Subject:
|
Re: The US gives too much/not enough aid
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 12 Nov 2002 22:39:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1118 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > >
> > > 1)The USA was forced into the war - it had to have its "ass kicked" first.
>
> Don't forget Lend Lease (did we ever get any of the lends back?)
>
> > > 2)The USA did not act alone, and could not have done.
>
> True but irrelevant. What matters is who would have won if we hadn't
> entered, and if you conclude the Allies would have (not a foregone
> conclusion by any means), at what cost?
I'd argue the "true but irrelavant" charge. Ignore Europe, stomp Japan with
all our resources (is anyone contesting we couldn't do it?) then deal with
Germany. Japan only took so long because they were on the constant back-burner.
It's a silly argument anyway, since we would not have been involved if we
hadn't been propping up Britain and China as it was and had built in allies
who all helped and did their part. Without us in the war the Axis certainly
has a better chance, especially if Japan polishes off China and then
back-stabs Russia.
>
> > > 3)The USA has benefited substantially from WW2.
> >
> > Bingo.
>
> How so? You're going to have a hard time proving that last one.
I think we suffered considerably less than the other participants rather
than we benefited from it. Russia was the one that benefited the most.
>
> > > > Or more straightforwardly, would the world be a better place if N Korea had
> > > > taken over S Korea 50 years ago, or 20, or 10, or 5?
> > >
> > > Would it be a better place if the USA had not supported Iraq, Israel, Pinochet
> > > etc etc?
> >
> >
> > Ouch! Truth.
>
> True that those weren't the greatest decisions, but irrelevant. On balance
> we're good guys who have repeatedly saved the world. You'll never get Scott
> to admit it though, he's anti-american and not very good at admitting he's
> wrong about things.
Ouch! Truth!
:-)
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: The US gives too much/not enough aid
|
| (...) Have you been watching war movies again? ;) This is what Ambrose had to say about the D-Day campaign [a/the key WW2 campaign]: ==+== That a cross-Channel attack against the Atlantic Wall could even be contemplated was a tribute to what Dwight (...) (22 years ago, 13-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: The US gives too much/not enough aid
|
| (...) Don't forget Lend Lease (did we ever get any of the lends back?) (...) True but irrelevant. What matters is who would have won if we hadn't entered, and if you conclude the Allies would have (not a foregone conclusion by any means), at what (...) (22 years ago, 12-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
161 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
