I'm sorry but you lost track of argument. All these points are listed where response to your "Same outcomes of US wars", which showed different outcomes, like victories versus defeets, some going according to plan, some creating unexpected mess.
What you posted instead is your feelings about these points, with random thoughts.
Do you agree or not that wars, US was involved in, had different outcomes?
If you think US lost all of them, as you seem insinuating, please argument accordingly.
1. US almost wasn't even in Europe war. War begun in 1939, but US made their famous "invasion" in 1944. That was the end of the war. Soviets asked them from help since the beginning. They promised in 1942. They didn't do it. They promised in 1943. They didn't do it. Soviets obliterated German army, entered Poland, Slovakia, Romania, East Germany and "OMG, Germans are loosing the war to commies, we must help 'em."
I have a book recommendation for you: Russia's Life Saver: Lend-Lease Aid to the USSR
- Take it from Zhukov:
"It is now said that the Allies never helped us . . . However, one cannot deny that the Americans gave us so much material, without which we could not have formed our reserves and could not have continued the war . . . we had no explosives and powder. There was none to equip rifle bullets. The Americans actually came to our assistance with powder and explosives. And how much sheet steel did they give us. We really could not have quickly put right our production of tanks if the Americans had not helped with steel. And today it seems as though we had all this ourselves in abundance."
- Favorite Russian troops' food was American canned meat, Tushonka.
- Remember Stalin Organs aka Katiusha? They were installed on Studebaker trucks from USA. Tens of thousand of trucks sent to Soviets.
- almost all aviation fuel and radio equipment (for T34s) was from the US and England.
- tons of rubber and steel supplies.
Without western help Russians would die of hunger first than win the war.
-Plus US crippled German factory production with bombings, destroyed refineries in Romania and tied up 1/3 of wehrmacht forces in the west.
You don't respect my point of view, but you should respect the best russian general.
2. China became communist country in 1949. It's very symptomatic that that's the very same year when MacArthur handed the power to Japanese government.
Whoo hoo, more conspiracy...
3. Well, you call that democratic. I call the Usianized.
Right, nothing like Yugoslavian communist system. The rest is deep shi-t. What about outcome of US war?
Japan is prosperous, unlike countries who were conquered by Russia.
4. Please no Vietnam. You pushed the country directly from colonialism to 35 years of war, and now you're attributing the consequences to victims.
lol, yes play the victim game. Singapore and hong kong was colonized to and look at them now. They've chosen the correct path, the free market capitalism. Who chooses communism is poor. Don't you see the pattern?
5. Kuwait is an administrative zone around the sink hole through which British suck the Arabian oil.
No idea what you mean.
Outcome of US wars?
By his own people. That's how they loved him, the friendly tyrant.
7. "It was around the time of this investment, incidentally, that Osama bin Laden made his first trip to the Khyber Pass, where he would soon join the Mujaheddin and the CIA in the holy war that expelled the Soviets from Afghanistan."
Again, what this has to do with "outcome of US wars"?
8. No money? After Hitler vandalized half of the Europe (interesting, just the Eastern half). We all know what Russia, Lithuania, Ukraine and Poland looked like after WW2. You can't compare it to Denmark and France (with which Hitler was delighted BTW). You're comparing scorched earth with bridges, theaters and museums.
Germany was scorched too, and look, West Germany was prosperous, East Germany poor and enslaved. Day before Gorbachev opened the Berlin wall, hundreds of thousand East Germans were standing by the gates!
There were no West Germans running away to East Germany. Can't you see the pattern?
Finally to the point:
Same motive - US fighting for "democracy".
No, priority is to fight enemy like communists or nazis, not to change political system. Is Kuwait democratic?
If democracy is US way to rule the world, theyn why is Serbia democratic now? Is US controlling Serbia now?
Plot is thickening...
Same pattern - US organize anti-governmental demonstrations and rebels
Show me examples for these countries, Germany, Vietnam, North Korea, Japan, etc
Same reaction - US people always wonder "Why do we need this war?"
I'm sure you had this reaction in Yugoslavia. Sort of like same pattern "people are killed in wars" all wars.
Same outcome - more dead than in any other solution, country infrastructure and economy destroyed, industry exhausted and in possession of foreign corporations, imposed governments that serves US interests, youth indoctrinated and Usianized and military bases closer to Russia and China.
Again, you are describing pattern of all wars, and not anything particular to USA.
1. North Korea wouldn't be in situation like this if there wasn't for US "aid".
Didn't they have good communist friends Russia and China? South Korea has chosen free market capitalism and is rich now. Can't you see the pattern again? Capitalism = rich, communism = poor and enslaved.
2. I'm not supporting Hitler nor his allies.
I've never suggested that.
3.Osama's dad was a billionaire, and as I'm informed we could ask Bush because two families are familiar with each other.
So Bush asked Obama to kill Osama, because he knew too much? Plot thickens...
4. Yeah, like we think US is there for human rights
" Afghanistan has been the greatest illicit opium producer in the entire world, ahead of Burma (Myanmar), the "Golden Triangle", and Latin America since 1992, excluding the year 2001. Afghanistan is the main producer of opium in the "Golden Crescent". Opium production in Afghanistan has been on the rise since U.S. occupation started in 2001".
Yeh, isn't it obvious! Now Americans can pay off the big deficit!
So again, sneaky Americans want to give Afghans freedoms and democracy and spend billions of doolars to protect them from Taliban, just to be able to steal their opium. Now it makes sense...
5. Serbs weren't forced to stop, because they didn't go anywhere. They were where thay have always been, and US cleansed them. Get hold of the
facts.
Right after you cleansed the Bosniaks and Croats.
6. What's the difference. It is now being controlled by paper dollar of US. Some OPEC countries are already questioning this practice, and US is turning an evil-eye on them just for a thought.
This thought doesn't make sense. US is buying most of its oil, and domestic oil has to be paid at market prices. US wants cheap oil to get out of recession now. OPEC (is not free market) sets prices by themselves, Russians too. 80% of world's oil is in governments' hands, Russians, Venezuela, OPEC, they need high oil prices to pay their debts and deficits. And yes, even with oil riches many countries are in big debts.
7. Soviets may be poor in money or gold, but there are much more valuable things in life that material wealth. We know who made most money in WW1, we know who sold guns to both Hitler and Stalin, and who issued bonds. It's no miracle some countries are rich, and some decent countries are poor
I'm sorry but you have no idea how economy works. It's not about money,
it's about production! You produce - you have goods to buy. You don't produce - you have nothing to buy. You can print billions of dollars, but if you don't produce you will buy nothing for your paper money, or gold money. Capitalism is producing a lot, that's why countries with capitalist economy are rich. Communism never produced much, therefore people were poor (nothing to buy). People were unhappy and demanded changes, so communists introduced dictatorship restrictions for citizens. That's why every attempt on communism ended up with dictatorship and tyranny for citizens.
Can you see the pattern? Every communist country was a dictatorship, either one man or one party, well, and poor.