Perhaps you recall that Japan wasn’t the only enemy in WW2.
I think most would say the US army was the deciding factor in winning most major battles and the war in Europe.
True, they didn’t do it alone, but they did the lions share of successful fighting from my understanding. Of course, my history teachers were biased.

Also, Kuwait….again, with help from other branches.

There are other, less clear cut examples but that should answer the question I hope.

The U.S. doesn't fight hand to hand ground wars against governments.
China won't be fighting a guerilla war.

China has men, not current equipment. Remember Saddam...he had WAY more tanks, we hardly lost one because ours are infinitely better. Same goes for Chinese, rifles don't beat high altitude bombers.

Kuwait. Iraq.

Everyone loses to those goat farmers, they're called the graveyard of empires for a reason. Russia lost big time, and are so dumb they're poised to try again. We lost the day we went in with troops instead of an assassination squad.

I'm curious if the "58" refers to Celcius. That would be 136.4 F, and higher than the highest officially-recorded temperature on Earth at 57.6 C in Death Valley, CA back in 1913.
Kuwait does have one of the top four, though, at 54 C.

Congratulations! Your video, Caterpillar loader in Kuwait is boiling hot, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 466 Badge!

Your video, Caterpillar loader in Kuwait is boiling hot, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Actually no, I responded to what you said, which could be taken to mean many things.
I said I thought you meant the current state of Iraq when you said "blaming Sr. for Iraq"...and reading this it seems I was correct.
Imo, the current state or the region is mostly due to jr, not Sr.
Many people still blame Sr for the current state there. I disagree with that theory. That's all.

Sr hardly had a war in Iraq, his barely crossed the border and was mainly in Kuwait if memory serves. They chased the Iraqis out and bombed the shit out of them as they ran.
Kuwait was considered a sovereign nation, not a province of Iraq. Saddam invaded it. Sr never tried to remove Saddam, except from Kuwait. Since he understood the problem of creating a power vacuum there, I think leaving Saddam in power was smart with no feasible plan to replace him, even though it was clearly inhumane....and we have evidence now to support that. Iraq is absolutely worse off today than it was under Saddam, no matter which group you belong to.

Fortunately, all the WMD talk was pure fabricated fantasy...we never had evidence he continued those programs after the first gulf war/Kuwait. If he had had them, Bush Jr might have started ww3 by attacking him, knowing he would use them on his neighbors like he had before. Remember, it was Jr's administration's plan to convince the public he had wmds, so it's no surprise he also had people saying they're too dangerous to attack while he had many more saying he's too dangerous to leave in power....the same people claiming he was involved in 9/11, which was asinine.

I try and choose my words carefully, it looks like you are still responding to what you think I must mean, rather than what I said. You say you thought I meant jr and the recent war in Iraq when I reference Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait. I was in fact referencing no particular Iraq war, but the overall condition Iraq is in(as per the video and my own earlier reference to same. Maybe some room to misunderstand that, but my full quot if you can read it carefully this time:
“blaming Bush Sr. for Iraq, rather than Saddam's campaign of genocide against his own people and his conquest of Kuwait.”
I did specifically name Bush Sr, which At the least should rule out thinking I’m discussing anything done by Jr.

As for Sr’s war in Iraq, Kuwait was a province of the Iraqi state when Senior came in to liberate it. He also stopped short of removing Saddam, which was imo a mistake for Iraqi’s and the one thing I’d agree would be a fair accusation against him re the overall consition of Iraq today. It left Saddam time for another genocide against the Shia Iraqi’s that had risen up thinking Senior was serious about standing with them. Public opinion though was too much against it and so American forces stopped short of removing Saddam and followed popular opinion. Saddam’s WMD programs where dismantled(which he very much had then) and northern Iraq’s airspace remained occupied by Anerican forces right through until jr’s war. Saddam also continually decieved, obstructed and kicked out the UN inspectors in Iraq there to confirm his full and continued disarmament. Enough so that before jr’s war one of the most vocal anti-war inspectors cited Saddam’s almost certain possession and use of chemical weapons as a reason risking an invasion was too dangerous...

No sir.

I'm addressing his comment about the invasion of Iraq happening because of "Saddam's campaign of genocide against his own people and his conquest of Kuwait." when that's absolutely not how the invasion was sold to us by W. That's only partially how Desert Shield was sold by Sr. (Keeping in mind the gassing had happened years earlier), but that didn't remove or even target Saddam and barely went into Iraq, so clearly wasn't designed to remove him from power or stop his atrocities, just to stop his expansion into our allies territories.

The invasion of Iraq and direct targeting of Saddam was by W, not Sr. and are what led to the current state of the region far more than any result of Desert Storm...what I thought he meant by "blaming Sr. for Iraq"....I read that as 'blaming Sr. for the current state of Iraq and the region'.
I may have misunderstood what he meant by "blaming Sr for Iraq", but I can tell the difference between bushes.

Stopped watching at "The never ending killing fields of Iraq".

Now, if the speaker goes on to accuse Bush Sr. for failing to remove Saddam after having Liberated Kuwait, I judged too quickly. I'm pretty confident though that this is just more of the revisionist history garbage blaming Bush Sr. for Iraq, rather than Saddam's campaign of genocide against his own people and his conquest of Kuwait.

I mean, if you want to rail against American exceptionalism, at least have the decency to blame the presidents prior to Bush(Carter and Reagan) who supported Saddam after the Iranian revolution, rather than the American president who finally took the right side against one of the most brutal tyrants and dictators of his time.

Kinda disagree. His policies in Central America were terrible, but he did a lot of good things. Opening trade with China, the end of the cold war, and the he ended the invasion of Kuwait by backing off.

Try to stay on track. The USA isn't deemed racist or xenophobic because it has immigration laws, it's because those laws are based on pre-conceived notions and disproportionate paranoia regarding specific countries and (some would believe) countries with high populations of followers of Islam. Immigration laws exist to ensure those wanting to immigrate understand the requirements, and a process exists that in most cases treats folks fairly regardless of where they come from. As Donald Duck has singled out specific countries, thus establishing a priori that all the folks in those countries are bad asses, then yes, this is indeed xenophobia at best but not really racism as the countries on the list are (like the US) a mixed bag and Islam is not a race.

So, if you want to compare immigration policy that exists in the land of the free and the home of the brave, your comparison should be with countries like Syria, Sudan, Iran, Iraq, Libya, and Yemen that all forbid (well, they used to ...) entry to folks from Israel (always getting the short shtick), Kuwait, Brunei, Kuwait, UAE, Saudi, Pakistan, Oman and Malaysia and there are a few others I can't remember. It's not policy. It's paranoia and xenophobia from The Most Powerful Man on Earth and the fuckwits that butter his toast.

Carry on.

Dubai & the UAE:
Shari'a
Torture
Slavery
Homosexuals, adulterers and apostates can be stoned to death.
Abortion, blasphemy, public displays of affection, premarital sex, all illegal and punishable by flogging.
Domestic violence against women is legal.

Qatar:
Shari'a
Sodomy, extramarital sex, alcohol consumption, blasphemy, apostasy, proselytism all illegal and punishable variously by flogging or imprisonment.

Kuwait:
Blasphemy, homosexuality, transgenderism, public displays of affection, eating or drinking in public during ramadan, alcohol, pornography and 'sending immoral messages' are all illegal.
Domestic violence and marital rape is legal.

Indonesia:
Islamist violence against religious minorities is widespread.
Muslims are pushing hard to criminalise homosexuality.
Female applicants to the military and police are subjected to 'virginity tests'.
Shari'a in Aceh province includes the flogging of homosexuals among its atrocities.

Tunisia:
Homosexuality and blasphemy are illegal.
Persecution of the LGBT by both government and private groups is common and increasing.

Mali:
~90% prevalence of FGM
Half the country under islamist control, with all the oppression, murder, torture and rape that implies.

"People wouldn't get those "impressions" if there was an Islamic theocratic country filled with nice people like this guy. But there isn't. "

Dubai
Qatar
UAE
Kuwait
Indonesia
Tunisia
Mali

People wouldn't get the opinion that Americans are ignorant fucking assholes if there was one American-filled country that wasn't brimming over with paste-eaters who can't pass a 3rd -grade geography class.

There aren't even words.

Saddam was a bad guy is absolutely the most ignorant remark you can make. Were Stalin, Hitler and Mao simply 'bad' guys? Saddam committed multiple genocides against his own people. Hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians killed not as collateral damage, but systematically. The remaining widows were systematically raped to impregnate the Kurdish women with half-Arab children and breed the Kurds out of existence. If that's not enough, Saddam invaded and seized Kuwait and declared a part of Iraq. In the Iran-Iraq war, he made extensive use of banned chemical and biological weapons against Iranian forces, before turning them on Kurdish Iraqi's as well. Anybody content to just call that 'bad' behaviour is morally bankrupt.

Oh, but along the way Saddam brutally murdered anybody that spoke out against him, or had their daughters raped or their families otherwise held hostage or also killed. More over, because Saddam classed these people as 'terrorists', clearly we should take him at his word. In that one sense, yes, Saddam was effective at killing and pacifying the people he counted as 'terrorists'. That of course is missing the fact that Saddam was the singularly most terrifying monster in the entire Middle East at the time.

No and yes. Its the violent and warmongering western policy in that region. We have always destabilized it, yet have learned nothing from it. We just keep going and then wonder why its getting worse. Its a neocon policy. Easy to stop, many people have already said what the solution would be, yet there are always the powerful neocons who live from fear mongering, suffering and wars. And of course from blind following people like you who support them.

2003 was just another puzzle piece. The support of extremists in Syria too, the support of them in Libya aswell. The support of Saudi Arabia is a very big puzzle piece. The CIA operations in that region just as much.
The support of Saddam Hussein also is another small puzzle piece, just as much as we made him think that he can attack Kuwait and we wont interfere. He thought that because we allowed him and instigated him to attack Iran, then supported both sides, because we wanted to destabilize that region once again. Did I mention the coup detat in Iran yet?
And its not that we werent warned about it. Lots of smart people said that giving the Jews Israel would end in disaster. The signs were easy to spot. Lots of people warned about an Iraq war in 2003. Even the neocons own people warned about the IS in documents, yet they ignored it and kept going, strengthening it even more. People warned about what would happen to Libya after Ghaddafi was gone. Again they did not care. Lots of people warned about what was going on in Syria, that Assad was confronted with an extremists group long before the "revolution" that is now known as Al Nusra, a branch of Al Kaida. What did they do? They weakened Assad. Lots of people warned about the refugee crisis and extremists flooding into Europe among those refugees. What do they do? They open the borders and let everyone in without any checks at all, even inviting the whole world to come, ignoring actual laws.

You see, good knowledge of history is mandatory to understand cause and effect. You dont have that knowledge, as you have proved already, because you try to marginalize it by including things from centuries ago and try to solve those with the same solutions from centuries ago. But I dont blame you, since youre probably American. American history teaching is as messed up as their foreign policy.
You cant see coherences in all that. Lots of people dont. Thats why we are doomed to repeat history.

I mean just look at the policy since 9/11. It was meant to bring us all more security from terrorist attacks like that. Yet it has only become worse. Extremists are stronger than ever before and keep getting stronger with everything we do to "weaken" them. And yet people like you dont ask themselves why, actually attack people like me who have realized whats wrong.
Intelligent species my ass.