Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Blix says Iraq better off with Saddam
Topic Started: Apr 6 2004, 01:32 PM (462 Views)
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
Yeah, I guess that we are going to talk about this. So, on the one hand you are complaining that the US didn't come and help out immediately in WW2, and then you say that the USA didn't really matter in WW1.

So, what the bloody hell did you need us for in 1940?

I suppose that now you'll say that Montgomery won the war against Germany and Eisenhower, Patton, Bradley and the gang had nothing to do with it?

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Admiralbill_gomec
Apr 8 2004, 06:48 AM
nztrekkie
Apr 8 2004, 12:18 AM
38957
Apr 7 2004, 02:43 PM
We jump into someone else's war and you tell us we're throwing our weight around and being unilateral, we stay out for a while and we aren't living up to our responsibility or what ever.  Geeze....  enough already.

The BIG point being lost here is that in Iraq in 2003, the US was the agressor just as Hitler was in 1939, so you're not really jumping IN to a war in Iraq - you're actually starting one.

Sorry if it inflammatory to compare George Bush with Adolf Hitler - it just seems to be the fact of the matter IMHO. (the wars were started for entirely different reasons, but they were started all the same by George and Adolf)

What a pantload.

What you are saying here is that we are involved in a hegemonic expansion of our empire while systematically enacting a policy of genocide?

Y'know NZ, I expect to hear stupid, baiting statements from you, but this takes the cake.

I hope that DS also edited NZ's inflammatory, TROLLING remarks...
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
38957
Apr 8 2004, 07:25 AM
Yeah, I guess that we are going to talk about this. So, on the one hand you are complaining that the US didn't come and help out immediately in WW2, and then you say that the USA didn't really matter in WW1.

So, what the bloody hell did you need us for in 1940?

I suppose that now you'll say that Montgomery won the war against Germany and Eisenhower, Patton, Bradley and the gang had nothing to do with it?

I suppose that our supply convoys during WWI didn't mean anything either. I mean, just because Britain was nearly STARVED into submission except for American resupply doesn't mean a thing does it?

And 38957, I believe that it was Field Marshall Zhukov that led the defeat of Germany.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
38957
Apr 8 2004, 12:25 PM
Yeah, I guess that we are going to talk about this. So, on the one hand you are complaining that the US didn't come and help out immediately in WW2, and then you say that the USA didn't really matter in WW1.

So, what the bloody hell did you need us for in 1940?

I suppose that now you'll say that Montgomery won the war against Germany and Eisenhower, Patton, Bradley and the gang had nothing to do with it?

I'm not saying that the US contribution to WW1 was worthless. Just saying that in that war it was not decisive. It certainly was decisive in WW2 and I dont want to take anything away from the US forces in that conflict (unlike Hollywood seems to feel compelled to do to our troops). We could not have won without you. I'm just saying that it would have been better had you joined the war sooner and that we were all lucky that the delay didnt end up costing us the whole war. I'm also saying that you came into the war with troops only when you saw your own interests hit, you didnt help when you could see the democracies of Britain and France struggling against the facist threat.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Swidden
Member Avatar
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
ds9074
Apr 8 2004, 03:38 AM
Will try and define these as best as I can:

Laury = Not Sure, if you mean Larry that could mean a loner, someone with no friends. [I felt like a larry when none of you showed up]
Loo = Lavatory, Toilet [just nipping to the loo]
Bloke = Man (modern) [the blokes in the pub said....]
Chap = Man (slightly old-fashioned) [come on old chap]
Mate = Friend, either male or female. Not normally used to describe a romantic relationship. [by best mate came round this afternoon]
Macaroon = now I'm not sure on this one, I believe a Macaroon is a type of biscuit but it usage in language is rare (at least where I live). Best guess would be that its a way of mildly saying you idiot, like you prat [I cant believe you didnt get the joke, you Macaroon] but dont take that as fact. Can anyone else help.

:offtopic: This thread can probably use a pointless interruption, or in the words of Monty Python: And now for something completely different...

I have no idea how the vernacular usage of Macaroon might differ in England, but it's also a cookie here (with lots of coconut).

Laury= I think he means lorry (sp?), which would be a delivery truck wouldn't it?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
ds9074
Apr 8 2004, 09:52 AM
38957
Apr 8 2004, 12:25 PM
Yeah, I guess that we are going to talk about this.  So, on the one hand you are complaining that the US didn't come and help out immediately in WW2, and then you say that the USA didn't really matter in WW1. 

So, what the bloody hell did you need us for in 1940?

I suppose that now you'll say that Montgomery won the war against Germany and Eisenhower, Patton, Bradley and the gang had nothing to do with it?

I'm not saying that the US contribution to WW1 was worthless. Just saying that in that war it was not decisive. It certainly was decisive in WW2 and I dont want to take anything away from the US forces in that conflict (unlike Hollywood seems to feel compelled to do to our troops). We could not have won without you. I'm just saying that it would have been better had you joined the war sooner and that we were all lucky that the delay didnt end up costing us the whole war. I'm also saying that you came into the war with troops only when you saw your own interests hit, you didnt help when you could see the democracies of Britain and France struggling against the facist threat.

I don't think that it is so much of what was in our interests. I don't see liberating France to be more or less in our interests after Pearl Harbor. I think that there was a great reluctance in the USA among its people to sacrifice more of our soldiers for another European war. This is understandable given the context, WW1 brought about some isolationist sentiments in America. America was also mired in an economic depression and war costs a great deal of money. In hindsight, America getting involved earlier in defeating Nazi Germany and recognizing the threat the Japanese Empire posed earlier and doing more to combat them would've perhaps saved some lives. Hindsight is 20/20. In the late 1930s it appeared that it would be a European war, and the threat of the Japanese was underestimated.

Perhaps the allies UK, USA and France imposed too heavy of a penalty on Germany after WW1, sewing the seeds for Hitler to rise. Also, imposing stifling tonnage restrictions on the Japanese and German Navies causing anamosity toward the allies. I think that all nations were a bit short-sited in the pre-WW2 era, not just the USA. How long did the UK ignore the German threat? Until the Luftwaffa was flying over the cliffs of Dover?

Before our full military involvement in WW2, US shipping was taking a beating at the hands of the German U-Boats in an effort to supply Britain. That is not insignificant. Real people died, lots of money lost.

After the war, however, the USA was very proactive in protecting its allies in Western Europe (and elsewhere) from the threat of the Soviet Empire. WW2 changed the face of the world, as the long range heavy-bomber, atom bombs, aircraft carriers became the main weapons of the militaries (thank God Hitler didn't recognize this fact). It was then obvious that isolationism was no longer a viable option.

I am not sure what Hollywood did or said about British troops, but most people don't ascribe too much credibility to Hollywood movies anyhow.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
Firstly can I say that I agree with much of what you post, I can understand why things happened as they did. But just to reply to a few points.

Quote:
 
How long did the UK ignore the German threat? Until the Luftwaffa was flying over the cliffs of Dover?


We let the Germans get away with a lot in the late 1930's. I think the reasoning was 3 fold, and I dont think cowardice was one. After the horror of WW1 we wanted so badly to avoid war we kidded ourselves that we could avoid it. We also thought that perhaps we had been to harsh on Germany and that in fact we should allow them a little leaway. Finally we were in not state at all to mount a challenge to Germany in the mid 1930's.

We didnt however wait till the Germans were directly threating us before we took action. If you remember we had agreed to protect Poland from German agression. When Germany invaded Poland we declared war.

:offtopic: Indeed if he was talking about a lorry then that would be truck. Generally a large one, a commerical lorry for carrying goods etc.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
Quote:
 
After the horror of WW1 we wanted so badly to avoid war we kidded ourselves that we could avoid it. We also thought that perhaps we had been to harsh on Germany and that in fact we should allow them a little leaway.

It seems to me, some people are now kidding themselves about the interconnections between terrorists and Middle Eastern nations, and some people are wanting to give militant Muslims a little leaway.

For the most part, it is not Americans ... it's the Europeans.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus