Thank you, USA - but we're quits now, OK?
Jan 6th, 2007, 12:21 AM
#81
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,060
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Barbara makes a valid point.
It's all very well to sneer at "appeasement" but you can't blame the British government for trying to avoid another devastating war.
One of Tony Blair's dafter comments was "The USA stood shoulder to shoulder with us in 1940"
It's all very well to sneer at "appeasement" but you can't blame the British government for trying to avoid another devastating war.
One of Tony Blair's dafter comments was "The USA stood shoulder to shoulder with us in 1940"
Jan 6th, 2007, 04:17 AM
#82
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 74,699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi waring
>"there was very little interest in the US in once again engaging in a European Civil War, and none whatsoever for going to war to prop up the British Empire."
European Civil war? It wasn't exactly the Scots and the English throwing spears at each other.<
The land area of the US is about 3.5M sq miles, that of Europe 3.8M sq miles.
From 1860-1865 the US engaged in a "civil war".
From 1914-1918, and from 1939-1945, the Europeans engaged in a similar bloodletting.
The only difference, I submit, was that the European Empires were able to drag troops from distant lands into the conflict.
Hi xyz,
>history does show that contrary to what was being fed to the public, some of the Japanese demands on the US were reasonable (remember an embargo had been slapped on Japan) <
The embargo was in response to the Japanese invasion of China and Indochina.
I have some personal interest in this, as my paternal grandfather (recognizing that if we weren't going to sell scrap metal to Japan the price would drop) wisely decided to sell his nonferrous scrap business in August, 1841; thereby insuring that his heirs and assigns wouldn't have to worry about what to do with a lot of money.
Hi Barbara,
I am in full agreement.
Hi Neil,
>It fell to the Australian Labor Party Prime Minister, John Curtin, to order the return of the Australian 6th Division from North Africa, over Churchill's strenuous objections. This decision led to the first land defeat suffered by Japanese forces in WW2.<
Thanks for your contribution.
Curtin brought home the 6th and 7th, and wanted to retrieve the 9th, but they stayed in Africa after the US agreed to send an additional division to Australia.
There is a very good account at http://tinyurl.com/wm46k
>"there was very little interest in the US in once again engaging in a European Civil War, and none whatsoever for going to war to prop up the British Empire."
European Civil war? It wasn't exactly the Scots and the English throwing spears at each other.<
The land area of the US is about 3.5M sq miles, that of Europe 3.8M sq miles.
From 1860-1865 the US engaged in a "civil war".
From 1914-1918, and from 1939-1945, the Europeans engaged in a similar bloodletting.
The only difference, I submit, was that the European Empires were able to drag troops from distant lands into the conflict.
Hi xyz,
>history does show that contrary to what was being fed to the public, some of the Japanese demands on the US were reasonable (remember an embargo had been slapped on Japan) <
The embargo was in response to the Japanese invasion of China and Indochina.
I have some personal interest in this, as my paternal grandfather (recognizing that if we weren't going to sell scrap metal to Japan the price would drop) wisely decided to sell his nonferrous scrap business in August, 1841; thereby insuring that his heirs and assigns wouldn't have to worry about what to do with a lot of money.
Hi Barbara,
I am in full agreement.
Hi Neil,
>It fell to the Australian Labor Party Prime Minister, John Curtin, to order the return of the Australian 6th Division from North Africa, over Churchill's strenuous objections. This decision led to the first land defeat suffered by Japanese forces in WW2.<
Thanks for your contribution.
Curtin brought home the 6th and 7th, and wanted to retrieve the 9th, but they stayed in Africa after the US agreed to send an additional division to Australia.
There is a very good account at http://tinyurl.com/wm46k
Jan 6th, 2007, 04:39 AM
#83
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Ira...
When you give the figures for the land mass of the USA and Europe are you talking about the area at the time of the American Civl War (which obviously would not include certain areas that were not yet part of the country including Alaska) and of course your figures for Europe I presume would not include the Soviet Union....
When you give the figures for the land mass of the USA and Europe are you talking about the area at the time of the American Civl War (which obviously would not include certain areas that were not yet part of the country including Alaska) and of course your figures for Europe I presume would not include the Soviet Union....
Jan 6th, 2007, 04:59 AM
#84
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 74,699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi X,
The figures are for the area covered by the contiguous 48 states (the land was part of the US, but much of it was still Territory) and Europe from the Channel to the Russian border (The UK and Ireland, might be included, but, since I rounded off, it doesn't matter.)
The figures are for the area covered by the contiguous 48 states (the land was part of the US, but much of it was still Territory) and Europe from the Channel to the Russian border (The UK and Ireland, might be included, but, since I rounded off, it doesn't matter.)
Jan 6th, 2007, 05:41 AM
#85
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ira
A. Thought you were just lurking?
B. Addition to your <What if questions>
< What if a US soldier was not stationed in Europe >
< What if the US soldier was unable to see the beauty of a young woman after years of starvation as a result of an ugly war >
< What if the Soldier had not fallen in love at first sight of the woman and informed his friends "that is the girl I am going to marry">
< What if the couple had never been married for 50 years until death do us part >
Answer: You wouldn't have the best result from this war, ME!
A. Thought you were just lurking?
B. Addition to your <What if questions>
< What if a US soldier was not stationed in Europe >
< What if the US soldier was unable to see the beauty of a young woman after years of starvation as a result of an ugly war >
< What if the Soldier had not fallen in love at first sight of the woman and informed his friends "that is the girl I am going to marry">
< What if the couple had never been married for 50 years until death do us part >
Answer: You wouldn't have the best result from this war, ME!
Jan 6th, 2007, 01:13 PM
#89
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 6,818
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
North Shore:
>>>So, are you saying it was wrong to fight the Nazi's or Japan in WWII? The world was a much better place after those regimes were defeated.<<<
Couldn't agree more...but I stand by my statment that war, indeed, is hell...and all the stats of the enormous numbers of dead above , point out that there really are no winners in the end. Ask any child, parent, girl friend, spouse of any dead or missing GI.
At age 17 I enlisted because of the clamor to get the boys home from Europe and the Pacific, and I served two years in the occupation forces (24th Infantry Division)..if doing that got even one guy home early, I, and
my former comrades are satisfied that we did worthwhile duty
Yes, we walked around the perimeters
on guard duty with the safety's off ...scared bunch of teenagers, were we. I, for one, can feel for the guys in the quagmire that Iraq has become.
Now,I'm one of those who desperately
want the boys and girls home now from this mad,ill-advised war. Not worth the life of one of the dead, on all sides.
Stu T.
I repeat, War is nothing less than Hell.
Can you prove it otherwise?
>>>So, are you saying it was wrong to fight the Nazi's or Japan in WWII? The world was a much better place after those regimes were defeated.<<<
Couldn't agree more...but I stand by my statment that war, indeed, is hell...and all the stats of the enormous numbers of dead above , point out that there really are no winners in the end. Ask any child, parent, girl friend, spouse of any dead or missing GI.
At age 17 I enlisted because of the clamor to get the boys home from Europe and the Pacific, and I served two years in the occupation forces (24th Infantry Division)..if doing that got even one guy home early, I, and
my former comrades are satisfied that we did worthwhile duty
Yes, we walked around the perimeters
on guard duty with the safety's off ...scared bunch of teenagers, were we. I, for one, can feel for the guys in the quagmire that Iraq has become.
Now,I'm one of those who desperately
want the boys and girls home now from this mad,ill-advised war. Not worth the life of one of the dead, on all sides.
Stu T.
I repeat, War is nothing less than Hell.
Can you prove it otherwise?
Jan 6th, 2007, 02:06 PM
#90
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 6,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stu,
Thanks for you service. I am truly in awe and greatly appreciative of your scarifices. May my thanks be extended to all of your comrades and fellow warriors.
I agree with your assessment, war is hell and should be avoided. While there may be victors in war, everyone loses greatly.
MvK
Thanks for you service. I am truly in awe and greatly appreciative of your scarifices. May my thanks be extended to all of your comrades and fellow warriors.
I agree with your assessment, war is hell and should be avoided. While there may be victors in war, everyone loses greatly.
MvK
Jan 6th, 2007, 02:50 PM
#91
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 773
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stu, I agree that war is hell, but disagree when you say there are never any winners after a war. WWII is a good example. Sometimes you just have to fight.
The war on terror is a good example. Those savages that attacked us on 911 will keep coming at us if they think we won't fight back. I wish talking were the answer, but sadly it is just not the case.
The war on terror is a good example. Those savages that attacked us on 911 will keep coming at us if they think we won't fight back. I wish talking were the answer, but sadly it is just not the case.
Jan 6th, 2007, 04:31 PM
#92
North Shore, The "war on terror" is a lousy example. Most of "those savages" came from Saudi Arabia, including the leader, Osama Bin Laden. Remember him? Family are very, very good friends of the Bush family. We haven't attacked Saudi Arabi and we are, in fact, staying in Iraq so that the Saudi Royal family will stay in power. So, why are we fighting in Iraq again?
Jan 8th, 2007, 07:23 AM
#93
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 6,818
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
North Shore:
70% of the American people don't agree with you..and I'm one of them as is Barbara, above...and probably 7 out of ten on this forum.
>>>....mad,ill-advised war. Not worth the life of one of the dead, on all sides.<<<
I repeat the statement. And that's the last thing I will say on this gone-awry thread. Doesn't belong here.
Stu T.
70% of the American people don't agree with you..and I'm one of them as is Barbara, above...and probably 7 out of ten on this forum.
>>>....mad,ill-advised war. Not worth the life of one of the dead, on all sides.<<<
I repeat the statement. And that's the last thing I will say on this gone-awry thread. Doesn't belong here.
Stu T.
Jan 8th, 2007, 07:49 AM
#94
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 773
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Barbara and Stu, you are entitled to your opinion. I'm not really concerned about polls or numbers who do or don't share my opinion.
Stu, I am a bit curious, exactly what is it that don't you agree with? Maybe you are really reading way to much into what I said, as did Barbara.
Stu, I am a bit curious, exactly what is it that don't you agree with? Maybe you are really reading way to much into what I said, as did Barbara.
Thread
Original Poster
Forum
Replies
Last Post
namaka
Europe
35
Jun 5th, 2006 08:22 PM
