question for us bashers..., page-12

Cheech re writing history again i see.

Considering the Shah was deposed in a coup,mainly because he had lost the plot and the place was a powder keg, not helped by the likes of Savak,his brutal secret police.
it was also just after the Vietnam war, i doubt the US had the stomach, or the support to get involved in another yet another civil war.
The smith regime on Rhodesia had outlived it colonialist regime in Africa, i doubt the US or GB couldve credibly argued against not supporting black rule.
Ditto Sth Africa.
Argententina's Galtieri shot his bolt by invading the Falklands, you cant save a suicide pilot, friend or not.
Yes, Saddam was covertly supported by the CIA, but the weaponry was all East bloc., lets keep some balance here.
Saying they encouraged him to invade Kuwait........then lead an army to remove him.. thats just outright bollocks.

As for Vietnam, the US won militarily, that is ,the NV were shot, it was only the likes of Jane Fonda and the left wing loopies in the US who tied their hands with conditions which sold the SV and their own soldiers down the river, and eventually lost the war for the SV.
even Lee Kwan Yew said that the Vietnam War probably saved Singapore, Thailand, even India from coming under control of the Communist creep into SE Asia.

As for Tiawan, i dont know where you get your reading material from , but its wrong :

President George W. Bush has shifted U.S. policy on Taiwan in his recent statement saying that in the event of armed attack by China against Taiwan, the U.S. would do whatever it takes to protect Taiwan. This has elicited an angry response from Beijing that is likely to fan hostility against the U.S. among the Chinese, resurfacing with the recent spy plane stand off between Washington and Beijing.

As for Gallipoli, Soldiers go where theyre sent , and Turkey was Germany's ally, the enemy. The fact that the attack on the Dardenelles failed, is a footnote in history, in all battles, one side has to lose.
The other issue that needs to be cleared up.
Firstly, the AIF was 100% volunteers, no conscripts. Those men made their own choice to fight where they were sent.
And secondly, as much as the leftie film industry likes to peddle the "tea sipping" British officers sending Australian soldiers over the top to be machine gunned, i regret to tell you , that the movie "Gallipoli" had a certain artistic licence. In The attack on the Nek, the culprit was portrayed by a bumbling british officer, it was not.Historical records show it was Australian officers, Col Antill , being the main culprit,who sent Australian troops over the top, to certain death, not the pommies, not this time..
Lets accept our own blame graciously please.