|
On 30-Nov-2004, "riverman" wrote:
because the Brits and others (especially the Brits) had been toiling all along for years waiting for us to get off our hands The cold war propaganda has buried one of the true tales of heroism in WWII - the role the Soviets had in fighting the Nazis. From the end of the Battle of Britain to the invasion of Normandy, the Soviets bore the brunt of the ground war. Ill-equipped and led by incompetent and morally bankrupt Stalinists, they nonetheless held the Nazis off and eventually battled them all the way back to Berlin. While I am critical of the delays in the US involvment and, more so, the incessant bragging and exaggeration by current Americans about their involvement, once they engaged, the US troops played a critical and heroic role in the war. Over one million US troops gave their lives in the two theatres of war and for that people in many nations are grateful. Mike |
"Keenan Wellar" wrote in message . .. "riverman" wrote in message ... "Keenan Wellar" wrote in message . .. I think you guys are getting hung up on semantic technicalities. Actually, it's the other way around. I think ou are playing semantics around the idea of when the US was at war. They were at war the first time they took a shot, which is particularly obvious in a discussion about US willingness for involvement in WWII as compared to other countries. Well, you can look at it that way, but I look forward to hearing you explain how the term 'legally' had nothing to do with laws. :-) Heh. I'm talking about what meaning people associate with "being at war." I think for most people the standard is: 1) You declare "we are at war with country x" 2) You gather up a bunch of weapons and hurl them at country x ==================== Such is the limited thinking that passes for leftie idealism, eh fool? |
"Michael Daly" wrote in message ... On 29-Nov-2004, "rick etter" wrote: Supplying arms to a billegerent is not a 'neutral' act. The administration was provoking the Nazis to get them to attack a US ship or territory. The people did not want to enter the war but the administration did. They didn't have the guts to force the war on the people, so they hoped that Nazi action would get the people in a belligerent mood. Once into the war, there was popular dissent wrt the draft. The fact remains - the US got dragged into the war kicking and screaming. ==================== The fact remains that morally and legally we were at war. Tap dance any way you like... We did that fool. Eventually. The war started in 1939. The rest of us were there from the start. =================== The problem was you *weren't* there all through the 30s. Instead you played and played, ignoring the violations of treaties until too late. Wait, that almost sounds familiar. Let's get to the point - those who were involved in the two world wars from the start are getting tired of the American bull**** of claiming that they saved the world by entering the wars. You yanks drag that out every time you feel the world owes you something. ======================== Sounds like you have a guilty conscience or something. I don't remember saying that, eh? The problem is that the world is giving you a rough time about all the **** your foreign policy entailed _since_ 1945. You don't get that - you never will. With so many crackers keeping their heads up their asses, the Americans will never understand what's really going on in the world or why they are losing friends in the world. Bush baby is coming to Canada tomorrow to try to patch things up - he will be met by a lot of protestors telling him to shut up and go home till he gets a clue. You won't get that either. ===================== Ah, feel the ahte of the uninformed losers.... Cheers, Mike |
In article , Michael Daly
wrote: On 28-Nov-2004, Warren wrote: The world that sold out to Hitler in the '30s Never studied American history, did you? The yanks tried to hide under the covers and avoid the war as long as possible. True, we were under the false impression that the Euros were smart enough to recognize a threat to themselves. We were wrong then and it cost us far too many American lives to save their asses from their own mistakes. We're not making the same mistake again |
In article , Michael Daly
wrote: On 29-Nov-2004, "rick etter" wrote: Just because it had not been officially declared does not mean that the US wasn't morally and legally already at war with Germany long before. Yer joking, right? Well it's a pretty poor joke and an insult to those who lost their lives actually engaged in the war. I'm sure Hilter was quaking in his boots at the thought that the US was "morally" engaged in the war. Bleeding the British treasury dry by selling them munitions isn't the best way of showing moral involvment. Picking up a gun and pitching in would have been a lot more productive and would have shortened the war considerably. What would have shortened the war even more was for the Euros to put a stop to Hitler's marching into the Rhineland and not caving into him at Munich. The Euros have themselves to blame for what happened to them in WWII. They're lucky we were willing to help them out at all before we finished off Japan. |
in article et, rick etter
at wrote on 11/30/04 5:26 PM: "Keenan Wellar" wrote in message news:BDD1614E.12B4A%UseAddressOnWebPageProvided@ho tmail.com... in article et, rick etter at wrote on 11/29/04 11:16 PM: "Keenan Wellar" wrote in message news:BDD14171.12B21%UseAddressOnWebPageProvided@ho tmail.com... in article t, rick etter at wrote on 11/29/04 7:30 PM: "Michael Daly" wrote in message ... On 29-Nov-2004, "rick etter" wrote: Just because it had not been officially declared does not mean that the US wasn't morally and legally already at war with Germany long before. Yer joking, right? Well it's a pretty poor joke and an insult to those who lost their lives actually engaged in the war. I'm sure Hilter was quaking in his boots at the thought that the US was "morally" engaged in the war. ================== Yes, I'm sure he was. Roosevelt declared the US neutral at start of war. Want to know how long that lasted? 1 month. 1 month before the arms embargo parts of the act were repealed. Supplying arms to a billegerent is not a 'neutral' act. If your point is that Roosevelt had to in effect lure the country into armed involvement one baby step at a time, you are correct. ===================== It still means that in a legal sense the US was at war. I think most people would say that you are at war when you say so, ====================== Really? The people that you are helping to kill might have a different idea of when you are at war, wouldn't you think? We're talking about at what point in time the US was at war with Germany. and when you have people with guns shooting at other people with guns. ======================= People can die from others actions of war than from being shot. But then, with your limited thinking I'm sure you wouldn't think that, eh? We're talking about at what point in time the US was at war with Germany. There can be no question that the majority American sentiment was to stay out of the war. Roosevelt took actions that brought the US into conflict situations until sentiments changed to the extent that the desire for war was stronger than the desire for isolationism. ============================== Spin it any way you like. I'm not "spinning" anything. But morally and in a legal sense, we were at war. US actions provided that, regardless of how you think the country as a whole thought. The US was at war with Germany the day they declared war and entered into armed conflict. Japan invaded mostly on the basis of *US* actions in the Pacific. Actions that are taken by agressors, not neutrals. That's interesting logic. Are you saying that any nation that is attacked by another nation was at war with them prior to the attack? |
|
Warren wrote:
In article , Michael Daly wrote: On 28-Nov-2004, Warren wrote: The world that sold out to Hitler in the '30s Never studied American history, did you? The yanks tried to hide under the covers and avoid the war as long as possible. True, we were under the false impression that the Euros were smart enough to recognize a threat to themselves. We were wrong then and it cost us far too many American lives to save their asses from their own mistakes. We're not making the same mistake again True, the U.S. has been coming up with creative new ways to waste American lives ever since. Free the world, let's start another war... :-( Now that nations all around the earth point out that the U.S. is creating new threats to itself and the rest of the world, who is wearing the blinds now? Where does your hatred against Europeans really come from? -- Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o t)nl Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe ---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.--- http://wilko.webzone.ru/ |
On 30-Nov-2004, "rick etter" wrote:
I don't remember saying that, eh? Go back through the thread. You jumped in when I responded to such a statement. Mike |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:09 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com