What's new

A world without USA?

Actually I think America getting involved in the world wars caused the bloodshed, misery and destruction to be prolonged. In WW1 Britain was unable to continue and was about to accept German peace terms for status quo ante bellum (as things were before the war). But we got in and the war raged on.
In WW2 the Brits again rejected status quo ante bellum terms from Germany in 1941. They wouldn't have rejected these terms if there was no promise of America entering the war.
I'll concede the Japs were brutal, but then we later messed up by going into Vietnam. And all this was after the Phillipines invasion, so I'd say Asia is 50-50.
Then there's the Middle East. Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Egypt etc.
Oh I forgot South America...Panama, Nicaragua, Cuba, Grenada etc

There will be conflicts with or without the US, but I think US involvement overall makes things worse. European countries have always had wars among each other, but they always wound down relatively quickly without US involvement. France and England have been at war over 100 times for example. Every president from Washington to Teddy Roosevelt has presided while wars were raging in Europe and South America yet they resisted the urge to meddle, and low and behold these wars always came to a quick end without US involvement.

@libertad Thanks for being neutral.

I wonder how is what @libertad said neutral ?

It's like you have an accident on a bridge and you blame the bridge for being exist.....

In WW1, Germany and UK were ALREADY AT WAR before US involved. What he said only make sense if British Surrender before hostility. And when War are being Progress, then bloodshed HAD ALREADY started. Or you are not counting the people dead before US involvement is bloodshed?

Same thing in WW2. UK, France were already at war and China were already at war with japan before US involvement. Again, whatever peace there are, unless either party take it before hostility, it will not be bloodless.

US involvement changed the victors, NOT THE WAR.

and the fact to the matter is, US involvement speed things up (WW1 finish 1 and a half years after US involvement, while WW2 finished 3 years and 10 months after US involvement), I can argue this is the point to limit bloodshed if you want another 100 years war, or 30 years war in European Soil.

Absolutely correct! What would some of those sad hypocritical bashers do :cry:

lol, they will probably point the finger on someone else......

*** if blaming America would solve all their problem lol...
 
.
Aren't they already, Americans have played a vital role delivering freedom to them.

It would be far worse without USA, that is the point being made by several posters here, and I agree.
 
.
It would be far worse without USA, that is the point being made by several posters here, and I agree.
Far worse, hm.... your observation. Let us not be the judge of things which are out of our understanding, like this matter for example.
 
.
Far worse, hm.... your observation. Let us not be the judge of things which are out of our understanding, like this matter for example.

The question being answered is a hypothetical one. The last time I checked, USA was pretty real. :D
 
. . .
The question being answered is a hypothetical one. The last time I checked, USA was pretty real. :D
Everyone can have their views, no point in asking such questions to which you already know the answer to.
The last time I checked, USA was pretty real. :D
Me too, last time i checked, will check again.
In my opinion, it's better to not ask such questions, " Let us not be the judge of things which are out of our understanding, like this matter for example."
You take a person out of history and you change the whole history-hypothetically speaking. Same case here.
 
. .
I was very close to Invade USA for Emma Watson , Jessica Alba and Emma stone ...
than i said this to myself, if they all marry me ,their career will be over .. so i sacrifice :whistle:
 
. .
Everyone can have their views, no point in asking such questions to which you already know the answer to.

Me too, last time i checked, will check again.
In my opinion, it's better to not ask such questions, " Let us not be the judge of things which are out of our understanding, like this matter for example."
You take a person out of history and you change the whole history-hypothetically speaking. Same case here.

The point to understand that while it is easy to attribute all evils in the world to the Great Satan, the world would be a far sorrier place without Uncle Sam, imperfect as he is. Or do you disagree with that?
 
. .
I wonder how is what @libertad said neutral ?

It's like you have an accident on a bridge and you blame the bridge for being exist.....

In WW1, Germany and UK were ALREADY AT WAR before US involved. What he said only make sense if British Surrender before hostility. And when War are being Progress, then bloodshed HAD ALREADY started. Or you are not counting the people dead before US involvement is bloodshed?

Same thing in WW2. UK, France were already at war and China were already at war with japan before US involvement. Again, whatever peace there are, unless either party take it before hostility, it will not be bloodless.

US involvement changed the victors, NOT THE WAR.

and the fact to the matter is, US involvement speed things up (WW1 finish 1 and a half years after US involvement, while WW2 finished 3 years and 10 months after US involvement), I can argue this is the point to limit bloodshed if you want another 100 years war, or 30 years war in European Soil.



lol, they will probably point the finger on someone else......

*** if blaming America would solve all their problem lol...
It is in human nature to fight mainly due to four things power, women, money and land. Only thing which could have been different without involvement of US would be localisation of conflicts instead of globalise results obtained. Pick up history of the world. We will find wars, conflicts and fights everywhere. It has been more devastating when boarders have been crossed. Severity of damage is directly proportional to the number of boarders crossed.
 
.
It is in human nature to fight mainly due to four things power, women, money and land. Only thing which could have been different without involvement of US would be localisation of conflicts instead of globalise results obtained. Pick up history of the world. We will find wars, conflicts and fights everywhere. It has been more devastating when boarders have been crossed. Severity of damage is directly proportional to the number of boarders crossed.

The question is whether or not the highlighted is correct?

Let's look at WW1 and WW2 as an instant.

Serbia and Balkan Campaign was started at the onset of the war. And the war quickly propelled into France and Belgium in the autumn of 1914 and France, and British Commonwealth Joined the war.

When that happened, Commonwealth Force Siege German Protectorate in the Pacific, and Japan Seized the Germany Protectorate in China and Asia, the British force siege the Germany Protectorate in North and South Africa.

Central African Nation involvement since Darfur Expedition in 1916 while South Sudan joined late 1916.

Ottoman involvement in 1914 means the war was brought to Asia Minor as early as that, Battle of Tsingtao by Japan mean war are happening in Eastern Asia as well in November 1914.

Russia Front was engaged since Balkan Campaign. Hence it was started in 1914 as well.

US join WW1 in 1917, in 1916, WW1 had seen action in Eastern Europe, Central Europe/Balkan, Western Europe, Asia Minor (Middle East), East Asia, Pacific, North Africa, Central Africa, Eastern Africa. The only place untouched by WW1 by the time US joined is North and South America, and Central Asia.

WW2 started with Germany Invade Poland, and Japan invade China, Soon enough in 1940, France and Belgium Campaign seen war in Western Europe, Expanding Eastward to Russia in summer of 1940, Japan expand Southward in 1940.

North African front was initiated by Italy in December 1940, Greece in Jan 1941, Malta in 1940. Balkan (Bulgaria and Yugoslav) joined the war in march 1941, At the same time, War brought into Iraq by commonwealth in May 1941.

US joined WW2 in December 1941, by then, the only expansion on both theatre is the Pacific Campaign. which actually started by the Japanese.

Now do tell me how US internationalize WW1 and WW2??

Korea started with north Korea invading South Korea, US did not start the war.

Vietnam War started with French and Indochina supporter in Viet Minh as early as 1955. US was a part of the conflict after French request US intervene.

First Iraq war was started when Iraqi invade and occupied Kuwait, US drove off Iraqi force in Kuwait by hooking west from Saudi Arabia.

You can claim the only 2 war the US started is Second Iraq war and War in Afghanistan. But did it actually internationalize any war during and before that time??
 
.
The question is whether or not the highlighted is correct?

Let's look at WW1 and WW2 as an instant.

Serbia and Balkan Campaign was started at the onset of the war. And the war quickly propelled into France and Belgium in the autumn of 1914 and France, and British Commonwealth Joined the war.

When that happened, Commonwealth Force Siege German Protectorate in the Pacific, and Japan Seized the Germany Protectorate in China and Asia, the British force siege the Germany Protectorate in North and South Africa.

Central African Nation involvement since Darfur Expedition in 1916 while South Sudan joined late 1916.

Ottoman involvement in 1914 means the war was brought to Asia Minor as early as that, Battle of Tsingtao by Japan mean war are happening in Eastern Asia as well in November 1914.

Russia Front was engaged since Balkan Campaign. Hence it was started in 1914 as well.

US join WW1 in 1917, in 1916, WW1 had seen action in Eastern Europe, Central Europe/Balkan, Western Europe, Asia Minor (Middle East), East Asia, Pacific, North Africa, Central Africa, Eastern Africa. The only place untouched by WW1 by the time US joined is North and South America, and Central Asia.

WW2 started with Germany Invade Poland, and Japan invade China, Soon enough in 1940, France and Belgium Campaign seen war in Western Europe, Expanding Eastward to Russia in summer of 1940, Japan expand Southward in 1940.

North African front was initiated by Italy in December 1940, Greece in Jan 1941, Malta in 1940. Balkan (Bulgaria and Yugoslav) joined the war in march 1941, At the same time, War brought into Iraq by commonwealth in May 1941.

US joined WW2 in December 1941, by then, the only expansion on both theatre is the Pacific Campaign. which actually started by the Japanese.

Now do tell me how US internationalize WW1 and WW2??

Korea started with north Korea invading South Korea, US did not start the war.

Vietnam War started with French and Indochina supporter in Viet Minh as early as 1955. US was a part of the conflict after French request US intervene.

First Iraq war was started when Iraqi invade and occupied Kuwait, US drove off Iraqi force in Kuwait by hooking west from Saudi Arabia.

You can claim the only 2 war the US started is Second Iraq war and War in Afghanistan. But did it actually internationalize any war during and before that time??
Are these facts hidden ? How do we know YOU did not make them up ? It must be lies because on this forum, popular consensus trumps everything, so if everybody agrees that the US made everything worse, it must be true, therefore, these things you said must be lies. :lol:
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom