Pages: 1 … 13 14 15 16 17 18

Topic closed

2006-05-03 08:32:19
whittsend
PV1 Joe Snuffy
+78|7029|MA, USA

I2elik wrote:

But here's my question, why, pray tell, does America only choose to assist other countries when they are threatened or attacked? Whatever happened to humanity eh?
Time for someone to pick up a history book.


I2elik wrote:

WW2 : The USA, once again, goes back to it's isolationist ways, and yet again chooses to hold back until they are directly threatened. But their assistance was needed in the Pacific theatre, though I might add that the Japanese had abandoned efforts to invade Australia by then, and chose to expand more into China and countries surrounding it.
You have heard of Lend Lease?  You are aware that the British war effort was supplied by the US long before Germany declared war on the US?  Roosevelt was practically BEGGING the Germans to declare war so we could get into it (he couldn't just jump in because, strangely enough, most Americans don't like it when we go to war).

I2elik wrote:

Korean War: An attempt to stop the "threat of communism" or the opposite of Democracy, during the whole "Communism Paranoia" thing.
And this is selfish how?  In an area where we had few interests we sought to prevent a form of government which was known to be tyrannical from overthrowing one which was had the potential to be more free.  There's the humanity you were looking for...eh.

I2elik wrote:

Vietnam : A war that probably had the largest amount of opposition to, there was no real reason to fight there, unless the "threat of communism" would last, oh right, Berlin Wall? The Iron Curtain coming down over Russian and Eastern Europe? Oh no, they aren't important, because Communism lasts forever right?
You sound like someon who is too young to know what he is talking about.  Before Perestroika, nobody had any reason to expect the decline of Communism, as it had done nothing but expand from 1917 to the 1980's.

I2elik wrote:

Gulf War: No complaints there, just more media frenzies, something for the american press to get something interesting instead of the usual "Which Toothpaste/Diswasher/Cola is best?" crap you get nowadays.
So basically, even when we win, we lose?  Well, that's known as Anti-Americanism.  You won't like the US no matter what it does.

I2elik wrote:

Iraq War : Not necessarily a war, but something that started when America was directly threatened, they obviously knew that Saddam wouldn't stop torturing and kill thousands, but they let him stay in power after the Gulf War, what gives? Well they finally realised their retarded mistake and took the Neo-Hitler out of power.
Actually, I have more of a problem with this one myself.  But as far as leaving Hussein in power the first time around there was a very good reason for that:  George H.W. Bush promised that was what we were going to do...so that's what we did.  He was a more honorable man, and better president than his son.  Your comments seem to indicate that a value judgement is a good enough reason to go to war and remove a government...as long as they are YOUR value judgements. 

I2elik wrote:

No, America is not an aggressor, it's more of a selfish country that only helps out when it's own ideals (albeit, some are highly flawed) are in danger, or in other words, indirectly or directly attacked, heck, it's the new age Democracy more and more countries are conforming too.
This is simply an uninformed rant which is not consistent.  The basic premise is that action is ok when you approve of it, and not ok when you don't.  Forgive us, but I don't think consulting your 'highly flawed' ideals is a good basis for a system of government.
2006-05-04 00:19:29
scouseclarky
Member
+10|6852

Pubic wrote:

scouseclarky wrote:

i think your forgetting that the uk stood alone for 3 years fighting the germans b4 america even considerd joining the war thats y it was calld the battle of brittian not the battle of usa dont get me wrong the states did a hell of alot of fighting however what u said makes it sound like america won the war all by it's self i dont think either of my grandfathers would say the same
Not completely alone my commonwealth brother!
fair point i forgot the other comonwealth countries free french and polish my mistake
2006-05-05 17:35:53
OpsChief
Member
+101|6947|Southern California
What does "aggressor" mean anyway?

The only wars the US started in the 20th Century were, ...uh... hmmmm, well come to think of it, None.
2006-05-05 18:22:37
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,054|7043|PNW

I'm always confused as to why some people from other Allied nations of WW2 look upon US participation with resentment. It's almost like a bully getting pushed off of another kid, while shortly afterwards his intended victim gets up, brushes himself off and mutters something about "handling it himself." No matter how you look at it, even though we did not fight alone, US industry and manpower made a gargantuan dent in Axis capacity to wage war. You can't deny it.

But too bad for eastern Europe that we didn't remobilize the Germans and finish off the Russians before there could be a Cold War.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-05-05 18:26:33)

2006-05-05 20:53:33
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6872|132 and Bush

whittsend wrote:

You have heard of Lend Lease?  You are aware that the British war effort was supplied by the US long before Germany declared war on the US?  Roosevelt was practically BEGGING the Germans to declare war so we could get into it (he couldn't just jump in because, strangely enough, most Americans don't like it when we go to war).
Plus 1 for that, Someone who know what they are talking about. Nice to know your history isnt it. Japan has always believed that becuase of our Lend Lease ways that it was completly acceptable when they attacked . They feel they had no choice. Others argue Pacific domination.

Last edited by Kmarion (2006-05-05 20:55:09)

Xbone Stormsurgezz
2006-05-05 21:05:39
Capt. Foley
Member
+155|6859|Allentown, PA, USA
i would send my own life over there 2 fight those wars
BUT
in nam i would of liked the MILITARY to have more control because it was politics that screwed us over in that war
along with Iraq it is all the politics
imagine if the Irag was was fought like WWII
with the press acctualy saying good things for once and not constanly showing all the shit in war

i do not think war is good but i hate how politics cause more pain suffering and death now and probably into the future

btw
we werent the biggest military aggressor
alomost every time we went to war(except Iraq) was because we were attacked first
Where we supposed to let the Japs take over all the South Pacific?
Were we supposed to let Hitler kill all of the "inferior" people in the world?
Were we supposed to let the Germans run over Europe and ATTACK US from Mexico?
Were we supposed to let the Communists take over Korea( we were backed by the UN by the way)?
Vietnam was a screwed up war that was made worse by politics and bad leadership state-side but with different elected people in power i think the outcome of the war owuld of been different.


I think every war we have fought to date was worth it and i would send myself back there even if it ment pain or death. I beleive in protecting this country from enemys against the people of the world and the greater good.


kk now everyone flame me and tell me im a dumbass lol
2006-05-05 21:30:36
JP3
Member
+8|6941|Grammar Land

OpsChief wrote:

What does "aggressor" mean anyway?

The only wars the US started in the 20th Century were, ...uh... hmmmm, well come to think of it, None.
Are you serious?

Aggressor doesn't imply initiating a war.  Let's, for the sake of this discussion, replace "aggressor" with unilateral military action, which I think was the intended implication.

Here's a brief and incomplete list:

The occupation of Nicaragua beginning in the early 1900's-1933
Occupation of Haiti 1915-1934
The invasion of Grenada 1983
Nicaragua again, throughout the 1980's
   -This one is especially important because it resulted in the Nicaraguan government essentiall bring the US   before the World Court, where the US was ordered to cease all military action. When we didn't they then brought the issue before the United Nations, where the US was directed to comply with the World Court decision.  The US didn't of course, and as a result the US now stands as the only state to have been officially condemned for acts of international terrorism by both the UN and World Court.
Operation Just Cause, Panama 1989

I was going to go on here, but to be quite honest, I'm tired.  If you are unable to have some meaningful discourse from any of this, well, you might just be dead, check your pulse.
2006-05-05 21:56:04
Ender2309
has joined the GOP
+470|6842|USA

SlartyBartFast wrote:

Interesting opinion j-bass.  I would actually argue that reason all of Europe is not speaking German is largely due to the British, French & Russian forces and the reason Australia (and the rest of the Asia-Pacific rim) is not speaking Japanese is largely due to the US.  The battle of the Coral Sea (can't remeber if before or after Midaway) probably saved Australia from invasion.  So thanks for that!  Don't get me wrong, being from Down Under I am not in love with the Brits or the US (the Brits have used us as cannon fodder...ever heard of Gallipoli? and we usually just blindly follw the US regardless).
according to both my AP world and my AP world review book, most of the australians used in gallipoli were convicts attempting to be pardoned, and it was largely colonistic in nature (indians, africans, etc). for those who don't know, the brits used australia for a large island prison back in the day.
2006-05-06 06:35:19
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7108

Ender2309 wrote:

SlartyBartFast wrote:

Interesting opinion j-bass.  I would actually argue that reason all of Europe is not speaking German is largely due to the British, French & Russian forces and the reason Australia (and the rest of the Asia-Pacific rim) is not speaking Japanese is largely due to the US.  The battle of the Coral Sea (can't remeber if before or after Midaway) probably saved Australia from invasion.  So thanks for that!  Don't get me wrong, being from Down Under I am not in love with the Brits or the US (the Brits have used us as cannon fodder...ever heard of Gallipoli? and we usually just blindly follw the US regardless).
according to both my AP world and my AP world review book, most of the australians used in gallipoli were convicts attempting to be pardoned, and it was largely colonistic in nature (indians, africans, etc). for those who don't know, the brits used australia for a large island prison back in the day.
The only Reason the USSR didnt fall to the Germans was the Allies (Mostly The US Merchant Marine and US Coat Gaurd Ice Breakers) open up an All weather port for them and kept them fed and sullplied. Otherwise Hitlers Strategy of pushing them away from all their resources would have worked. Great Britian Held there own during the Battle of Britian But It was US Navy support of their convoys that kept them alive During the U Bout campains. Churchill said this. US Armys round the Clock Heavy bombers over germany Cripled there Production and destroyed their Fuel Sources and Totally elimanated the Air Power as a weapon. US forces were the Lions share of the D Day invasion.

No one country did it all but the USA did the most and Contributed the most resuorces. France was of little account after 1940 and her soldeirs roles were mostly symbolic at best after 44. The reason the Allies wouldnt land in lower France is they Knew the French would actually fight us as they did in North Africa. In North Africa they actually aided the Germans let them use Airfields ports etc.

If not for the US presence in Europe after Germany was Finished You would have all been speaking Russian, thats for sure. There is nothing to Suggest the Rape Fests the USSR held in Germany and Austria would have only taken place there either.
2006-05-06 14:20:30
OpsChief
Member
+101|6947|Southern California

JP3 wrote:

OpsChief wrote:

What does "aggressor" mean anyway?

The only wars the US started in the 20th Century were, ...uh... hmmmm, well come to think of it, None.
Are you serious?

Aggressor doesn't imply initiating a war.  Let's, for the sake of this discussion, replace "aggressor" with unilateral military action, which I think was the intended implication.

Here's a brief and incomplete list:

The occupation of Nicaragua beginning in the early 1900's-1933
Occupation of Haiti 1915-1934
The invasion of Grenada 1983
Nicaragua again, throughout the 1980's
   -This one is especially important because it resulted in the Nicaraguan government essentiall bring the US   before the World Court, where the US was ordered to cease all military action. When we didn't they then brought the issue before the United Nations, where the US was directed to comply with the World Court decision.  The US didn't of course, and as a result the US now stands as the only state to have been officially condemned for acts of international terrorism by both the UN and World Court.
Operation Just Cause, Panama 1989

I was going to go on here, but to be quite honest, I'm tired.  If you are unable to have some meaningful discourse from any of this, well, you might just be dead, check your pulse.
lmao 

My question about aggressor was sarcasm...and what makes the USA the "Most Aggressive Nation of Last Century'? Nicaragua??? Panama??? This is small potatoes m8.  Grenada was a response to Cuba's initiative. Panama i am undecided but I think the operation sent a clear signal to corrupt governments that there is a line that should not be crossed. Anyway if you add all the casualities of all those Aggressor actions it is peanuts compared to others in that century.

When the Middle Eastern Press uses the term "aggressor" it has a very specific meaning of "trespassing initiator" and sometimes "infidel" is added for flavor. Unilateral Military actions may include aggressor status but that is a much wider definition that does not apply to initiating war or military action. Was there any sovereign nation that we attempted to capture and keep in the 20th Century? We occupied after wars, we protected after threats to peace but nothing like the Big Four Japan, Nazi Germany, USSR, Communist China.

Most Aggressive of the 20th Century including Unilateral Initiation of Wars:
  Japan = millions of sq. miles of captured land, millions of deaths as a result.
  Bolshevik Russia/USSR = millions of sq. miles of captured land, millions of deaths as a result.
  Nazi Germany = millions of sq. miles of captured land, millions of deaths as a result.
  Communist China/USSR/North Korea = Hundreds of thousands die and nothing to show for it.
  Communist China/USSR/North Viet Nam = thousands of sq. miles captured and millions of deaths as a result.

Do I really need to go on? By your definition, JP3, even some small time dictators in Central Europe, Middle East, South America and Africa were worse in the 20th Century.

The USA is way down the list somewhere. USA is not perfect but they usually don't start up the muck. We may not be doing so hot in the 21st Century with 50% of our wars being contested as to validity but neither were unilateral. So see me in 94 yrs and we will review. Your words may someday be prophetic and historically accurate but they arent historically balanced.

Last edited by OpsChief (2006-05-06 15:35:34)

2006-05-07 17:18:19
scouseclarky
Member
+10|6852

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

I'm always confused as to why some people from other Allied nations of WW2 look upon US participation with resentment. It's almost like a bully getting pushed off of another kid, while shortly afterwards his intended victim gets up, brushes himself off and mutters something about "handling it himself." No matter how you look at it, even though we did not fight alone, US industry and manpower made a gargantuan dent in Axis capacity to wage war. You can't deny it.

But too bad for eastern Europe that we didn't remobilize the Germans and finish off the Russians before there could be a Cold War.
i know all about lend lease and im sure niether of my grandfarthers were apposed 2 being helped by the us 1 of my grandfarthers was navy and served on the convoys betweem the states and uk then the russian convoys b4 he transferd 2 mine sweepers and his ship was the first in the floatilla 2 sweep the beaches for mines on d-day, what  was saying was that the way he wrote his msg was that if it wasnt for the states all euope would b speaking german, this made it sound like the us were the sole saviours of the world and won the war all by itself. this is not uncommon as its often seen un us war film eg. u-571 the us capture an enigma machine. yes they did but it was at the wars end when a u boat sailed in 2 a us port and surrenderd coz germany had. in actual fact it was a british destroyer hms bull dog that capturd the enigma machine. i never doubted that a lot of americans died fighting in europe as did british/commonwealth and i dont doubt that with out the convoys we would have been in serious sh*t. because of the battle of britian and the fact that the eastern front wasnt going 2 well the invasion of the uk was called off. i do think tho that if hitler had'nt invaded russia we would have been at war for a lot longer states or not
2006-05-07 17:41:13
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7108
Actually his russia invasion plan had real merit but, Mosulinni SP knocked it of it invasion scheduale and he ran out of the good weather he needed, It was still close.
2006-05-12 11:12:07
yerded
Bertinator
+255|6908|Westminster, California

Horseman 77 wrote:

Actually his russia invasion plan had real merit but, Mosulinni SP knocked it of it invasion scheduale and he ran out of the good weather he needed, It was still close.
It really wasn't close. Stalins plan was to draw Germany deep inside Russia. At that time a force of nearly 50 divisions that had escaped anybodies intelligense estimates was unleashed and the Germans were surrounded and slaughtered wholesale. The Sixth army of about 250000 men was abandoned in the middle of the battle for Stalingrad. Nobody believed that Stalin could muster almost a million men at arms from the wastelands of Siberia, but he did.
     Hitlers  plan got as far as it did only because of the heinous brutality and willingness to murder any and all who stood in the way. On paper, division for division, Hitler never stood a chance in Russia, and this was cemented when the Americans began shipping thousands of tanks, planes and bombs to the Russians.
     Without the lend lease program the expelling of the Nazies would have taken another two years but it was inevitable.
     And how about the Russians using East Berlin as their toxic waste dump for forty years after the war? Pay backs are a bitch.
2006-05-12 12:02:52
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7108
I dont see retreating into their vast interior as a Viable plan, they could have been left to die their if America lost its Heart and resolve for the War ala Iraq. They left their Ports, Agriable land and indutrial base behind. It was only through a massive Allied logistical undertaking that we were able to Feed and Supply them alowing them to create a new industrial center from Scratch. Otherwise Stalin would have had an Army of Starved to death popsicles that were out of ammo.
2006-05-12 20:15:19
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6832

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

UN created it, not the U.S. acting outside UN chain of command

Is that enough proof Bubbalo?

EDIT:  I recommend to anyone trying to make a point in this thread or any thread for that matter to research or know something about what you are talking about before just making random statements not based in truth at all.
Uh-huh.  And did the UN tell US troops to go in without UN tags, and without notification, and capture respected elders?

Horseman 77 wrote:

Otherwise Stalin would have had an Army of Starved to death popsicles that were out of ammo.
Which is what the Reds won the revolution with.

Last edited by Bubbalo (2006-05-12 20:17:32)

2006-05-13 17:06:31
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7108

Bubbalo wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

UN created it, not the U.S. acting outside UN chain of command

Is that enough proof Bubbalo?

EDIT:  I recommend to anyone trying to make a point in this thread or any thread for that matter to research or know something about what you are talking about before just making random statements not based in truth at all.
Uh-huh.  And did the UN tell US troops to go in without UN tags, and without notification, and capture respected elders?

Horseman 77 wrote:

Otherwise Stalin would have had an Army of Starved to death popsicles that were out of ammo.
Which is what the Reds won the revolution with.
Wrong again !
2006-05-14 02:16:50
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6832
On which count?
2006-05-14 10:12:59
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7108
the reds were not starved to death. they were  still alive.

Last edited by Horseman 77 (2006-05-14 10:13:45)

2006-05-15 00:16:18
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6832

Horseman 77 wrote:

the reds were not starved to death. they were  still alive.
And if supplies hadn't been given to the USSR, they would have been in largely the same condition as during the Russian Civil war.   So if they weren't starved to death then, they wouldn't have been during WWII.
2006-05-15 07:44:25
whittsend
PV1 Joe Snuffy
+78|7029|MA, USA

Bubbalo wrote:

Uh-huh.  And did the UN tell US troops to go in without UN tags, and without notification, and capture respected elders?
Talking about Somalia?  US troops were supporting (and protecting) UN operations.  They were not under UN command, therefore they did not wear UN insignia.

Please, tell me more about 'respected elders'.  I'd love to hear the uninformed opinion of someone who wasn't there and doesn't know what they are talking about.
2006-05-15 12:13:23
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7108

Bubbalo wrote:

Horseman 77 wrote:

the reds were not starved to death. they were  still alive.
And if supplies hadn't been given to the USSR, they would have been in largely the same condition as during the Russian Civil war.   So if they weren't starved to death then, they wouldn't have been during WWII.
No, they were two different types of Wars, two different eras, Different weapons, tactics, etc., the scale of distances was different. The Red army was at home and fought at home not on its Frontier. We could go on forever.

I am not saying Hitler had a brilliant plan.
It was a big political gamble for him, Hoping that Joe Kennedy and his contemporaries would sour the American public on the war and treat it like a lost cause.

The gamble failed, had it not, the strategy had some merit in my opinion.
Maybe some USSR forces would have weathered the winter. But when summer came would they have been a match for a mobile modern army. Could they have fought off that army without the Tons of munitions supplied by the Allies?
2006-05-22 00:19:26
scouseclarky
Member
+10|6852

whittsend wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

Uh-huh.  And did the UN tell US troops to go in without UN tags, and without notification, and capture respected elders?
Talking about Somalia?  US troops were supporting (and protecting) UN operations.  They were not under UN command, therefore they did not wear UN insignia.

Please, tell me more about 'respected elders'.  I'd love to hear the uninformed opinion of someone who wasn't there and doesn't know what they are talking about.
your right about the us and somalia but your chattin shit about the respected elders, because unless u served there yourself which i doubt how the fuck do you know what your talking about. we only learn from our schools and books and family and the best source 2 learn from is the respected elders who fought the battles first hand and did'nt just learn the history but lived it and are part of it.
2006-05-22 07:53:33
whittsend
PV1 Joe Snuffy
+78|7029|MA, USA

scouseclarky wrote:

whittsend wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

Uh-huh.  And did the UN tell US troops to go in without UN tags, and without notification, and capture respected elders?
Talking about Somalia?  US troops were supporting (and protecting) UN operations.  They were not under UN command, therefore they did not wear UN insignia.

Please, tell me more about 'respected elders'.  I'd love to hear the uninformed opinion of someone who wasn't there and doesn't know what they are talking about.
your right about the us and somalia but your chattin shit about the respected elders, because unless u served there yourself which i doubt how the fuck do you know what your talking about. we only learn from our schools and books and family and the best source 2 learn from is the respected elders who fought the battles first hand and did'nt just learn the history but lived it and are part of it.
Bad news cheif.  1/A/2-14 IN.  Mogadishu 1 Aug 93-18 Dec 93.
2006-05-22 22:59:28
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6832
So, because you were there you autmatically know everything there is to know about their culture?  Congratulations, if you ever need to know anything about Singapore, I was there for a week or two, ask me.
2006-05-23 07:35:51
atlvolunteer
PKMMMMMMMMMM
+27|7042|Atlanta, GA USA

Bubbalo wrote:

So, because you were there you autmatically know everything there is to know about their culture?  Congratulations, if you ever need to know anything about Singapore, I was there for a week or two, ask me.
I think you missed that he was responding to this:
"unless u served there yourself which i doubt how the fuck do you know what your talking about. "

Topic closed

Pages: 1 … 13 14 15 16 17 18

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard