OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:
the problem with invading america is like the problem with invading russia, only worse. it's just too big to be occupied, especially by smaller nations, which the axis were. i say it's worse than invading russia, because unlike the ussr, you'd have to launch a 1000 mile expedition over open ocean. and then, once they got here, they'd virtually be surrounded, with little hope of reinforcement.

Or you could invade Canada first ( they'd be too polite to put up much resistance) and come down that way, or come up through South/Central America. Doesn't have to be a direct invasion.....

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Kieran Colfer:

Or you could invade Canada first ( they'd be too polite to put up much resistance) and come down that way, or come up through South/Central America. Doesn't have to be a direct invasion.....

of course, but what do you think america would do if an invasion army began to amass anywhere in the northwestern hemisphere? either with or without the country's permission, we'd go after them with everything we had. so basically, they would have to fight through hundreds of miles before even getting to america itself, with 1000 mile supply lines, vulnerable to attack. it's just not a winning prospect. not for the germans in WWII, or even the soviets during their height.

OFFLINE

Easiest course would probably be to establish air bases in Mexico.  Their technology at the time was poor and probably wouldn't have been up to a fight.  Plus, they might have been talked into joining the Axis powers.

A war in our backyard would have put serious pressure on us and crippled our ability to whip the Japanese.  We'd have had an awful time trying to fight a war in the Pacific.  The European allies would be of little help as their own countries were on fire.  Germany, France, Russia...all were rebuilding.  And needed our help to accomplish it.

See how important Normandy really was?  How close the allies came to losing it all?  If Normandy had failed....man, think what might have happened!

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:
k. it's just not a winning prospect. not for the germans in WWII, or even the soviets during their height.

Worked for them in "Red Dawn".... :-p

Is actually a remake of that coming out this year. Not sure is that a good thing or a bad thing yet.

OFFLINE

Ya know...I've never seen that film.  Lots of my Navy buddies recommended it.  But then again, they were hooked on Daytime Soap Operas too.  So I never saw it.

OFFLINE

Dennis it seems that you have a case of selective memory. Post 9/11 if you were American  and dared to speak out against Bush's policies then you were vilified and called Anti American. Now more and more of you Countrymen and women are thinking for themselves instead of being brain washed by Bush's and Fox News rhetoric you don't like it.  

Speaking as an anti war (in general) Scotsman I 'support the troops' but do not believe in the war we are fighting. That doesn't make me a terrible person - I know a number of ex-squadies who have seen action in the first Gulf War and for the most part are no more pro war than I am.

One of the differences  between WW2 and the Iraqi/war on terror is in the fact that the Allies were liberating many Countries from an invading force. If you really think that we are in Iraq or Afghanistan for the good of anyone other than some already super rich companies then you are as niave as you are intelligent. Or to put it another way - You and many others have stated that getting rid of Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do even though he didn't have wmd. So why have our leaders done nothing about the dictators in Africa? Or the Saudi's? Or China?  

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Kieran Colfer:

What I think makes them great isn't just the way they fought the war, but also what they did after. Once all the fighting and the killing was over, they went home and resumed their lives from where they left off. Then, using their experiences from the war, they built the foundations of the America of the 1950s and 1960s. There wan't any complaining or asking for special treatment, they just dusted off the cobwebs and went on living.  

I agree.  

When one talks about supporting the troops, etc, I think about what kind of treatment they get when they come back home, especially if they are wounded. (physically and/or mentally) When you send people off to war, you should be prepared to take care of them when they come home. I also don't think anyone serving in the military should have their family on foodstamps because they aren't being paid enough.  

This may not be the right place to say this, but I don't feel like hunting around or starting a new topic, but.....

I don't think the Korean veterans were treated particularly well, or even recognized for their service for a long time.  My father & many of his friends from his hometown served.  He has told me some of the stuff they went through, yet how many movies to we see about them, etc? It took a long time for them to get a monument in DC. I guess what I am saying, is that our support shouldn't end after they leave the military.  We need to support & be proud of our veterans, who have served.

I don't think Karl Rove had any repect for veterans who were serving in office when he told dispicable lies about them to get them unseated.  Just ask Max Cleland.  He lost both legs and an arm in Vietnam serving his country, & Karl & his cronies painted him as soft on terrrorism to get his seat.  Being patriotic is a lot more than just waving a flag and saying, "My country, right or wrong."  It's patriotic to speak out when you think a mistake is being made, or that something our government is doing (or asking our troops to do) is not right.  

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by David Macleod:
Dennis it seems that you have a case of selective memory. Post 9/11 if you were American  and dared to speak out against Bush's policies then you were vilified and called Anti American. Now more and more of you Countrymen and women are thinking for themselves instead of being brain washed by Bush's and Fox News rhetoric you don't like it.  

Speaking as an anti war (in general) Scotsman I 'support the troops' but do not believe in the war we are fighting. That doesn't make me a terrible person - I know a number of ex-squadies who have seen action in the first Gulf War and for the most part are no more pro war than I am.

One of the differences  between WW2 and the Iraqi/war on terror is in the fact that the Allies were liberating many Countries from an invading force. If you really think that we are in Iraq or Afghanistan for the good of anyone other than some already super rich companies then you are as niave as you are intelligent. Or to put it another way - You and many others have stated that getting rid of Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do even though he didn't have wmd. So why have our leaders done nothing about the dictators in Africa? Or the Saudi's? Or China?  

Crap! I missed page 2!  David & I are like minded.  And now it seems that if we had just waited, maybe the Iraqis would have overthrown Saddam Hussein in this current wave of middle eastern uprisings! Could have saved us a lot of $ and grief!  Unfortunately, war is very profitable for some and that colors the decision of making war on others.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by David Macleod:
Dennis it seems that you have a case of selective memory. Post 9/11 if you were American  and dared to speak out against Bush's policies then you were vilified and called Anti American. Now more and more of you Countrymen and women are thinking for themselves instead of being brain washed by Bush's and Fox News rhetoric you don't like it.  

Speaking as an anti war (in general) Scotsman I 'support the troops' but do not believe in the war we are fighting. That doesn't make me a terrible person - I know a number of ex-squadies who have seen action in the first Gulf War and for the most part are no more pro war than I am.

One of the differences  between WW2 and the Iraqi/war on terror is in the fact that the Allies were liberating many Countries from an invading force. If you really think that we are in Iraq or Afghanistan for the good of anyone other than some already super rich companies then you are as niave as you are intelligent. Or to put it another way - You and many others have stated that getting rid of Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do even though he didn't have wmd. So why have our leaders done nothing about the dictators in Africa? Or the Saudi's? Or China?  

I dunno why YOUR leaders have done nothing.  And I dunno what you mean by having selective memory.  But with regard to Sadaam vs other dictators...well, we have attacked other dictators in the past.  I was in the Gulf of Sidra when we fired and downed 2 of Kadaffi's jets.  (Look it up).    After that we rained unholy hellfire on his cities.  You were probably only a tot at the time though.  Lol!

Why dont we go after dictators or pirates in Africa?   We have in the past.  Remember the 'Black Hawk Down' fiasco?  That was a mostly true story.  Remember Bosnia?  We led the way there.  Remember the US military invading Panama and capturing their leader?  Yup...that was us.  

As for thinking for ourselves...its true, most Americans like to be led.  Most DON'T think for ourselves.  Americans can be divided into a handful of groups.

Those who believe the Liberal media.
Those who hate Fox News
Those who believe Fox News.
And the Birthers / Truthers nuts out there.

Its just a matter of where you fall in that spectrum.  Politics in America is a bit of a spectator sport in our country and most will try to justify the actions and policies of whatever group they support.  (Thats why I'm an independent, because I'm willing to admit that all parties have problems).

What gets me about the whole Iraq thing is how Americans (minus the Sean Penn / Belafonte crowd) were all gung ho to invade when they thought there might be WMDs.  And they villified Sadaam because of the war atrocities (gassing the Kurds, killing his own people, etc) as another reason to go.  They were all fired up.  

But when we didnt find WMDs (which was a mistake to use as an excuse imo), the Bush bashers (Dems) all lined up and screamed bloody murder.  Even those who voted to go to war and had the same intel our CIA and President had.  All of a sudden they no longer cared about him gassing the Kurds.  However if you bring that up...they say "well...Sadaam was a bad guy but...".

But nothing.

You claim we ought to be more concerned about the atrocities in Africa, but then side with those who criticize us for the Iraq thing?

And the topper...the most unbelievable part of all this is that the #1 Bush basher back then (John Kerry), now wants us to go to war in Libya because he is killing his own people!!!!  Now he claims the US needs to show leadership and lead the way for the world.  Some liberal congress people want us to put boots on the ground and really invade!!  I was blown away when I heard Kerry say these things.  One of the biggest anti war / anti Bush guys in congress wants us to use our military and shoot Libyan jets down and blow up their airbases.

Thats the height of hypocrisy and (to me) that is what defines the far left.

Here's my question.

Why must the US lead the way in the Libyan situation?  We've done so before with absolutely no help from Europe.  Why do we have to do it again?  Libya is in Spain and Italy's backdoor.  Why don't THEY take the lead?   Where is Germany on this?  Where are the UK and France?  Why doesn't Europe help their neighbors and handle their own affairs?

No....all of a sudden it OUR responsibility to get involved in yet ANOTHER war.  And our nutjob of a president is actually considering it.  The guy who promised to bring our troops home because he thought we had no reason to be there...is actually considering invading Libya.

The bottom line is this.

Europe wants the US to be their watchdog.  And when we show a little independence and do what we think is right at the time, Europe condemns us.  They are willing to allow people like Sadaam to gas his own people, but raise hell when we invade that country.

Instead of criticizing the US over the WMDs...they oughta be thanking us for removing a tyrannical dictator (which is what you've suggested we do in Africa).

And I'll tellya another thing.  If Europe does support us in invading Libya...THIS time you can really say it is about the oilfields.