The Myth of American Exceptionalism

[SADAKHUSH]

Come on mate, I have better things to do here than gripe ! I agree some times the America bashing here is meaningless, but not always.


Korea: At the Potsdam Conference (July–August 1945), the Allies unilaterally decided to divide Korea—without consulting the Koreans—in contradiction of the Cairo Conference. It can be said that Koreans never wanted a division of their own, but was forced down upon them by the allies as well as the commies who had their own agendas.

Vietnam: US hawks favored a war although many in the administration were against it, including Kennedy and Robert Macnamara. 90 % of Vietnamese people favored the communist regime in north.

Afghanistan: You supported the mujaheddin when it suited you against the Soviets. Then when the mujaheddin faded, and Taliban invaded the scene and raped Afghanistan inside out, became the hotbed of terrorism, you simply looked the other way, till 9/11 happened and terror hit home and your psyche. Since the past 30 years, Afghanistan has remained unstable. And it still is, if this had been checked when it was at a nascent stage, lot would have been different for the Afghans and you.

Iraq: After the second Gulf war, Iraq is in a serious mess from sectarian and ethnic violence. Your government never thought about that before attacking it, and neither they have any solution for it yet.

Pakistan: Well, we all know about this piece of shit, don't we ? So need to discuss about it.

There is a parallel after all among all this countries. Regime changes and wars which happened, and which had tacit US support and involvement, were all against the wishes of local populace.

If I may add one point to what you have stated.

USA initially went via Pakistan to stop spread of communism and after three decades their ally(Pakistan) is sitting in the laps of one of the biggest communist thugs. Can someone from USA state department explain what was achieved in Afghanistan after all.

 

[sandeepdg]

Really..the Korean war a mistake. There are 50 million poeple in South Korea who dont have to live under a psycho named Kim Jung Il as a result of the Korean War. Go talk to a South Korean before you call the Korean war a mistake.

Iraq and Vietnam Yes, but Aghanistan. Do you want the US to do what India did after the Mumbai attacks ?? Which is nothing !
Put on your thinking caps buddy.

Talking to a South Korean today makes no sense. I am talking about 5 decades back.

At the beginning of the Cold War, the US government assumed that all communists, regardless of nationality, were controlled or directly influenced by Moscow; thus the US portrayed the civil war in Korea as a Soviet hegemonic maneuver. So it was a civil war after all, better resolved between the two parties themselves. But the big powers had other plans, and hence they divided Korea for their own agendas. Kim Jung or no Kim Jung, most Koreans still dream of reunification, and Kim Jung is not an immortal.

About Afghanistan, read my comments above.

 

[SPIEZ]

You can't add Pakistan to that list of mistakes, can you?

LOL! that's yet to happen

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Come on mate, I have better things to do here than gripe ! I agree some times the America bashing here is meaningless, but not always.

Fair enough.

Korea: At the Potsdam Conference (July–August 1945), the Allies unilaterally decided to divide Korea—without consulting the Koreans—in contradiction of the Cairo Conference. It can be said that Koreans never wanted a division of their own, but was forced down upon them by the allies as well as the commies who had their own agendas.

The Korean War began when KN overran the South and the US responded, taking heavy casualties in the beginning (Task Force Smith). Was the US not to respond to communist aggression and mass murder?

Vietnam: US hawks favored a war although many in the administration were against it, including Kennedy and Robert Macnamara. 90 % of Vietnamese people favored the communist regime in north.

That doesn't seem right, and it's incredibly simplified. A separate discussion is needed. If all Vietnamese loved Ho Chi Min so much, why the exodus after the fall of the South?

Afghanistan: You supported the mujaheddin when it suited you against the Soviets. Then when the mujaheddin faded, and Taliban invaded the scene and raped Afghanistan inside out, became the hotbed of terrorism, you simply looked the other way, till 9/11 happened and terror hit home and your psyche. Since the past 30 years, Afghanistan has remained unstable. And it still is, if this had been checked when it was at a nascent stage, lot would have been different for the Afghans and you.

20/20 hindsight. Russia was the OPFOR in 1979. Terrorist bases there in after 2001 needed to be dealt with using more than cruise missiles.

Iraq: After the second Gulf war, Iraq is in a serious mess from sectarian and ethnic violence. Your government never thought about that before attacking it, and neither they have any solution for it yet.

It remains to be seen how Iraq evolves from here. The story is not complete and Iraq is better of with the mass murderer Saddam removed.

Pakistan: Well, we all know about this piece of shit, don't we ? [N]o need to discuss about it.

There is a parallel after all among all this countries. Regime changes and wars which happened, and which had tacit US support and involvement, were all against the wishes of local populace.

The US did not, and will not remove Pakistan as a threat to India, in my humble opinion. If that pisses off the Indians, so be it.

Does everybody in KS want US to leave? Does Iraq want Saddam resurrected?

 

[W.G.Ewald]

If I may add one point to what you have stated.

USA initially went via Pakistan to stop spread of communism and after three decades their ally(Pakistan) is sitting in the laps of one of the biggest communist thugs. Can someone from USA state department explain what was achieved in Afghanistan after all.

Hillary doesn't have to explain anything to anybody. You should know that by now.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Talking to a South Korean today makes no sense. I am talking about 5 decades back.

At the beginning of the Cold War, the US government assumed that all communists, regardless of nationality, were controlled or directly influenced by Moscow; thus the US portrayed the civil war in Korea as a Soviet hegemonic maneuver. So it was a civil war after all, better resolved between the two parties themselves. But the big powers had other plans, and hence they divided Korea for their own agendas. Kim Jung or no Kim Jung, most Koreans still dream of reunification, and Kim Jung is not an immortal.

KS would have been overrun after the "resolution between the two parties."
KN mediation methods are artillery, PPSH and bayonet.

 

[asianobserve]

what would be lost if USA stopped spending 700 billion annually on defense, financing 1/3 of the UN and a good part of NATO?? What would be lost if US brought back it's manufacturing base and stopped imports??? USA may lose foreign investors and Foreign investors may try to dump their debt holdings but USA does not have to buy them and the more they sell the dollar the lower the value they will receive for it. USA has bailed out Latin America, Europe and others thru many crisis and given countless aid around the world. Now that USA has a problem nobody is rushing with assistance. Maybe a few good years of isolation would be good for the world and USA??

For a frequest poster of this forum I find your above views extremely naive. No offence.

 

[asianobserve]

^^ You do have a point.

However, I'd say that Afghanistan was also partly a mistake. Very poorly handled. Instead of doing real nation building, the US handed the nation to warlords. And outsourced a large part of work to the double dealing treacherous Pakis!! It took the US a decade to realize that they were being suckered all the while!!

You better examine all angles of the ops mate. You do not invade a country without allies from inside: rule # 1. Pakis were have to be involved for obvious reasons. Look at the mess they can make when totally decoupled. Always remember to keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

 

[asianobserve]

If I may add one point to what you have stated.

USA initially went via Pakistan to stop spread of communism and after three decades their ally(Pakistan) is sitting in the laps of one of the biggest communist thugs. Can someone from USA state department explain what was achieved in Afghanistan after all.

Please review your history. Pakistan would not have been at the center of American South Asian policy had Nehru not been too naive to spurne direct US overtures. What would US do if India does not seem to want it to as an ally? Note that US needed a presence in South Asia to hedge agianst the USSR.

 

[asianobserve]

Talking to a South Korean today makes no sense. I am talking about 5 decades back.

At the beginning of the Cold War, the US government assumed that all communists, regardless of nationality, were controlled or directly influenced by Moscow; thus the US portrayed the civil war in Korea as a Soviet hegemonic maneuver. So it was a civil war after all, better resolved between the two parties themselves. But the big powers had other plans, and hence they divided Korea for their own agendas. Kim Jung or no Kim Jung, most Koreans still dream of reunification, and Kim Jung is not an immortal.

About Afghanistan, read my comments above.

If that's the case then why put all the blame on the Americans? In case you forgot it was the NKs who lunched an invasion against the South. And in case you also forgot the NKs were trained, funded, supported (if not controlled) by the USSR (an outside power and that time the US' arch nemesis). What do you expect the US would have done in that situation? And for the sake of a sporting academic discourse, if India was in US' shoes, how would you want it to react?

 

[sandeepdg]

If that's the case then why put all the blame on the Americans? In case you forgot it was the NKs who lunched an invasion against the South. And in case you also forgot the NKs were trained, funded, supported (if not controlled) by the USSR (an outside power and that time the US' arch nemesis). What do you expect the US would have done in that situation? And for the sake of a sporting academic discourse, if India was in US' shoes, how would you want it to react?

Read my earlier comments, I have stated that all the powers involved had their own agendas along with the US in the Korea war. I am not blaming the US alone in this case. It all comes down to one simple thing, that all these powerful external forces decided the fate of the country, and not the people themselves. Whether the North attacked the South, or vice versa, whatever business the US had with them ? It was a civil war. But for US, China and USSR, It was a fight between two ideologies: communism and capitalism after all, and all these countries were just pawns for the powers that be and they used them as they felt appropriate, not appropriate from the point of view of the local people.

India never had such great power ambitions by forcing their will upon others. We have been a gentle power since the past 2000 years before 20th century. Read up on the trade and cultural ties we had with West Asia and East Asia.

 

[asianobserve]

I don't think the Koreans deserves such low regard. You talk as if they're incapable of self-thought, of acting in pursuit of their thoughts. I will assure you my friend that the Koreans decided their fates 60 yrs ago just like how they're deciding their fates now. Kim Il Sung consciously decided to invade SK on June 25, 1950 and Stalin did not think for him. (Although Stalin bloated Kim's ego just enough to think that he can take on the SK and US, and he was almost right).

 

[sandeepdg]

KS would have been overrun after the "resolution between the two parties."
KN mediation methods are artillery, PPSH and bayonet.

Yeah, they would have. But it was a civil war between the North and the South. I still feel the US and other powers had no business there. Read my previous comments, I have stated that the real war was between Communism and Capitalism, and all these countries were used by the powers.

 

[sandeepdg]

I don't think the Koreans deserves such low regard. You talk as if they're incapable of self-thought, of acting in pursuit of their thoughts. I will assure you my friend that the Koreans decided their fates 60 yrs ago just like how they're deciding their fates now. Kim Il Sung consciously decided to invade SK on June 25, 1950 and Stalin did not think for him. (Although Stalin bloated Kim's ego just enough to think that he can take on the SK and US, and he was almost right).

I am not disrespecting the Koreans here. You interpreted me wrong. I am saying that what the Koreans thought and desired was of no relevance to the great powers and they muzzled their opinions and brain washed them to side with them (I mean the North by Communists and the South by the US and allies), just as you stated that Stalin boasted Kim's ego.

 

[asianobserve]

I am not disrespecting the Koreans here. You interpreted me wrong. I am saying that what the Koreans thought and desired was of no relevance to the great powers and they muzzled their opinions and brain washed them to side with them (I mean the North by Communists and the South by the US and allies), just as you stated that Stalin boasted Kim's ego.

Interesting.

Is the US still doing mass hypnotism? They seemed very successful in hypnotising the SKs to pick up arms and shoot their Northern brothers. How about Russia? Did it inherit USSR's mass hypnotism know how? They were so effective against the NOKORs. Those poor controlled people even died in the hundred of thousands...

 

[sandeepdg]

Interesting.

Is the US still doing mass hypnotism? They seemed very successful in hypnotising the SKs to pick up arms and shoot their Northern brothers. How about Russia? Did it inherit USSR's mass hypnotism know how? They were so effective against the NOKORs. Those poor controlled people even died in the hundred of thousands...

I never said that in the literal sense. Or maybe I used the wrong word. What I wanted to convey was that the US and the Soviets propped up NK and SK and took advantage of the conflicts between them to serve their own interest.

And I would say that again, that I feel the greater powers had no business in deciding the fate of the Koreans. They are intelligent, industrious, and self respecting people who should have been left to choose their own destiny.

 

[asianobserve]

Can I edit your post?

"And I would say that again, that I feel the great powers had no business in deciding the fate of the Koreans. They are industrious, and self-respecting people who should have been left to choose their own destiny."

(I only deleted "intelligent") :thumb:

 

[asianobserve]

Seriously, the reality of international relations is more nuanced than the simplistic view that the Americans (and other powers) are playing dice with the lives of other people. Those people or states will not act if they don't see their actions meeting their own interests. Nobody works for the sake of America or the USSR. When the first Kim allowed the Soviets in their territory and closely allied with them he had the "intelligent" view that it was in his (okay, his country's) interest. The USSR was his best bet of countering the almost certain intervention of the Americans in favor of the SOKORs. The same was the mentality of the people in the South of the demarcation. You could even make an argument that the NOKORs and the SOKORs exploited the Cold War enmity of the Americans and the Soviets to advance/protect their own interests. (Poor hapless young American GIs and Soviet pilots who died in that war. They have to die because their respective governments were duped by the SOKORs and NOKORs into sending them thousands of miles to die for other people's war.)

 

[sandeepdg]

Seriously, the reality of international relations is more nuanced than the simplistic view that the Americans (and other powers) are playing dice with the lives of other people. Those people or states will not act if they don't see their actions meeting their own interests. Nobody works for the sake of America or the USSR. When the first Kim allowed the Soviets in their territory and closely allied with them he had the "intelligent" view that it was in his (okay, his country's) interest. The USSR was his best bet of countering the almost certain intervention of the Americans in favor of the SOKORs. The same was the mentality of the people in the South of the demarcation. You could even make an argument that the NOKORs and the SOKORs exploited the Cold War enmity of the Americans and the Soviets to advance/protect their own interests. (Poor hapless young American GIs and Soviet pilots who died in that war. They have to die because their respective governments were duped by the SOKORs and NOKORs into sending them thousands of miles to die for other people's war.)

I can keep bringing counter points to what you just said, but I think we better cut it here.

Poor hapless young American GIs and Soviet pilots who died in that war. They have to die because their respective governments were duped by the SOKORs and NOKORs into sending them thousands of miles to die for other people's war.

Well, that's the price you pay for being a super power. Thank God we don't have such responsibilities.

By the way, what's wrong with "intelligent" Koreans ?

 

[asianobserve]

You didn't make them sound intelligent in your earlier comments, with being merely US and Soviet remote controlled bots. You made it appear they don't have minds of their own.