Is NATO delivering in Afaghanistan ?

Of course they listened to the president. Macarthur was fired for questioning the president's decision publicly but there was no disobedience. You have the facts mixed up some. When the Chinese came in they drove the UN forces back below Seoul initially however the UN forces then counteratttacked and drove the Chinese and North Koreans back to the 38th parallel ( where the ceasefire line was drawn).

 

I guess I will have to take your word for it I was using an American History textbook you know the facts must be wrong if CNN has something to do with it. There are several CNN logos in the book.

 

gunter,are you under the impression that fdr could have declared war on japan before the pearl harbor attack and gotten congress and the us voters to go along with it? let me assure you in no uncertain terms that this would have been political suicide for fdr...fdr figured the embargo would force a japanese attack,he didnt think they would have the balls to attack pearl itself...you must remember that a large portion of american voters were isolationist and wanted no foreign entanglements ever again...btw i think this sentment might soon make a comback in america...

 

Small scale compared to the USA's contribution, but not bad considering the financial state of Britain at the time. Korea was a UN operation, and the USA was the most powerful UN nation willingto help South Korea, so it naturally took the lion's share. Cynics would say it had a lot to do with the USA's morbid fear of Communism...

In danger of taking a controversial tangent...

I have seen numerous interviews with war correspondants etc who support this view - the main reason given is usually that the US forces are generally less 'local-friendly' - a common accusation is that they 'run around sticking guns in people's faces'. This was often contrasted by the behaviour of British peacekeepers who deliberately try to establish a rapport with the local population - usually with the aid of footballs and dogs...

 

I always found that famous quote very misleading - America has been entangled in foreign affairs for a long, long time - what he really meant was direct involvement in foreign wars.

"sentiment might soon come back" - possibly, if the casualties keep totting up but still completely counter to USA's actual military stance which has been fairly hawkish in recent decades.

 

You don't have to take my word for it. Google Korean war timeline or Korean war chronology. You will get tons of hits that list the events and dates that they occurred. Of course you could also read some few of hundreds of books on the subject as well.

 

People are entitled to their opinions even when they are misinformed or without basis in fact The UK forces in Iraq have been, for the most part stationed in a quiet part of Iraq but as they have found out on several occassions the hearts and minds that they thought were won over have their own agenda that supercedes any warm and fuzzy feeling they might have for the occupying troops, be they UK or US (or any other nationality). If as many UK soldiers were dying as US soldiers and they were tasked with maintaining control in a hotter area as the uS does then we can only speculate how quick they would be to run around sticking guns in peoples faces.

 

Ah - there are a lot more peacekeeping operations out there besides Iraq. The comments mostly regarded actions in the former Yugoslavia, and were from people who lived alongside the troops throughout (what they now call 'embedded' reporters).

The British were the most common comparison simply because most of the people interviewed (mostly US and UK journalists) had 'served' alongside both.

 

There was a indeed a temporary deployment of British Black Watch troops into a particualarly hot area previously held by US Marines and I believe that tactics had to harden somewhat for that I the face of constant hostility.

There is, however, a vast amount of eye witness and expert opinion which says that the Brits are the best at this kind of thing and America is far from it.

Why were the British asked to train US units in peacekeeping and urban patrol techniques if they didn't have something to offer - generally you would expect the teacher to know more than the student.

All those years in trouble spots during the relinquishing of empire, Northen Ireland and countless other UN peackeeping operations does count for something.

 

A vast amount you say? If there is a vast amount perhaps you can cite some credible and unbiased sources?s

 

link:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060919/wl_nm/iraq_britain_courtmartial_dc

 

I beleive that was also the stand the American government had taken since WWI althought President Wilson was against it. Which statment? The on about isolationism?

 

Wilson wasn't against it. He tried to stay out of the war and intended to remain neutral. The unrestricted submarine warfare campaign started by the Germans in 1917 after having previously sunk several passenger liners with American citizens aboard (Lusitania for example)in the early years of the war forced Wilson to break off diplomatic relations and ask Congress for a declaration of war.

 

I was reffering to after the war, I should have specified that. President Wilson wanted to stay in contact with europe and be part of the league of nations but his country was against it.

 

Unbiased ?!

 

Credible ?! even ...

Grieg - there are many sources of information. We all absorb much data on our travels and try to distill something from them all that we can reasonably believe is the truth. Generally speaking, if I'm standing alone in a large field (no cows in sight) and I'm getting wet from above, I would reasonably assume it is raining. Equally if everyone but the USA from all sides is saying that the USA have a lot to learn about peacekeeping then I lean towards believing it. On the point of evidence - there are some on these forums who simply point towards a certain book or thesis as evidence - such things are, no matter how well researched, still only the works of human beings with all their biases and falibilities. We must look at everything available to us and draw the best conclusions that we can. I for one am in favour of open discussion and debate on forums such as this and do not feel obliged to dig up some document of debatable credibility in support of my every statement.

 

Heya,just a slight correction being a history student here,Bao Dai wasn't really pro-western...he was a french puppet

 

Maybe a pro western french puppet then...?

 

No need to verify every statement of opinion. When one states their opinion as though it were a verifiable fact then IMO they are obliged to provide credible sources. At this point we only have your word that "everyone but the USA is saying it".
Don't worry about it though.
I wasn't really expecting to get anything except biased opinion

 

Which really doesn't make much difference is therE?