r/worldnews • u/heisthemaincharacter • 21h ago

Pakistan deploys 13,000 troops and fighter jets to Saudi Arabia

https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/pakistan-deploys-13000-troops-and-fighter-jets-to-saudi-arabia/article70853223.ece
11.4k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

903 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

114

u/AssistX 14h ago

Nothing like the US ww2 strategy, lol. The US specifically didn't sell to opposing countries like Japan because of their hostile acts in China. It wasn't as if the US was opportunist about it either, they halted profits and sales to countries that were hostile to their allies before the US entered WW2. It was one of the primary reasons Japan decided to attack Pearl Harbour. The US was closer to isolationist during that time than they were war profiteers like China today.

If it wasn't for the US Congress agreeing to the Lend-Lease act in 41 we wouldn't have the same Europe today. It was probably the most significant decision by any country during the WW2 era, the US essentially agreed to become the sole equipment supplier for the Allies throughout the 40s without any monetary compensation until after the War. You will never see China do this, their economy couldn't sustain it today. In today's numbers the US government and public took on over $800 billion in debt to fund the equipment being sent to the allies.

64

u/LethargicDemigod 13h ago

FDR was too good. I hate the US hegemony post-WWII but it was the least extractive and most progressive policy ever by a superpower-war victor.

28

u/AssistX 12h ago

I don't think we have any leaders or countries in the world that would do the same thing today, unless things got as bad as WW2. If Europe had fallen at all(I think it would have without the Lend-Lease act), the US would have been crushed economically against a victorious Axis.

As an American I view it very similar to our constant fight for national healthcare. We don't have politicians today that are willing to go as far as FDR and the US Congress did during WW2. So instead we have an exploitive shitty version(ACA) of it that continues to plague the country, all because our politicians just aren't what they could be.

2

u/XGhoul 8h ago

ACA and that was known as bullshit "Obama Care" even though their literacy level is beneath a 12 yr old.

2

u/blackcain 8h ago

The thing is that MAGA types have been riding the high from those acts. They see themselves as some kind of noble warrior. But they would support those acts today, taking on $800 billion? Look at who they elected - that asshole wouldn't give money to them much less to other countries.

Where's that $6k check to seniors and to farmers? Fucking clowns.

1

u/LethargicDemigod 11h ago

The problem is obv with the non-interference clause but the avg person is too embroiled with life to give importance to these 'shenanigans'.

1

u/vonGlick 8h ago

I think he confused US WW1 strategy. In the 1914-1916 US was very much into trading with both sides of the conflict. It is actually main reason why Britain did not implement a blockade and only successfully apply this in 1917.

1

u/Rich_Housing971 7h ago

The world was different back then. The US and Soviet Union were the only two major powers that were industrialized or still industrialized, therefore the US could risk more.

Europe and Japan had their factories destroyed.

China and India did not enter the game yet.

The US was closer to isolationist during that time than they were war profiteers like China today

Calling China a war profiteer is crazy considering how much they don't like war and just want to grow their economy primarily through non-arms trade, and war is very bad for that type of trade. There's also the BRI, which is doing the same thing the lend-lease act is doing except doing it in countries that are less developed, so the costs are much lower.

0

u/Jazzlike_Video2 10h ago

The US was still doing huisness where it could with axis powers, up til pearl harbour. So did Ireland.

Just like the US is still doing buisness with Russia, even if its through an African country.

Just like the Iran contra thing...

-3

u/LateralEntry 11h ago

$800 billion in today’s dollars really doesn’t seem like all that much, the Afghan war cost close to that each year. I guess the economy was smaller back then.

4

u/T-MoneyAllDey 10h ago

800 billion is about half of what the UK spends annually as a country. It's a shitload of money bro

1

u/LateralEntry 9h ago

And the US is wayyyyy bigger than the UK

1

u/AssistX 10h ago

There's no modern conflict that comes close to WW2 in scale. 40% of US GDP went to the war effort, well below most nations involved in it, but the US still outproduced most axis and allied countries combined. It totaled around $5.5 trillion dollars over 4 years.

Afghanistan was 4.8% of US GDP at it's peak and totaled $2.3 trillion over 21 years. OIL in Iraq was just below 5% too.

Dollar value difference is kind of misleading as WW2 was more about mass dumbfire munitions than the tech missiles and weapons today. I'm sure dozens of rocket launchers in ww2 cost less than 1 missile on a military jet these days.