Desert Storm is mostly forgotten at this point, but it really is one of the greatest triumphs in American history. The entire international community viewed Iraq's invasion of Kuwait as illegitimate, and the US built a multi-nation coalition to oust Saddam's forces. Everything followed international law: Iraq ignored multiple UN Security Council resolutions to leave Kuwait, and rejected peaceful solutions to the conflict.
And it wasn't obvious that victory would be so easy. People on both sides of the aisle opposed the invasion — Ted Kennedy and Patrick Buchanan, for example — and Kennedy predicted 3000 US casualties per week. Iraq had the 4th largest military in the world at that point, and it was very experienced after having fought a 10-year war against Iran. Nevertheless, when the coalition invaded, the fighting was over after about 100 hours, and around 100 US combatants were killed. There must've been widespread celebration.
When we look at historic approval ratings, it seems that Bush's was at about 85% when Desert Storm happened, but by 1992, it had fallen below 50%. What happened? Why wasn't Desert Storm a lasting political victory for Bush? Why did his approval fall so suddenly, and how did he wind up losing to Clinton in '92?
You can 🔴Watch Boxing Live Stream for free! Fans can watch their favorite players with Boxing live-streaming and watch fight online. We have a Boxing-streaming website which provides multiple links so you can watch any fight as it is being played.
#Watch: Boxing Live Stream for Free
We offer the absolute best live-streams. Watch from a tablet, smart phone, Mac, or PC. The live-stream allows you access to multiple channels like ESPN, Ryder Cup, CBS Sports, FOX Sports, TNT, NBC Sports, and a number of other local television stations.
I apologize if this question is a too broad and speculative, but I found the thought interesting and hopefully someone else will too.
In this column from 1922, "What the World Will be Like In a Hundred Years", English author W.L.George makes some frighteningly accurate predictions, accompanied by others that were completely wrong; as one might expect from a prediction like that.
But what I found most interesting was his notion that for the average person, the improvements in technology during the last hundred years had been much more life-changing than what might be expected of the next hundred.
> The reader may conclude that I do not expect anything startling in the way of scientific discovery. That is not the case; I am convinced that in 2022 the advancement of science will be amazing, but it will be nothing like so amazing as is the present day in relation to a hundred years ago. A sight of the world today would surprise President Jefferson much more, I suspect, than the world of 2022 would surprise the little girl who sells candies at Grand Central Station. For Jefferson knew nothing of railroads, telegraphs, telephones, automobiles, aeroplanes, gramophones, movies, radium, &c.; he did not even know hot and cold bathrooms. The little girl at Grand Central is a blasé child; to her these things are commonplace; the year 2022 would have to produce something very startling to interest her ghost. The sad thing about discovery is that it works toward its own extinction, and that the more we discover the less there is left.
There have of course been amazing inventions no one could have foreseen a hundred years or even fifty years ago, the Internet probably being on top of the list; but when you compare the life of someone in 2022 to that of someone in 1922, and then someone from 1922 to 1822, in which time period has the change been greater? What technology has changed the way we live our lives the most?
RIP Harambe
https://preview.redd.it/zihtocu300b81.png?width=340&format=png&auto=webp&s=9fd9088c68bcff34e58e4fd543b50926aa07339d
Jane Fonda went to Vietnam.
