US War History
-
Terry O`Nolley wrote: Wankers each and every one of them....... An insightful response. I had a lot to say, but you've shot me down in flames with cold logic. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
Christian Graus wrote: An insightful response. I had a lot to say, but you've shot me down in flames with cold logic. I think his F overrides his T when it comes to him deciding what to say on issues of Americanism. Good for combat, but on CP soapbox:confused::) Later, JoeSox "That sounds exactly like the thinking of a machine to me." -- Morpheus, The Matrix Reloaded joeswammi.com ↔ humanaiproject.org ↔ joeswammi.com/sinfest
-
It is kind of interesting to read the furious objections the US has to allies who didn't join the military "coalition of the willing." Now I supported the overthrow of Saddam and the liberation of Iraq. And I was upset that Canada didn't throw in its lot with the US & UK and join the coalition of the willing... but.... Americans seem to have amnesia. It took them two years to join the "coalition of the willing" in WWII. When did Britain declare war on Germany in WWII? I think it was September 1, 1939, when the Germans started raining down the bombs on Warsaw. Canada declared war on Germany within 28 hours. What did it take the Americans? I think it was more like 28 months before they joined the "coalition of the willing." And then they only joined because they thought Hitler might win. Sure the Americans supported the war effort before joining it... but Canada had naval vessels in the Gulf supporting the America effort in Iraq. Plus we've contributed hundreds of million dollars to reconstruction of Iraq. Ok... I think Canada was wrong to sit on the sidelines. But would Hitler have been so bold if the US had been on side with the allies right from the start of WWII? As the jokes goes... we'd like to thank our American friends for coming to our aid in 1941... when we got in serious trouble in 1939. JM
The most common stance towards this that the US didn't want to stop a chance of the russian bear getting it's furry ass kicked. Some even go as far as claiming they were indecisive which side to take.
Flirt harder, I'm a coder.
mlog || Agile Programming | doxygen -
I really believe your comparison leaves a lot of facts out. If people knew what Hitler was going to do I think the world would have done things differently including the German people. Also Why did Britian declare war in 1939. Because they had a defense pack with Poland. Not because they thought Germany was evil. "Don't be so anti-american, would you? KaЯl (to Paul Watson on Baseball Bats) 26 Nov '03 "
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Why did Britian declare war in 1939 As it did for centuries, to defend the European equilibrium, to thwart a too strong continental power.
Le temps se perd, "Si" n'existe pas Tous les remords n'y changeront rien Le temps se perd, "Si" n'existe pas Donc à présent le choix reste mien
-
John Carson wrote: Accordingly, its outrage that some European countries have been reluctant to support it over Iraq... Whatever outrage there was (and there wasn't as much as some of you may have been led to believe) is not that France and Germany were reluctant to support the US and follow through with UN resolutions France, at least, voted for, but that they openly opposed the war to the point where some leaders indicated they hoped the US led coalition would lose. PS. One thing I didn't put in my previous post is that the US president, FDR, was prohibited by law from sending troops, let alone arms, to Europe due to laws passed in 1937. The protectionism goes even further back, with the Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act of 1930 being the most notorious, and arguably very self-destructive, example. (It didn't cause the depression, but it did greatly intensify it.) Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
I don't dispute that the picture re the US from 1939 to 1941 was complicated and that various forms of support to the allies were offered at various levels. Even so, considering the nature of what the allies were opposing, the US response was sufficiently weak to disqualify it, in my opinion, from pointing the finger at Europe now. Joe Woodbury wrote: Whatever outrage there was (and there wasn't as much as some of you may have been led to believe) is not that France and Germany were reluctant to support the US and follow through with UN resolutions France, at least, voted for, but that they openly opposed the war to the point where some leaders indicated they hoped the US led coalition would lose. I don't need to be "led to believe". I can (and do) access various US news outlets on the web and several US news/current affairs programs air on Australian television (quite apart from the many reports on US affairs from news outlets of other countries). As for leaders indicating that they hoped the US led coalition would lose, I am unaware of any such case (at least among European leaders). Please provide details. John Carson
-
John McIlroy wrote: When did Britain declare war on Germany in WWII? I think it was September 1, 1939, when the Germans started raining down the bombs on Warsaw. Canada declared war on Germany within 28 hours. Technically it was September 3rd that Britain and France declared war on Germany. Canada declared war on September 10th. Did England, France, or Canada declare war on Italy when it invaded Ethiopia in 1935? No. Did England, France, or Canada declare war on Germany when it invaded Austria in 1938? No. Did England, France, or Canada declare war on Germany when annexed Czechoslovakia in On March 15, 1939? No, they effectively gave Germany permission to do so. (Link[^]) Did England, France, or Canada declare war on Japan when they invaded China in 1937? No. In fact, with the exception of the US and Britain (because of Pearl Harbor) none of the Western powers ever declared war on Japan. (With the exception of the USSR which declared war on Japan after the Atomic bomb was dropped.) So, why didn't those enlightened Europeans declare war on Japan back in 1937? I'm guessing because "its an East Asian problem" - which isn't terribly different than the US saying "Nazi Germany is a European problem". I hardly think saying "Canada declared war on Germany within 28 hours" (of Poland) is much of an argument when you realize that it was years after the invasion of Ethiopia, Czechoslovakia, and Austria. In short, England and France declared war only because war was obviously inevitable for them. Additionally, they had a pact with Poland. Canada was also part of the English Commonwealth and had only gained autonomy from England in 1931, so Canada was closely tied to England. They weren't acting out of any sort of moral enlightenment. The US didn't feel directly threatened and didn't jump into the war (which is exactly what England and France did when Germany and Italy were invading Czechoslovakia, Austria, and Ethiopia.) So, in that light, none of the Allied powers were jumping into World War 2 because of any sort of moral enlightenment. They all tried to avoid the war as long as they could, but it was inevitable. Arguably, then, World War 2 might be a lesson that none of the Western powers (including Canada, the US, England or France) went to war quickly enough. September 1st, 1939 i
As mentioned in previous posts, you could begin Hitler's agressions my the remilitarization of Rhineland. There were many reasons to avoid war, but History proved the people taking the decisions were wrong. Brit wrote: which is exactly what England and France did when Germany and Italy were invading Czechoslovakia, Austria, and Ethiopia No, not exactly. Austria wasn't theorically invaded, but back into the Reich. Austria was asking since the end of WW1 to be authorized to join with Germany. Ethopia was an Africn country, and in these times of splendors for colonialism, and African country as worthy of consideration as another one ([ironic] see how it has changed in our days [ironic]). But for Czechoslovakia, you're totally right. "Authorizing" the destroying of Czech defense lines with the annexion of the Sudeten Land was a mistake, a disaster and a shame for the two western democracies, and they paid the price for it. Brit wrote: Hitler declared war on the US in 1941. So, apparently, he really was that bold In 1941, Hitler was dominating the European continent, he wasn't in 1939. Could US backing France and UK in 1939 have change the history? The power of US industries could have compensate the lack of materials in some strategic sectors, as fighter planes and bombers. IMO however, it wouldn't have corrected the totally inadequate strategy of our military leaders, so it isn't sure it would have change the events, all we can say about that is fiction.
Le temps se perd, "Si" n'existe pas Tous les remords n'y changeront rien Le temps se perd, "Si" n'existe pas Donc à présent le choix reste mien
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Why did Britian declare war in 1939 As it did for centuries, to defend the European equilibrium, to thwart a too strong continental power.
Le temps se perd, "Si" n'existe pas Tous les remords n'y changeront rien Le temps se perd, "Si" n'existe pas Donc à présent le choix reste mien
KaЯl wrote: As it did for centuries, to defend the European equilibrium, to thwart a too strong continental power. I do agree with your answer. Is that not why they had the pact with Poland? Is that not the part of the same answer I can give for the US action? I am not saying it is correct or not but part of the very gray explaination. "Don't be so anti-american, would you? KaЯl (to Paul Watson on Baseball Bats) 26 Nov '03 "
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Hey are you defending the US action here? Sounds kind of similar. Hmm.. not really. The key difference is that the rest of Europe faced an inevitable invasion. Heck, Hitler didn't stop at Europe, he wanted Africa too! Someone had to do something, and the good old brits showed the way. Iraq is different. This isn't about stopping an inevitable invasion. Saddam knew it was hopeless as the attempt to invade Quwait was an utter failure. He also knew that if he'd ever launch a WMD, he'd be obliterated within 5 minutes. The Iraq case is about military and economical power. The one who controls Iraq controls the middle east. The one who control Iraq also controls a vast amount of oil. Why do you think Bush spends all this money into Iraq? Because he expects something in return. He could've liberated other rogue states for a lot less money. -- 20 eyes in my head, they're all the same![^]
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: The key difference is that the rest of Europe faced an inevitable invasion. Lets rewind our discussion a little. In 1935/37 I see little in assuming Europe universally saw Hitler as an inevitable invasion to their homelands. Yes some did but many (most?) did not. I again state that Chamberlain's Peace in our Times speech, with his being welcomed home as a hero afterwards, proves my assertion. I do feel you are using hindsight to much in your view of the world then. Now extrapolating any further is rather contentious for the very fact we do not even agree on what our starting point is. Given my assertion is right, What I hear you saying is that action against Germany by France and England in 1935 is no different than action by the US today. I will agree that if action had been taken in 1935 the results would have been totally different as Germany's build up was dramatic in those years and that the war would have been fought on Frances terms and not Germany's. That can not be proven, just and what would have happened had the US not taken action can not be proven. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: He also knew that if he'd ever launch a WMD, he'd be obliterated within 5 minutes. Troops in the field yes but, Saddam and the entire Iraqi people not so quick. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Why do you think Bush spends all this money into Iraq? Because he expects something in return. I agree there is more truth in this statement than I would like. But I can say the very same thing about France, Germany, Russia, and the rest of the world. Is there any question that they who had the most to financially lose also be the ones who were wanting the slowest course of action, be just a coincidence? I think not, but I try to understand that is part of the human race and not just a fault of the US. I also then say it is an obligation to all of humanity to try to temper that influence when they can. If you go back and look at discussions by myself and in particular Paul Watson last winter and spring, we did try. With little support I may add. :rose: "Don't be so anti-american, would you? KaЯl (to Paul Watson on Baseball Bats) 26 Nov '03 "
-
KaЯl wrote: As it did for centuries, to defend the European equilibrium, to thwart a too strong continental power. I do agree with your answer. Is that not why they had the pact with Poland? Is that not the part of the same answer I can give for the US action? I am not saying it is correct or not but part of the very gray explaination. "Don't be so anti-american, would you? KaЯl (to Paul Watson on Baseball Bats) 26 Nov '03 "
The british guarantees on the polish borders came late, just months before the german invasion. IMO these guarantees were less an help to Poland than a warning to Hitler. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Is that not the part of the same answer I can give for the US action? Comparing Germany in 1939 with Middle-East in 2003 seems dubious to me. The third Reich invading Poland was a direct threat against Western democracies, but I don't think SH was ready or willing to strike the US in 2003.
Le temps se perd, "Si" n'existe pas Tous les remords n'y changeront rien Le temps se perd, "Si" n'existe pas Donc à présent le choix reste mien
-
The british guarantees on the polish borders came late, just months before the german invasion. IMO these guarantees were less an help to Poland than a warning to Hitler. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Is that not the part of the same answer I can give for the US action? Comparing Germany in 1939 with Middle-East in 2003 seems dubious to me. The third Reich invading Poland was a direct threat against Western democracies, but I don't think SH was ready or willing to strike the US in 2003.
Le temps se perd, "Si" n'existe pas Tous les remords n'y changeront rien Le temps se perd, "Si" n'existe pas Donc à présent le choix reste mien
KaЯl wrote: Comparing Germany in 1939 with Middle-East in 2003 seems dubious to me. Agreed but, I am not comparing 1939 with 2003, I am comparing 1935 to 2003. I.E. Action to take out a future threat. And yes if you just look at these few lines between us that is not clear. "Don't be so anti-american, would you? KaЯl (to Paul Watson on Baseball Bats) 26 Nov '03 "
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: The key difference is that the rest of Europe faced an inevitable invasion. Lets rewind our discussion a little. In 1935/37 I see little in assuming Europe universally saw Hitler as an inevitable invasion to their homelands. Yes some did but many (most?) did not. I again state that Chamberlain's Peace in our Times speech, with his being welcomed home as a hero afterwards, proves my assertion. I do feel you are using hindsight to much in your view of the world then. Now extrapolating any further is rather contentious for the very fact we do not even agree on what our starting point is. Given my assertion is right, What I hear you saying is that action against Germany by France and England in 1935 is no different than action by the US today. I will agree that if action had been taken in 1935 the results would have been totally different as Germany's build up was dramatic in those years and that the war would have been fought on Frances terms and not Germany's. That can not be proven, just and what would have happened had the US not taken action can not be proven. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: He also knew that if he'd ever launch a WMD, he'd be obliterated within 5 minutes. Troops in the field yes but, Saddam and the entire Iraqi people not so quick. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Why do you think Bush spends all this money into Iraq? Because he expects something in return. I agree there is more truth in this statement than I would like. But I can say the very same thing about France, Germany, Russia, and the rest of the world. Is there any question that they who had the most to financially lose also be the ones who were wanting the slowest course of action, be just a coincidence? I think not, but I try to understand that is part of the human race and not just a fault of the US. I also then say it is an obligation to all of humanity to try to temper that influence when they can. If you go back and look at discussions by myself and in particular Paul Watson last winter and spring, we did try. With little support I may add. :rose: "Don't be so anti-american, would you? KaЯl (to Paul Watson on Baseball Bats) 26 Nov '03 "
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I again state that Chamberlain's Peace in our Times speech I think he was blind to the fact that Germany was building up their army with only one goal in mind; revenge. Utter and total domination of Europe and then some. Hitler even wrote a book (2 volumes) about it when he got arrested for the first attempt to seize power. And it's also a bit peculiar that he was so blind for what was in store. Up until then, Europe had always been the subject of some crazy mans vision of total domination since the dawn of time. Europe was apparently not ready for peace at that time. Today it's a different story. Most of Europe is ready for peace and have been since world war 2. I think that war demonstrated quite clearly that war is not productive in any way. Europe was nothing but a rubble of rocks by 1945. Only a few states in the outer rims of Europe seems to think that war is an acceptable course of action (Yugoslavia et al). However, the EU is working strongly to prevent wars and to make Europe flourish in peace. So far I think it's progressing quite nicely. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I agree there is more truth in this statement than I would like. But I can say the very same thing about France, Germany, Russia, and the rest of the world. Is there any question that they who had the most to financially lose also be the ones who were wanting the slowest course of action, be just a coincidence? I think not, but I try to understand that is part of the human race and not just a fault of the US. Agreed! But tell that to people who have managed to talk themselves into that this war is a charity campaign. It is not! And it freaks me out that some people actually believes this is the truth! What also bothers me is the constant "what's being done is for the greater good"-sentiment from the same crowd. Well here's a news flash for them - that's what the terrorists think too! There's a flaw in human nature as you point out. We're all a bunch of egoists with nothing but our own interests in focus. -- 20 eyes in my head, they're all the same![^]
-
You are of course right that Europe was reluctant to confront Germany (and Italy and Japan). This is hardly controversial. Neville Chamberlain's policy of appeasement is one of the most commented upon aspects of the history of WWII. None of this changes the fact that the US saw no reason to commit troops when European countries were invaded and placed under the Nazi dictatorship. Accordingly, its outrage that some European countries have been reluctant to support it over Iraq (a merely hypothetical threat, as distinct from an occupying army in the case of WWII) shows an astounding lack of perspective. John Carson
John Carson wrote: shows an astounding lack of perspective. No,it shows that we learned from history and Europe didn't.
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I again state that Chamberlain's Peace in our Times speech I think he was blind to the fact that Germany was building up their army with only one goal in mind; revenge. Utter and total domination of Europe and then some. Hitler even wrote a book (2 volumes) about it when he got arrested for the first attempt to seize power. And it's also a bit peculiar that he was so blind for what was in store. Up until then, Europe had always been the subject of some crazy mans vision of total domination since the dawn of time. Europe was apparently not ready for peace at that time. Today it's a different story. Most of Europe is ready for peace and have been since world war 2. I think that war demonstrated quite clearly that war is not productive in any way. Europe was nothing but a rubble of rocks by 1945. Only a few states in the outer rims of Europe seems to think that war is an acceptable course of action (Yugoslavia et al). However, the EU is working strongly to prevent wars and to make Europe flourish in peace. So far I think it's progressing quite nicely. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: I agree there is more truth in this statement than I would like. But I can say the very same thing about France, Germany, Russia, and the rest of the world. Is there any question that they who had the most to financially lose also be the ones who were wanting the slowest course of action, be just a coincidence? I think not, but I try to understand that is part of the human race and not just a fault of the US. Agreed! But tell that to people who have managed to talk themselves into that this war is a charity campaign. It is not! And it freaks me out that some people actually believes this is the truth! What also bothers me is the constant "what's being done is for the greater good"-sentiment from the same crowd. Well here's a news flash for them - that's what the terrorists think too! There's a flaw in human nature as you point out. We're all a bunch of egoists with nothing but our own interests in focus. -- 20 eyes in my head, they're all the same![^]
First, Thanks for the discussion. The day is starting over here and I likely will have to end with this. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Most of Europe is ready for peace and have been since world war 2. I have to disagree with you here. If you had said since mid 1980's yes but 1945-1980 I do not have that impression. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Most of Europe is ready for peace /cut/ Only a few states in the outer rims of Europe seems to think that war is an acceptable course of action Here is my conflict of the state of affairs we are in. Yes Europe is ready. But as you state out rims are not and go beyond Europe to Africa, Pakistan/India, South America, former Soviet states, snd they are definitely not in the same boat. Not to be offensive but I see a little arrogance on Europe’s part that now they have made the decision the world automatically and unilaterally agrees. It would be good if the world did but that is not the case. So for my self interests what do I try to persuaded my nation to do. Just ignore that part of the world that does look to armed conflict as the solution? I do not think I can. So I am really in a catch-22 situation. (A) We ignore it and our interests go to hell (along with thousands of innocent people to put the moral justification back in.) Or (B) try to act as a policeman knowing no matter what we do someone will hate us for it. But in the process try to see that a moral stance is used as guidance. For myself I have to say I only see B as the valid choice. I actually would like a 3rd option. That to be the UN be more open on accepting nations have a self interest. Freely put that on the table at diplomacy time and talk about what can be done to achieve those while being least offensive or invasive to others. But I think that just as much fantasy thinking than believing the whole world will decide on 1 Jan 2004 no more wars or killing will happen. :rose: "Don't be so anti-american, would you? KaЯl (to Paul Watson on Baseball Bats) 26 Nov '03 "
-
John Carson wrote: shows an astounding lack of perspective. No,it shows that we learned from history and Europe didn't.
Stan Shannon wrote: No,it shows that we learned from history and Europe didn't. Apparently it hasn't even learned its own history well enough to shown an appropriate degree of humility. As for the implied Hitler/Saddam analogy, I don't believe that even the Bush Administration believes it (however much it may want other people to believe it). A television documentary has unearthed footage from 2001 in which both Colin Powell and Condeleezza Rice say that Saddam Hussein was effectively contained. A review: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/09/23/1064082978207.html[^] The Powell comments from February 2001 (he made similar remarks in May 2001) can be found on the State Dept web site. He says: the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction...And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. State Dept Site[^] John Carson
-
The most common stance towards this that the US didn't want to stop a chance of the russian bear getting it's furry ass kicked. Some even go as far as claiming they were indecisive which side to take.
Flirt harder, I'm a coder.
mlog || Agile Programming | doxygen -
peterchen wrote: Some even go as far as claiming they were indecisive which side to take. I regret I have but a single "1" vote for this statement. :mad: All I've ever wanted was an honest week's pay for an honest day's work.
-
It is kind of interesting to read the furious objections the US has to allies who didn't join the military "coalition of the willing." Now I supported the overthrow of Saddam and the liberation of Iraq. And I was upset that Canada didn't throw in its lot with the US & UK and join the coalition of the willing... but.... Americans seem to have amnesia. It took them two years to join the "coalition of the willing" in WWII. When did Britain declare war on Germany in WWII? I think it was September 1, 1939, when the Germans started raining down the bombs on Warsaw. Canada declared war on Germany within 28 hours. What did it take the Americans? I think it was more like 28 months before they joined the "coalition of the willing." And then they only joined because they thought Hitler might win. Sure the Americans supported the war effort before joining it... but Canada had naval vessels in the Gulf supporting the America effort in Iraq. Plus we've contributed hundreds of million dollars to reconstruction of Iraq. Ok... I think Canada was wrong to sit on the sidelines. But would Hitler have been so bold if the US had been on side with the allies right from the start of WWII? As the jokes goes... we'd like to thank our American friends for coming to our aid in 1941... when we got in serious trouble in 1939. JM
It's completely useless to compare the actions of dead leaders in a different situation to the actions of leaders in office today. The only common ground in both scenarios is the names of the countries.
"Things are not what they seem. Nor are they any different."
-
Stan Shannon wrote: No,it shows that we learned from history and Europe didn't. Apparently it hasn't even learned its own history well enough to shown an appropriate degree of humility. As for the implied Hitler/Saddam analogy, I don't believe that even the Bush Administration believes it (however much it may want other people to believe it). A television documentary has unearthed footage from 2001 in which both Colin Powell and Condeleezza Rice say that Saddam Hussein was effectively contained. A review: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/09/23/1064082978207.html[^] The Powell comments from February 2001 (he made similar remarks in May 2001) can be found on the State Dept web site. He says: the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction...And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. State Dept Site[^] John Carson
There was a stated humanitarian goal to the Iraq war. While Saddam was effectively contained for now, he was still an extremely brutal dicator. Pol Pot, Stalin and Hitler were worse by all measures, but Saddam was of the same ilk. I never liked the WMD argument since I've long believed (even before the first gulf war) that there was a valid humanitarian reason to overthrow Saddam's government. Bush overplayed that card. On the other hand, given the blind international eye turned to Rwanda, I understand why he used it. Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
I don't dispute that the picture re the US from 1939 to 1941 was complicated and that various forms of support to the allies were offered at various levels. Even so, considering the nature of what the allies were opposing, the US response was sufficiently weak to disqualify it, in my opinion, from pointing the finger at Europe now. Joe Woodbury wrote: Whatever outrage there was (and there wasn't as much as some of you may have been led to believe) is not that France and Germany were reluctant to support the US and follow through with UN resolutions France, at least, voted for, but that they openly opposed the war to the point where some leaders indicated they hoped the US led coalition would lose. I don't need to be "led to believe". I can (and do) access various US news outlets on the web and several US news/current affairs programs air on Australian television (quite apart from the many reports on US affairs from news outlets of other countries). As for leaders indicating that they hoped the US led coalition would lose, I am unaware of any such case (at least among European leaders). Please provide details. John Carson
Re: the news I'm shocked, shocked that you put such legitimacy in the news as a genuine barometer of the sentiment of the electorate. John Carson wrote: Even so, considering the nature of what the allies were opposing, the US response was sufficiently weak to disqualify it, in my opinion, from pointing the finger at Europe now. I respectfully disagree. It is a poor comparison and, in the end, the US did respond and its response saved Europe and the South Pacific at the loss of many US lives. (Yes, Russia was critical in this, but it was the US sending arms to Russia that made that possible.) Moreover, the US did not actively oppose the war effort by the allies. Were France, Germany and Russia to forgive Iraq it's considerable debt, I believe the US will allow them to bid on contracts. But there is no reason to allow them to profit on rebuilding Iraq while sacrificing nothing. John Carson wrote: As for leaders indicating that they hoped the US led coalition would lose, I am unaware of any such case (at least among European leaders). Please provide details. I don't have the time to search news archives, but I stand by my statement. (Note that I used the word "indicating", Chirac, et. al. did not say "It is my desire that the US loses". They did however make statement that were, using Rumsfeld's phrasing, "unhelpful." Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
John McIlroy wrote: When did Britain declare war on Germany in WWII? I think it was September 1, 1939, when the Germans started raining down the bombs on Warsaw. Canada declared war on Germany within 28 hours. Technically it was September 3rd that Britain and France declared war on Germany. Canada declared war on September 10th. Did England, France, or Canada declare war on Italy when it invaded Ethiopia in 1935? No. Did England, France, or Canada declare war on Germany when it invaded Austria in 1938? No. Did England, France, or Canada declare war on Germany when annexed Czechoslovakia in On March 15, 1939? No, they effectively gave Germany permission to do so. (Link[^]) Did England, France, or Canada declare war on Japan when they invaded China in 1937? No. In fact, with the exception of the US and Britain (because of Pearl Harbor) none of the Western powers ever declared war on Japan. (With the exception of the USSR which declared war on Japan after the Atomic bomb was dropped.) So, why didn't those enlightened Europeans declare war on Japan back in 1937? I'm guessing because "its an East Asian problem" - which isn't terribly different than the US saying "Nazi Germany is a European problem". I hardly think saying "Canada declared war on Germany within 28 hours" (of Poland) is much of an argument when you realize that it was years after the invasion of Ethiopia, Czechoslovakia, and Austria. In short, England and France declared war only because war was obviously inevitable for them. Additionally, they had a pact with Poland. Canada was also part of the English Commonwealth and had only gained autonomy from England in 1931, so Canada was closely tied to England. They weren't acting out of any sort of moral enlightenment. The US didn't feel directly threatened and didn't jump into the war (which is exactly what England and France did when Germany and Italy were invading Czechoslovakia, Austria, and Ethiopia.) So, in that light, none of the Allied powers were jumping into World War 2 because of any sort of moral enlightenment. They all tried to avoid the war as long as they could, but it was inevitable. Arguably, then, World War 2 might be a lesson that none of the Western powers (including Canada, the US, England or France) went to war quickly enough. September 1st, 1939 i
This has been an intersting discussion. You make some good points. I was trying to draw some simplistic parallels. Britain declared war on Germany for only one reason... Hitler was a threat to Britain. Or perhaps it is better to say... Britain felt threatened by the German attack on Poland in a way that they didn't feel when Ethiopia, Czechoslovakia, and Austria were attacked. The parallel I was trying to draw here... is that when Britain felt threatened, Canada declared war on a defacto basis within 48 hours, although it might have taken longer to "do the paperwork." Yes Canada had allegiance to Britain, but it was then and is now a politially independent state. The degree of Canada's involvement in WWII was a hugely controversial issue on the home front. And my point is that even though Briatin felt threatened and Canada felt threatened... it took the US 28 months to join the "coalition of the willing." They only joined when they themselves felt threatened by the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Don't get me wrong... I support the US actions in Iraq. If the US felt threatened by the political situation in Iraq, they had every right to do sonething about it. And Canada, as an ally, should have been right in there with the British, the Australians, and the Poles. The US has very little history as an oppressive imperialistic power. If it did, Canada as a country would not exist. If given a choice between backing the UN, backing the EU, or backing the US... I think Canada should have backed the US. But I just wanted to draw a simple parallel that when the US's allies felt deeply threatened by the Germans in WWII, it took the Americans 28 months to join the "coalition of the willing." So I think that the lectures of the US to Canada about a "friend being a friend" are a little patronizing, given the reluctance of the US to stand behind its allies in WWII until the US itself felt acutely threatened. JM
-
hey - that's not MY position. The max you can accuse me of is that I consider it "remotely possible".
Flirt harder, I'm a coder.
mlog || Agile Programming | doxygen