Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
I'll start after WWII:
Vietnam: The US unilaterally moves to help the South Vietnamese. Everyone else disagrees
Bay of Pigs: US unilaterally invades part of Cuba against the advice of all our allies and we have our asses handed to us.
Iraq: The US unilaterally (the coalition doesn't count) invades Iraq to the chagrin of the international community.
|
Here is the definition of unilateral. You need to read it and understand it because you're using it incorrectly.
Vietnam War - South Vietnam dead: ~250,000; wounded: ~1,170,000. US dead: 58,209; 2,000 missing; wounded: 305,000. South Korea dead: 4,900; wounded: 11,000. Australia dead: 520; wounded: 2,400. New Zealand dead: 37; wounded: 187. Those numbers certainly don't look like unilateral action to me. Unilateral would mean that there would be US (and maybe ARVN) numbers exclusively. The Gulf of Tonkin incident was concocted as an excuse to enforce the Eisenhower Doctrin in response to the Domino Theory, which provided that allowing communism (in this case the Chinese brand) would lead to Soviet domination. In 1963-1965, this was a very real concern, especially since the Soviets were in turmoil politically (Khrushchev was ousted in 1964) and it was the height of the space/missle race. It's entirely consistent with the Eisenhower Doctrine, although it expanded it out of the Middle East.
Bay of Pigs - strawman much, will? Tell me exactly how many US troops you think were involved in this little fiasco? If you name any number greater than zero, then you're wrong. CIA operatives/spies don't count since they're not military, and that is what we (and Obama) are talking about, exclusively. Bringin up the Bay of Pigs is completely pointless since it has zero bearing on what we're discussing.
Iraq War - The coalition doesn't count? It's entirely relevant to the argument that you're trying to make. Please explain to me as well as the families of the 176 UK soldiers and 133 other coalition members who died in this war why they don't count. Did the majority of the international community rightfully condemn the US? Yes. Did we act unilaterally? No. Don't try to pretend that we did.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
The funny thing? Our allies were right about each of these. They were massive mistakes and could have been avoided had there been men in power with the common sense to say, "Wait, you think it's a bad idea? Why's that?"
It is what it is. You can't become president anymore unless you hose off some of the country with testosterone. The reality is, when looking at his history, it's clear that he's more willing than any recent president or candidate to want to seek a peaceful solution. I doubt Barak Obama would have invaded Iraq. Or Vietnam.
|
Will, your theories don't line up with what actually happened. And Obama didn't say that he wouldn't seek a peaceful solution. He said that he would respond with force
IF SOMEONE ATTACKS US OR IS ABOUT TO ATTACK US. He said nothing about unilateral invasions. If he did, please point it out to me. If not, drop it because you're wrong. Look back at the quote and show me where he said anything about invasions. I agree that he most likely would not have invaded Iraq, but you're making huge assumptions and putting words in the man's mouth that he not only didn't say but didn't even come close to saying.