thank you france, germany, russia, china, etc

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Agathon


Because realpolitik is evil and unjust: any decent person should oppose unjust wars.

I have no problem with argument and debate over whether a war is necessary or not. I doubt any war is "just" as such. War is an abomination and should not be taken as "a good thing".

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by Agathon [/SIZE
I'm pissed off when anyone does it. I doubt that it will be of that much benefit to the locals and considerable disutility should they decide that they want to take their fate into their own hands.

Then you support the weak against the strong. An admirable characteristic, and an important one for a balanced view. But do not doubt there are benefits to both ways - the question is, which gives the most benefits with the least drawbacks?

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by Agathon [/SIZE
And why not object to it. Might does not make right.

I agree with you. Every armed conflict should be questioned and judged individually. Even democracy is a bad system for protecting the views of minorities. But at least it gives the minority the opportunity to change things by convincing others to change their minds.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by skywalker
No, the US became involved in World War II because (in the Pacific) we were ATTACKED and because (in Europe) we were declared war upon.

Bollocks! We trying to prevent the rise of another regional hegemon. That desire would have still been there Pearl Harbor or no Pearl Harbor.

Hence the claims of US "selfless generosity" towards Europe are so much bunk.

So?

[Kidlicious]

DD: You're missing the point. An event like Pearl Harbor is necessary for a democracy to go to war. This is different from a totalitarian govt.

[Imran Siddiqui]

An event like Pearl Harbor is necessary for a democracy to go to war.

This isn't ALWAYS the case. I mean Iraq I, Grenada, and Panama didn't need a catastrophe.

[Kuciwalker]

We wouldn't have gone to war because, as Kidicious stated, we COULDN'T have gone to war.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

An event like Pearl Harbor is necessary for a democracy to go to war.

This isn't ALWAYS the case. I mean Iraq I, Grenada, and Panama didn't need a catastrophe.

Usually the smaller wars, or police actions, are easier. You don't need Pearl Harbors to fight them. WW2 has made it easier though. I remember Bush I comparing the situation with Iraq to Germany under Hitler. People really ate it up. The situation was much different in 1941.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Agathon


Don't blame me because you can't read.

A personal attack. A sign of a weak argument.

Your original argument;-

Originally posted by Agathon
And don't give me the World War II crap. You turned up late, when it suited you, and after the Germans had begun to take the worst of it. Then you helped out the Europeans and Japanese to suit your own purposes

And then you change the goal posts when it is pointed out that the US did not choose when to fight;-

Originally posted by Agathon
You show me where I ever said that WWII was a US idea. All I claimed was that its involvement in the war and post war in Europe was for self interested reasons - mainly because if either the Soviet Union or Germany had dominated Europe the US would have been in a geostrategically (yes it is a word) poor position. Hence the claims of US "selfless generosity" towards Europe are so much bunk.

Agreed, the US was not selfless. At the time of Pearl Harbour the US Defense department estimated that a Japanese invasion could not be stopped before it reached Chicaco. Hardly self interest. Your implication is that the US took WW2 as a God given gift to impose their will on the world. Your implication is that the US govt, Fascism and Communism were the only players. Your implications are in this case quite wrong.

"Geostrategically" is a tautological instrument. Strategically covers EXACTLY the same meaning. Why are you using big words when a small one covers the same ground? It impresses you - do you think it impresses other people?

Originally posted by Agathon
No and only an illiterate would understand me as saying so. Go back and read the couple of sentences I posted on this topic. Then perform the mental operations needed to get from them to your ridiculous accusations. Or do you habitually indulge in such "creative interpretation"?

See above. Judge for yourself. Oh, and as for THIS little gem...

Originally posted by Agathon
You can flap on all you like, but this war was waged on fake pretexts partly to make sure that people of limited political awareness, like yourself, would vote for little George in the upcoming election. And you all bought it.

Do you think you are the only thinking person on Apolytnn? Congratulations on stereotyping the whole community.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by skywalker
We wouldn't have gone to war because, as Kidicious stated, we COULDN'T have gone to war.

Why? Your Congress declared war in 1917.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by skywalker

we would not have gone to war if it hadn't been for that

Originally posted by Agathon

Prove it.

No Agathon - you're the one who's out to prove a point, you come up with the proof that refutes what is commonly held to be the truth.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Why? Your Congress declared war in 1917.

That's because the political will was there - this consensus did not exist in 1941 until the Fascists made the first move.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Why? Your Congress declared war in 1917.

And it didn't cost us much at all. Still it took a long time for them to declare war. In 1941 we were even more isolationist. FDR wanted to declare war but he knew that the people wouldn't have it.

[notyoueither]

American opinion was moving towards involvement. The Yanks were hardly neutral in November 1941. It was only a matter of time before the torpedoes started sinking things they shouldn't have, and that was precisely the issue that got the US into the first one.

It is highly arguable though, and we could go round and round. The point I wanted to make is that the US did declare war on Germany once before over European problems that encroached too close to the US. It can be argued they would have again.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by notyoueither
American opinion was moving towards involvement. The Yanks were hardly neutral in November 1941. It was only a matter of time before the torpedoes started sinking things they shouldn't have, and that was precisely the issue that got the US into the first one.

It is highly arguable though, and we could go round and round. The point I wanted to make is that the US did declare war on Germany once before over European problems that encroached too close to the US. It can be argued they would have again.

This is true up to a point, but one thing keeping them out of the war in Europe was the war in China, something that got a lot of attention at the time but has been largely forgotten since.

True, the US was not truly neutral in 1941, but not many other industrialised countries were either - Switzerland and Sweden being a couple that spring to mind.

I think it would have taken a lot of US lives lost to really stir them up enough to declare war first. I wouldn't say they would have done this for sure - but they certainly might have, if enough arguments had swung around the isolationists.

If you're going to go down this road of conjecture, you could even argue that the US would have allied with Germany. Certainly not with FDR at the helm- but he wasn't the only presidential candidate, was he?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Cruddy
If you're going to go down this road of conjecture, you could even argue that the US would have allied with Germany. Certainly not with FDR at the helm- but he wasn't the only presidential candidate, was he?

Oh my. Now we're really going with the true spirit of OT...

[Kidlicious]

I was thinking that the point was whether the US would have allowed Russia to take all of Europe if the Germans wouldn't have attacked the Russians first. In that case I would have to say that we would have reacted too late if at all. This is assuming that there was no military build up in Germany.