgusting.

 

[Rigby5]

That was a different war. You should not confuse the French-Indochina War with the Vietnam War. They are two different conflicts.

And before that it was yet another one, largely unnamed from when Japan invaded and conquered Indochina. Not the same war.

And the advisors were sent in as part of the Geneva Accords. As part of the agreement the Soviets would assist and advise North Vietnam, the US would assist and advise South Vietnam. But the ink was not even dry on the peace treaty when North Vietnam started incursions and an assassination campaign against South Vietnam.

Wrong.
Russia violated nothing in Vietnam.
The only violation was the US backing Diem to illegally out Bau Dai and prevent the plebiscite to decide who would rule all of Vietnam.
The US did not "assist and advise" but instead bribed an illegal coup.
And Diem was so extremely unpopular that eventually we had him killed and bribed other generals like Ky, Thieu, etc., to take over.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Wrong.
Russia violated nothing in Vietnam.
The only violation was the US backing Diem to illegally out Bau Dai and prevent the plebiscite to decide who would rule all of Vietnam.
The US did not "assist and advise" but instead bribed an illegal coup.
And Diem was so extremely unpopular that eventually we had him killed and bribed other generals like Ky, Thieu, etc., to take over.

Wrong

The US violated nothing. There was no preventive mewasure by the US to hold a plebiscite. Minh could have held one at any time. He refused to hold one, siezed power and then started another war

 

[AZrailwhale]

Tell me CA, is it "fake"? Or do you really think the Japanese invasion of Indochina, the French-Indochina War, and the Vietnam War are all the same conflict?

Please point out exactly where anything I said is "fake".

The Japanese didn’t invade French Indochina, the Vichy French turned it over to them.

 

[whitehall]

Political demagoguery. Primarily by cherry-picking when such actually start.

Tell me, did the Gulf War start during a "Democrat Administration"? Grenada? Vietnam?

The US did not get heavily involved in that war until 1962, but it started in 1955 during the Eisenhower Administration.

You should know, I pretty equally dismiss political demagoguery from both sides.

Grenada was a rescue mission. Blame Ike for Vietnam? You have to be politically disturbed to promote that one.

 

[Oddball]

 

[beagle9]

View attachment 1056509

Drill baby drill... Gotta keep them big birds flying and protecting.. I'm good..

 

[daveman]

Of course, that meme is a lie.
When was the last time our military went to war to protect us?

“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war, is much worse. When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people. A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice; a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free choice, — is often the means of their regeneration. A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. As long as justice and injustice have not terminated their ever-renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is, to do battle for the one against the other.”

― John Stuart Mill

 

[Mushroom]

Hmmm, where've we heard that as recently as the 1980s when Iran and Iraq went after it for eight years--Again Sunni vs. Shia.

Wow, really? How about Saddam was simply a Ba'athist that wanted to expand his territory? Or do you think that Saddam was a fundamentalist Sunni?

And how about Kuwait? That are a majority Sunni nation as well.

In this case, you are largely trying to inject religion where it really does not apply at all. It would be like trying to place a religious cause on the conquests of Adolph Hitler.

When it came to Iran, what Iraq mostly saw was a weak nation torn apart by internal strife. And had just completed a major purge of almost all of the top levels of military leadership. Huge sections of the Iranian government at that time were run not by people who actually knew what they were doing, but based upon their perceived loyalty to the new regime. Not unlike the conditions that Hitler saw when he was looking at the Soviet Union four decades earlier.

But funny, I have heard absolutely nobody ever accuse either Saddam, or the other major Ba'athist leaders of Hafez al-Assad or Bashar al-Assad as being particularly religious.