Biggest blunder since WWII

Tell me,since a few of you already hijacked this thread with ignorant, twisted views and comments.By bashing Israel (on an internet site) how does it benefit you people?Are you that inadequate in your real lives,that bashing another country makes you feel better somehow?Or perhaps you really think outside of maybe 3 or 4 people tops, anyone else actually gives a shit about your deluded views.Are you people as clueless as your posts?Ah nevermind......

 

This IS a history forum.

The relationship between Israel and the United States is somethng that needs to be re-examined. The historical evidence suggests decades of apartheid and human rights abuses.

If I bash Israel, it's because Israel has done abominable things to other people in the name of the "Jewish" state. With MY taxpayer money no less.

Stop apologizing for these zionazi babykillers. Israel is going to get exactly what it deserves.

One thing it should stop getting is US aid.





x

 

It's one thing if you're critical of a country using "real facts".However what you post is downright lies,even the terms you(and a few other people on this forum) use are so twisted it's almost like reading the rants of a someones crazy uncle living in their basement.It's also so obvious you(and many others here) clearly know NOTHING about Israel or the middle east in general.--Anyhow I will not post further on this thread.

 

So this is your version of a Cartman exit? "Screw you guys, I'm going home"

By all means, let's discuss these "lies". What are you specifiically having a problem with?

Many things that are written in the history books are not true.

We owe it to future generations to correct any problems we find later on. How are the history books going to treat us if we don't confess that Israel is the biggest blunder the United States has ever been involved with?

Most all of our problems overseas all come back to reflect our unwavering support for this little craphole of a country.

The discovery of cause and effect is long overdue.




x

 

Israel has been leeching off the US long enough . they need to go solo

 

As much as I initially disliked the direction this threat wandered off into, I have to admit that a major chunk of world history and world politics revolves around the city of Jerusalem, and whoever owns it at a particular point in time.

I also have to confess that I can't claim to know both sides of this issue. Almost all of my news comes out of New York City. I can count on MSNBC and Fox News to give me the opposing sides of liberal/conservative and Democrat/Republican issues, but New York is only going to tell one side of any story that involves Israel. Every story has at least two sides, usually more.

 

Welcome to the world of puppetmasters.

The Matrix has you

I intend to put a stop to it.



x

 

Nuke Jerusalem...nuke Mecca...hell, nuke Salt Lake City for that matter.
Still wouldn't make up for all the sadness and death foolish religions have caused.

Oh...sorry...a history thread...right.

Biggest mistake? Not listening to Patton. That's kinda toeing the line for the after WWII requirement but ...shrug...

 

Don't forget Nashville (Southern Baptists, Pentecostals, Church of God, etc.).

 

I know the OP said the Cold War, but I'm going to get all specific and say it's the Cuban Missile Crisis and all the events leading up to it. All of that other stuff is pretty bad, but it's not an impending nuclear holocaust.

The war in Iraq is selfish and stupid, but it isn't like Iraq is a nuclear superpower or anything. The Kennedy Administration actually thought it was a good idea to put warheads in Turkey, and then got upset when the Russians made a deal with Cuba, and pushed them AGAIN to get their missiles out.

I'm no history expert or anything, but did these people have any idea what they were doing??? Today everyone knows that nuclear holocaust is a horrible thing, but at that time I think they honestly believed it wouldn't be so bad. The whole 'duck and cover' thing was still pretty widely accepted as a good way of dealing with this stuff.

Say what you will about George Bush and his administration-- at least he knows well enough to bully a weaker country. Kennedy actually thought it would be okay to push Russia around. Turns out he was right... and all he had to do was risk total Armageddon to find out.

Actually, I'd say nuclear escalation has been the single biggest human blunder since the world began-- let alone since WWII.

 

Depending on how things turn out in Pakistan, our greatest mistake may have been allowing that country to develop nuclear weapons. Pakistan seems to be the most likely place for nukes to fall into the hands of terrorists. If that happens, the end result will make 9-11 and the Iraq war look like child's play.

Probably, Kennedy's gamble was not worth the risk, as you said, but at least the USSR was a country that kept its nukes under firm control. The security issues there began when the empire fell apart.

 

Actually, I'd say nuclear escalation has been the single biggest human blunder since the world began-- let alone since WWII.


the numbers are inconceivable.. what really sucks though is they way the goobermint hides weapons research under different programs ..

 

Hmmmm... I've often wondered if the world is safer with Russia's nukes split up with poorer security, or all together with a single person's finger on the button. I mean, exactly how many nuclear weapons would it take to destroy the world?

If Russian nukes are circulating on the black market, there are going to be all kinds of different buyers, so really, there's less chance of a major global catastrophe. I'd say totalitarian dictators/fascist governments in developing countries would probably be in a better position to buy nukes than terrorists, and they wouldn't declare them because they wouldn't want the attention.

And plus, most of the time they wouldn't have the means to process the uranium so they would just have the existing bombs and that's it... not to mention, they would need to have a method of delivering it to a target, which is actually difficult to muster-- I mean, I'm blown away by Google Earth-- just imagine what the US government has.

So I'm thinking it's safer now. I would say the early years of the Reagan administration were probably the most dangerous time in human history, because that guy was insane, and worse yet, he had this way of making nuclear war seem cool, ie: Star Wars. Also, people were tired of being afraid.

That was when all of the world's nuclear arsenal was in the hands of two people, and if either of them had pressed the button, then we would probably not be having this conversation. I would say that during the Cuban Missile crisis, maybe the weapons weren't powerful enough to wipe out the whole world, however during the 70s and 80s, I think they probably were.

Nowadays, it's a pretty fair bet that the U.S. has the edge in the nukes department... if only because Russia is in the hands of the gangsters and there are all sorts of different gangs in different countries where the weapons are. So that arsenal is broken up and not as much of a threat, though I do suppose that Russia still has quite a formidable arsenal within its boundaries. Though I doubt that they still have the means to keep it updated, and as technologically sophisticated as the US.

Then again, I think the U.S. is also a pretty scary place... probably moreso than Russia ever was... because Americans tend to think they're right, and only feel safe if they have the power... so they will do anything to hold onto it. In fact, the US is probably more likely to start a global war than any other country in the world right now.

 

Ooops... that wasn't so clear. When I was talking about Google Earth and delivery systems for nuclear weapons, I meant, the US would be able to detect any weapons program immediately and put a stop to it... likely by covert operations, through local guerrillas (though I can't imagine trusting local subversives with such sensitive operations), or possibly some top secret technology.

But during the cold war, especially in the 80s, it didn't matter if the US knew about every single one of Russia's nuclear weapons launch sites, because both sides were equal, technologically.

 

Also, with the Pakistan situation-- I can't imagine them having such sophisticated delivery technology. Do they have missiles capable of delivering the warhead??? Mind you, they would also have to be easy to conceal... so that spy satellites wouldn't be able to detect them.

Unless you have long-range missiles, it's actually really difficult to use a nuclear weapon without having an actual war. In a war, you could hide it in any one of a number of bomber planes or such... but if there's no war, then you need a long-range missile... and terrorists hiding in caves in the desert couldn't possibly have those. They would be seen by US spy satellites and quietly neutralized before they were built.

Most of the time, terrorists are not high tech. 9/11 was very very very low tech, which is why it was possible. But smuggling a nuclear weapon into the US... hell, even into Mexico, would be very difficult. Unless it's an extremely technologically advanced nuclear weapon, it would be recognized by anyone. And it's extremely unlikely that terrorists would be able to obtain a high-tech nuke...

 

For the moment, tossing aside the theoretical part of this, just look at the historical record. In all of the decades that the USSR had nuclear weapons, not a one was used against an adversary. The US cannot say that.

Russia has been deeply paranoid about its own security since WWII. They have good reason to be. Looking at casualties as a percentage of total population, the US has never seen anything like what the Russians went through, not even during the US Civil War.

The former USSR spin-off countries may be capable of maintaining perfect self-discipline and weapons security over a span of decades, but this remains to be seen. The best thing about the Cold War was that it stayed Cold.

 

They can deliver the warheads throughout India. They have little interest in sending them anywhere else.

The worst realistic scenario with Pakistan involves a stolen warhead being smuggled into the US and delivered inside an ordinary rented truck. The truck would not have to be parked very close to its target.

 

I agree.

While Europe/Asia including Russia were gutted by WWII, the US actually profited from the whole thing, and has been seeking to profit from war ever since... the effects of the Civil war have completely faded and since then America has completely healed over, to the extent that a single building collapsing in the middle of a single American city is cause for dismay and horror.

In WWII, entire cities in Europe and Japan were fire-bombed until NOTHING remained. The Nazis invaded Russia and committed the foulest acts anyone could possible imagine, destroying the cities, raping the women, burning the children etc., etc. The Japanese were using the Chinese and the Koreans as prostitutes or as science experiments on human pain threshholds/disease resistance... meanwhile, in the US, women were going to work, and it was a real tragedy to hear that someone's husband had caught a bullet in the head and died a relatively painless death. The US destroyed the entire city of Hiroshima along with tens of millions of lives in about eight seconds, and a few days later, they got drunk and celebrated. For a good twenty years after, they were undoubtedly the center of the world.

America has absolutely no sense of what it means to be a casualty of war. No sense of how awful it is to be IN a war, not fighting in some far off land, to be fighting for your own country because someone is trying to destroy everything you have built. Russia knows all about that.

Most of the wars waged since WWII have been about gaining/holding onto a trading partner/territory in some part of the world-- Korea (probably also to hold onto Japan), Vietnam (who the f knows about that one-- Kennedy was a madman), Iraq-- have all been about creating allies. It wasn't until recently that these wars were waged because of cold, evil logic, as opposed to wild, evil paranoia. Odd thing about it is that people are more willing to support a war as long as it's rooted in fear as opposed to material gain. I suppose because they like to feel secure, but not guilty.

I'm not for it by any stretch of the imagination, but the Iraq war probably made the most sense out of any war in recent memory, ie: it would be easy to win (relatively), there was a lot to gain (oil), the guy running the place was a genocidal asshole targeting specific ethnicities for extermination a la Adolf Hitler, they hated the US, the US actually created Saddam, the guy had been aggressive with his neighbours in the past, and the previous war hadn't been properly ended... the problem was that the timing was all off, and the US was definitely an aggressor, which people tend not to like.

America is a sick, sick country... but even though I'm railing against them, I'm actually really glad it's them and not China or someone else, because that would definitely be even more horrible.

 

...which is why there is still some value in studying the American Civil War. It is a reality check.

What country are you from?

 

the american government was taken over by religious fanatics that hold allegiance not to the people of america but to jehovah.

thus it was that america was used to fight someone elses war on humanity in the middle east

the war has lasted some time, it collapsed the american economy

the raft of bail outs is not to save the economy, it is to prolong the war. by pumping in money to keep the plebs a little happier to keep fighting the war.

in the end the war on humanity in the middle east will destroy the american republic. things will be bad , real bad but you can be sure that jeovhas merry makers will keep the war going.

when these people destroy the country totally they will smile and move onto the next most powerful host from which they can leech as much blood as they can till they kill the host.