Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 22 Apr 2020, 12:53 pm

And there is AP report that showed China delayed making things public for a crucial 6 day period from January 14-20....

https://apnews.com/68a9e1b91de4ffc166acd6012d82c2f9
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 23 Apr 2020, 8:33 am

freeman3
What do I care about the opinion of some American researcher about things China did? He may have expertise on viruses, but he has no special expertise in the political realm. And he is doing research in China and that would be jeopardized if he criticized China, right?

1. Because he is one of the leading scientists in the world on this broad subject.Perhaps the leading American.
2. Because he travelled to Wuhan to participate in the research efforts in January, and to learn as much of the epidemiology as he could first hand.
3. He is now in the US, when he makes the statements I alluded to ...
4. The Chinese government holds no sway over him.... he's at Columbia right now. (Well, he's got covid 19 so he's probably at home.)

freeman3
What matters are the facts I laid out which as usual you don't respond to but try to find to find some expert to give an opinion or use xenophonia or the conspiracy card. Try making arguments

The argument I've made is quite simple, but you seem to miss the point. I believe that the best people to offer opinion are the scientists with the specialized and advanced knowledge of the subject..
Dismissing Lipkin with the unsupported accusation that "his research would be jeopardized"... without having any idea if that was true, let alone offering any support for that isn't argumentation. Its BS ing.
I don't take medical advice from Dr. Oz or Doctor Phil or Tom Cotton. I certainly won't give credence to implausible scenarios painted by people without the advanced knowledge or first hand knowledge of the situation over people like Dr. Lipkin.
That you don't value the experts over what you'd like reality to be isn't my problem.

freeman3
All you have really shown is that you like China a heck of a lot more than America.

Not at all true. Its just that since I'm not American I don't have the natural bias that Americans have towards China.(or any other nation) I noted before that the issue of China's so called failed response to the virus is really only a major issue in the US.
WHY?
1) Its being used by the current administration to avoid scrutiny over their own response.
2) Americans are predisposed to xenophobia and conspiracy theories and are therefore a rich audience for Trumps BS.
3) There's at least a kernel of truth that China's local response in late December was politicized.But that fact has been digested and other nations have moved on to dealing with their own shortcomings and problems. They don't need a scapegoat.

freeman3
You know, in the last 100 years the US has done a heck of a lot more to preserve the free prosperous Western world than China has.

Tell that to Latin American countries
https://www.yachana.org/teaching/resour ... tions.html
Or maybe tell the Iranians that the CIA didn't install the Shah... Viet Nam?
The US foreign policy has not been benign.
And right now China is kicking the US's ass with its Belt and Road initiative.
(and BTW, if you want to go back to the US won WWII, I love to revisit the Russian and Chinese contribution to that war...)

Freeman3
All those countries with nice healthcare systems and perks for their workers...probably would have not have those things but for the actions of the US in WWI, WWII and the Cold War.

Sure.
The US gained ascendancy after WWII because the damage done to its economy was minimal. It came into the war late, after profiting from exports to both sides for a couple of years... UK paid back lend lease loans until 2006.... (They weren't gifts)
Its easy to compete when the other nations first have to rebuild their cities and industries and resettle millions of displaced persons. Plus casualties were far heavier for major participants.
With a two decade head start, the US had a virtually unfettered growth period.
Its really too bad that the US didn't decide that "nice healthcare systems, perks and benefits" were important to its citizens. What the war taught other nations is that society succeeds when it succeeds for all. It fails when it fails its least.

I have no bias towards China. I just don't have a bias towards the US either. You may remember back on page one you said
"First, I think our health care system is better than China's health care system is."

That could only be said by ignoring reality. Ignoring evidence and buying into myth.
Here's how I responded back then... March 13.
Is it? When it comes to corona? No has an anti viral that works, so treatment today consists of supporting the patient's breathing while their body fights the virus...
The only difference between the US and China? Maybe more ventilators in the US?More per capita?
However in China, they quarantined Wuhan and sent in 40,000 health care workers and built a a special facility to isolate and treat the most serious cases.They also sent in equipment from the rest of China, concentrating it in Wuhan...
You think the US can isolate the hot spots and send in reinforcements for health care from elsewhere? I seriously doubt it. Until yesterday the CDC couldn't even get reports on tests from all the States and independent labs.
And why is the US response so disorganized?
The Trump Administration fired the Pandemic response team that Obama set up after the Ebola outbreak.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump ... emic-team/

freeman3
Yet, you have this praise for a totalitarian regime where there is no freedom of speech or other protections of the individual from the arbitrary actions of the government.

Did I praise these things?
I realistically looked at how they responded to the covid 19.
There are plenty of nations that did just as well. Iceland, New Zealand, Taiwan, Norway, Denmark.... And I've lauded them as well. Note: most are all higher in the Freedom Index then the US.
And by they way for most of these nations the postive response was in part because they had "nice healthcare systems and perks for their workers"...
https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index-new
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 23 Apr 2020, 10:16 am

This is all utter nonsense. You forgot about the Marshall Plan where we basically kept Western Europe from being dominated by Communism after WWII. Just like Eastern Europe had already been dominated by the Soviet Union. The US military umbrella after WWII allowed Germany, England, France, Italy, the Sandanavisn countries, etc to not spend much on the military, allowing them to build good safety nets. That also (in conjunction with the Marshall Plan) stopped Russian domination of Western Europe.

Who cares if loans have to get repaid when without them the country cannot wage war? Our loans kept England and France in the war in WWI. France was utterly exhausted from fighting and its troops were on the point of mutiny after Verdun which was basically designed to cause attrition and sap the French will to fight. By 1918 both England and France were exhausted and Ludendorf had troops from the Eastern front due to the peace treaty with Russia. There is absolutely no way France and Britain would have withstood the assault by the Germans if large amounts of American troops had not arrived. If Germany won Europe would have been under German domination. The Treaty of Versailles would have been peanuts compared to what Germany had in store for France and the rest of Western Europe (they had already imposed extremely onerous terms on Russia by the Treaty of Brest-Litovs.)

In WWII the US/Britain provided Russia 11.3 billions dollars worth of lend-lease aid to Russia. This at a time when Russian GDP prior to the war was 23 billion. The US economic engine was vital to winning the war. Yes, Russia ground up the Wehrmacht but they are not winning the war without military aid and the US/Britain setting up multiple fronts to stretch German troops and the destruction of German industry/war-making capability with the strategic bombing campaign.

So criticism of the US--Iran, Guatemala, Vietnam, Chile--has to be kept in perspective. Communism and Fascism were scourges that we played a large role in stopping. The differences between western democracies and the US are minor compared to what would have happened to those countries under communism or fascism.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.milita ... i.html/amp

I laid out the facts as to Chinese failures with regard to publicizing the coronsvirus. You have ignored them and point to a conclusory remark by an expert who did not address those facts, either. If your expert responded to the facts I laid out then I could assess what he is saying. But he just made a conclusory accusation without content. Thats not worth anything, expert or not.

You exhalt China which does not respect any individual rights. You want Belt and Road to succerd so China expands their power around the globe? It's not a benign initiative--it's extends China's power over those countries. And again we are talking about a totalitarian country with no free elections, no respect for individual/human rights and no freedom of expression.

Here is Amnesty International's report on China:

https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/as ... ort-china/

A lot of good stuff in the world happened under PAX Americana from WWII until now. It wasnt perfect or even remotely close to perfect but then again nothing ever is. But it was much better than it otherwise would have been. The world will be a much worse place if we withdraw from the world stage and allow China and Russia to dominate.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 24 Apr 2020, 11:45 am

https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-US-a ... HO-on-hold

Why does the US accuse WHO “China-centric” and want to put contribution to WHO on hold?

Because this batch of US politicians and the US Media are the most shameless liars about everything.

This is Maria Van Kerkhove, an American epidemiologist and a graduate of Cornell and Stanford. She is the Technical Lead of Covid-19 Response at WHO. She issued technical guidance on January 10th noting that there might be human-to-human transmission, based on prior experience with SARS and MERS. She presents WHO’s guidance to the world EVERY DAY in Geneva, since January 10th. WHO Timeline - COVID-19


Freeman if you click on this link you'll get the rest of the answer from Robin Daverman which illustrates how absurd the criticism of WHO is...
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 24 Apr 2020, 12:18 pm

I'll stipulate: The Marshall Plan was a very good thing, but it also greatly benefited the USA.

freeman3
Who cares if loans have to get repaid when without them the country cannot wage war

Just pointing out that they were loans. Not gifts. The US made money on the loans...If the money was offered as a gift, now that would have been altruistic.

Re WWI: Germany was starving and when their final offensive failed they were done. The US hardly participated in the War, though the threat of their numbers, added to starvation, and the 100 days offensive finally put the final nails in the coffin. The US tends to both forget WWI and then over estimate its eventual contribution. US troops were poorly used by their commanders repeating frontal assault tactics that had been abandoned by the other participants years before. The US only suffered 110,000 deaths, and 45,000 of them were due to the Spanish Flu which they brought with them to France. Of the 4,000,000 mobilized thats 2.75%. Just to compare Canadian forces had a 39% casulaty rate and 11% killed. More if you include the Newfoundlanders who were virtually wiped out.
Just saying that the cost to most participants was enormous...

Re WWII: We agree, although again, the contribution by allies to Russia has always been exaggerated. And we always forget that China suffered the most in Asia, and inflicted the most casualties on Japanese land forces..

freeman
So criticism of the US--Iran, Guatemala, Vietnam, Chile--has to be kept in perspective

Who's perspective? Americans usually find it hard to consider the perspective of the people of say Guatemeula.
The 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état, code-named Operation PBSUCCESS, was a covert operation carried out by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) that deposed the democratically elected Guatemalan President Jacobo Árbenz and ended the Guatemalan Revolution of 1944–1954. It installed the military dictatorship of Carlos Castillo Armas, the first in a series of U.S.-backed authoritarian rulers in Guatemala.

Would you be surprised to find that Latin Americans generally think of this negatively?
Would you be surprised that even US allies find it hard to accept US intelligence on many things - especially since the Iraq War WMD fiasco?

freeman3
If your expert responded to the facts I laid out then I could assess what he is saying. But he just made a conclusory accusation without content. Thats not worth anything, expert or not.

He was the co-author of the study published in Nature that I linked you to previously. There's several pages of evidence presented in that. I guess you din't read it.

freeman3
A lot of good stuff in the world happened under PAX Americana from WWII until now. It wasn't perfect or even remotely close to perfect but then again nothing ever is.


So you'd like people to accept that the intentions were largely good, despite all the bloodshed, destruction of democratic governments and support for military dictators, the deaths and birth defects from Agent Orange and etc.... etc....
But you can't cut China a little slack over 6 days of what was essentially bureaucratic bungling in Wuhan?
Can we talk about perspective again?

Look, the US needs to look long and hard at its own response compared to what other nations.
Its not as if other nations had different information coming out of China or WHO and yet most have done better...
And now its only in the US that there's a "lets blame China" campaign.

BTW, when I said China is currently kicking ass with its belt and road initiatives, there's a lot of reasons. One is that they have no military interest, only commercial. Two is that they don't export their ideology along with the investment. Three, the US isn't even trying to compete. Africa looks to China for assistance now rather than Europe or the US - in part because the deal being offered is so different than what they experience in the past. (Again, their perspective)
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 24 Apr 2020, 1:25 pm

I dont agree with withholding funding of WHO. Or politicizing the response to coronavirus or pointing fingers at China to avoid taking responsibility for our own problems. That doesnt mean we have to let China whitewash their responsibility, either or come to premature conclusions and foreclose debate sbout the origins of the virus.

And I see you keep talking about a 6 day delay. It was a month. Read the AP report. I am quite aware of the complaints from Central America, South America, etc. about our interference there...but how does that compare with what happened with Cambodia under Pol Pot, the millions killed under Stalin in Russia, the millions dying under Mao, etc? Thats what I mean about keeping things in perspective. Look at the difference between South Korea and North Korea. How do you think South Korea feels about the US?

It doesnt matter that we came in late or that we used bad tactics in WWI. What matters is that we had fresh troops and we pushed the Germans back. If we had not come into the war, France and Britain would have been broken by Ludendorf well before they starved from the blockade. They barely held him off until we got there.

The US played a major part in keeping the world free and prosperous and safe from a militaristic Germany in WWI, a ruthless Fascist Germany in WWII and a ruthless, soul-depriving Communism in the Cold War. You can point to many mistakes we made...but those facts trump the complaints about our mistakes. By many orders of magnitude.

And China is now trying to expand its soft power around the globe. By being a creditor to B&R countries...it is able to exert control over thise countries. It is not a benign, altruistic project. It is designed to further China's economic and political interests.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 24 Apr 2020, 11:02 pm

Speaking of disengagement....

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/24/asia/gua ... index.html

Four more years of Trump...and Pax Americana may be at an end. China, North Korea will be less constrained in Asia...and Russia will be less constrained in Europe. It is interesting to say the least that Trump's inclinations...seem to mostly align with Russian strategic interests.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 25 Apr 2020, 6:15 am

Freeman
And China is now trying to expand its soft power around the globe. By being a creditor to B&R countries...it is able to exert control over thise countries. It is not a benign, altruistic project. It is designed to further China's economic and political interests.


I've worked professionally in Africa and observed the terrible and corrupt things that China is doing, I've seen first hand evidence of this.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 25 Apr 2020, 7:33 am

Interesting.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 25 Apr 2020, 8:58 am

freeman3
And I see you keep talking about a 6 day delay

I do.Because it was well documented by WHO.

And as to the previous comments regarding China "purposefully delaying knowledge of human to human transmission... Did you link to this?

This is Maria Van Kerkhove, an American epidemiologist and a graduate of Cornell and Stanford. She is the Technical Lead of Covid-19 Response at WHO. She issued technical guidance on January 10th noting that there might be human-to-human transmission, based on prior experience with SARS and MERS


So as of January 10th it was generally known that human to human was a possibility.

freeman3
but how does that compare with what happened with Cambodia under Pol Pot, the millions killed under Stalin in Russia, the millions dying under Mao, etc?

Ah whataboutery...SO your argument is "But were not as bad as Pol Pot.....?"

None of these folks were ending democracies, and installing dictators in order to make the world freer for... democracy.

freeman3
The US played a major part in keeping the world free and prosperous and safe from a militaristic Germany in WWI, a ruthless Fascist Germany in WWII and a ruthless, soul-depriving Communism in the Cold War. You can point to many mistakes we made...but those facts trump the complaints about our mistakes. By many orders of magnitude.

And yours is an American perspective.
Other folks note that many American industries continued to trade with Nazi Germany
https://www.toptenz.net/top-10-american ... -nazis.php
That lend lease began only after the UK was essentially bankrupt from buying food and armaments from the US. (BTW, Canada also had a version of lend lease with the UK that was more generous but we also profited from some of our aid).
That the US didn't enter into WWI till it was near its end... and Didn't enter WW2 till attacked. And even then Germany declared war on the US first.
I could go on... But only to illustrate that there is another less flattering perspective. (Of the government, but Roosevelt is universally lauded as doing what he could politically...)
But the notion that the US saved the world from a soul destroying Communism ... is also a little hard to take when it is democracies that the US often ended in order to install soul destroying military dictators. Yes, we get it that "we wuz fighting communism". But for so many the fight was misdirected, misinformed, cynical and usually hypocritical. There were 42 attempts at regime change since WW2. More eliminated democratic governments then help bring democracy to the nation.
Your right that Trump is destroying what credibility the USA had prior to his coming.. However, the notion that the US government was universally held in esteem and trusted by other nations since WW2 is far fetched. Military interventions in small nations to support the corporate interests of the US are a fact of life and not admired.
What was universally admired was the "way of life" and the "image" . However since the 1980s the degeneration of the American Middle class and working class has largely tarnished that image in other developed nations... where, in the same period, working class and middle classes have done better.
Last edited by rickyp on 25 Apr 2020, 9:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 25 Apr 2020, 9:04 am

rayjay
I've worked professionally in Africa and observed the terrible and corrupt things that China is doing, I've seen first hand evidence of this.


And yet they are still currently prefered?
The second and opposing perception of the partnership between Beijing and Africa is a pro-China one. This view is adopted mostly in Africa.
According to the proponents of this narrative, China is a saviour - a trustworthy ally of Africa. They view China, a country that does not have a history of colonial aspirations in Africa, as a partner which could provide much-needed funding without any strings attached. They also believe Beijing understands and respects Africa's priorities.
Moreover, China has a reputation among African countries for being an actor that respects other cultures and states. This view is widely held by many African heads of state.
Much of the academic literature on the China-Africa partnership unjustifiably perpetuates the Sino-phobic narrative. The media also wrongly portrays China as a predatory actor in Africa. For instance, while it is widely reported that China invests more in the extractive industry than in other sectors, the fact that the extractive industry amounts only to one-third of the total Chinese investment in Africa is barely mentioned.
The other two-thirds of China's investment in Africa is in infrastructure, construction, electricity production, manufacturing and finance. In fact, compared with the US and other developed countries, China's share in extractive investments in Africa, in the form of mining, for example, is lower.

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opini ... 52367.html

There are 4 reasons, outlined in the piece above. (I'm not saying corruption in Africa isn't a problem. It has been for decades. I'm saying that China's approach to the world is winning for the four reasons noted in this piece...
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 25 Apr 2020, 9:31 am

freeman3
It doesnt matter that we came in late or that we used bad tactics in WWI. What matters is that we had fresh troops and we pushed the Germans back. If we had not come into the war, France and Britain would have been broken by Ludendorf well before they starved from the blockade. They barely held him off until we got there
.

The British & French were getting stronger, improving their material superiority over the German army. At the beginning of 1918 they expected to be able to roll over the German army in the west by early 1919, whatever the Germans did, not because of numbers of men, but because of their much greater strength in artillery, tanks, aircraft, lorries to supply the armies, etc.
Germany’s allies were losing in the Balkans & in the Middle East, & the Austro-Hungarians were weakening in Italy while the Italians were getting stronger.
The German high command understood this. They didn’t know exact Allied plans, but they could see how the balance of forces was moving against them & feared what was to come. The USA had joined the war, & while its army was small to start with (& initially refused to learn from the British & French, & repeated their 1914–15 mistakes), it was rapidly expanding & improving.
So, they gambled everything on the 1918 Spring Offensive in the west. It was an all-or-nothing throw of the dice. If it succeeded, maybe they could knock France out of the war, or at least induce it to agree to talk peace, & thus cripple the Entente. They threw everything they could into it.
And it failed.
They won battles, but they couldn’t maintain the momentum. The advancing armies outran Germany’s ability to supply them, & their losses could only be partly replaced. One marker of the way the war was going was that some German attacks faltered because soldiers stopped to loot food, boots, etc. from trenches they captured: they were hungry & ragged. They were also demoralised by seeing how much better the Entente armies lived.When the Ludendorff Offensive overran British and French positions in mid-1918, German troops were amazed by the plenty they found in British and French canteens and supply depots, with luxuries that they hadn't seen for two or three years. Germany was on the edge of starvation, and the army wasn't immune. What made it worse is that the German people had been told that the British were being starved by the U-Boat blockade. It was a terrible shock to see that this wasn't the case.
The Entente, on the other hand, could make good all its losses, both in manpower & material, & was able to keep its front-line troops supplied.
The German command kept ordering attacks, but after the initial successes, the Entente armies were able to hold them, while simultaneously building up reserves, ammunition stockpiles, etc. for a counter-offensive, & eventually they attacked. Once they did, the Germans were unable to stop them. The front line moved steadily east, & German resistance steadily weakened. Germany was calling up boys who wouldn’t reach conscription age until 1919, rushing them to the front part-trained, & struggling to find rifles & uniforms for them. Even with them, the army was shrinking, & getting weaker even faster than manpower strength was dropping. Artillery, vehicles, aircraft, ammunition - all were being lost or used up faster than German industry could make more, while the enemy grew stronger in absolute, not just relative terms.
Meanwhile, there were simultaneous Entente offensives in Mesopotamia, the Levant, the Balkans & Italy - & all succeeded. Germany’s allies all collapsed.
At the end of October 1918 Germany stood alone. Its allies had all capitulated. Its army in the west was in full retreat & the high command could see no way to hold the Entente advance. Entente armies were advancing unopposed into Austria-Hungary towards its southern borders, & there were no German soldiers to face them. Bohemia & Moravia, on Germany’s borders & terrifyingly close to Berlin, seceded from A-H & the new state associated itself with the Entente.
So, there you are. It lost the fighting. Its enemies had more people & more industry, & once they were fully mobilised, & their armies had caught up with (& in some areas surpassed) Germany’s training, tactics & organisation, there was only one possible outcome.

Paul Irving and John Rogers piece edited...

Only 500,000 doughboys went to the front lines Freeman. The war ended before greater involvement because the Germans had lost the war of attrition, and their allies. The offensive that ended the war, the 100 days, comprised 17 separate battles and began on August 8....Only 4 battles involved American troops.
The first major and distinctly American offensive was the reduction of the Saint Mihiel salient during September 1918. During the Battle of Saint-Mihiel, Pershing commanded the U.S. First Army, composed of seven divisions and more than 500,000 men, in the largest offensive operation ever undertaken by United States armed forces. This successful offensive was followed by the Meuse-Argonne offensive, lasting from September 26 to November 11, 1918, during which Pershing commanded more than one million American and French combatants. (actually more french than American).
So when other nations say the US was hardly involved... its because its true.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 25 Apr 2020, 11:58 am

No, not true. First of all the impact was psychological. Britain and France AND Germany knew the Americans were coming. Secondly, by June American military troops made a significant military contribution at Chateau-Thierry and Belleau Wood. There were over million a American troops in France by July, 1918. Two million troops were in France by the end. The US suffered 264,000 casualties (so clearly more than 500,000 reached the front some point).
Thirdly, the American Meuse-Argonne offensive finished the Germans.

This does not even count the economic aid. The Britiish and French armies were worn down by 1918. Some French troops mutinied in 1917 after yet anothet wasteful attack. British troops were also worn down. Is it possible the British troops and French troops could have held out without American troops? It's possible. But no way they would have pushed Germany back without American help. They could defend but they had lost (especially the French) their offensive punch. And there likely would have been a peace agreement favorable to Germany.



https://www.google.com/amp/s/time.com/5 ... 3famp=true

https://www.ushistory.org/us/45.asp

http://www.kumc.edu/wwi/index-of-essays ... lties.html
Last edited by freeman3 on 25 Apr 2020, 1:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 25 Apr 2020, 1:07 pm

As for China's Belt & Road and the opinion of African recipients...Beware of Greeks Bearing Gifts.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 26 Apr 2020, 3:06 pm

freeman3
As for China's Belt & Road and the opinion of African recipients...Beware of Greeks Bearing Gifts.

Sure. I mean its not like Africans haven't had centuries of slave taking, colonialism and corporate theft to give them an idea of how bad it could get...

freeman3
The US suffered 264,000 casualties (so clearly more than 500,000 reached the front some point).

116,000 dearths. but only 53,000 of these were in combat. The rest were mostly Spanish Flu victims. Besides the allies having to arm and retrain the dough boys, they also quarantined a lot of them in an attempt to stop the flu spreading.. One reason so few of them actually saw active service on the front line. (A lot of them in the rear echelons of the Meusse Argonne offensive... )

Freeman3
Thirdly, the American Meuse-Argonne offensive finished the Germans

.
Meusse Argonne launch force consisted of 15 American Divisions and 31 French Divisions. (Although the US divisions were larger, the total of 1.2 million was majority french.) The French forces had 70,000 casualties, to the American 122,000. Partly because the French had easier ground, but also because Pershing was still ordering frontal assaults against entrenched positions... By the way the Thai Expeditionary force was also involved. All 900.
The Meussse Argonne was only part of a general offensive move along the whole front. The rest of the Allies, including France, Britain and its dominion and imperial armies (mainly Canada, Australia, and New Zealand), and Belgium contributed to major battles in other sectors across the whole front.On September 26, the Americans began their strike north towards Sedan. The next day, British and Belgian divisions drove towards Ghent (Belgium). British and French armies attacked across northern France on September 28.

So again, though American historians focus on the American involvement ... it wasn't the only show... At the time US troops were involved in Mihiel and Meusse-Argonne here's what Canadians were up to. (for comparison sake)

Throughout these three final months, the Canadian troops saw action in several areas. The first was near the enemy salient on August 8 where the Canadian Corps (along with the New Zealanders, Australians, French and British) was charged with the task of spearheading the assault on the German forces in Amiens. In the subsequent battle, the morale of the German forces was badly shaken. In Ludendorff's words, the battle of Arras was a "black day for the German army."[67] After their breakthrough at Amiens, the Canadians were shifted back to Arras and given the task of cracking the Hindenburg Line in the Arras area.
Between August 26 and September 2, the Canadian Corps launched multiple attacks near the German front at Canal du Nord. On September 27, 1918, the Canadian Corps broke through the Hindenburg Line by smashing through a dry section of the Canal du Nord.[68] The operation ended in triumph on October 11, 1918, when the Canadian forces drove the Germans out of their main distribution centre in the Battle of Cambrai.
In the final one hundred days of the war, the Canadian Corps marched successfully to Mons. However, in this period, the Canadian Corps suffered 46,000 casualties.

Canadian forces had been involved in fighting since March 1915.

By the we have the same kinds of myths from the war that Americans seem to have . The Battle of Vimy Ridge is legendary in Canada but when you read general histories of the war it is more of a foot note. We also like to think that it was a wholly Canadian event, although British forces were also involved on both the North and South flanks
Still the memorial at Vimy is an icon in Canada and its thought of as the "battle that defined the nation".