Subject:
|
Re: The US gives too much/not enough aid
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 13 Nov 2002 12:51:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
997 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> 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.
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 Eisenhower called "the fury of an
aroused democracy." What made D-Day possible was the never-ending flow of
weapons from American factories, the Ultra and the Double Cross System, victory
in the Battle of the Atlantic, control of the air and sea, British
inventiveness, the French Resistance, the creation of citizen armies in the
Western democracies, the persistence and genius of Andrew Higgins and other
inventors and entrepreneurs, the cooperation of business, government, and
labour in the United States and the United Kingdom, and more - all summed up in
the single word "team-work."
==+==
So how much of that could have happened without UK support? Ultra, the Double
Cross System, Battle of the Atlantic, air power and landing craft designs all
relied heavily on the UK [and commonwealth] and allied nations. Even "the-bomb"
would have been delayed if it were not for the UK.
After using 2 nukes on Japan, how many would it have taken to beat Germany?
5? 10?
Scott A
>
> 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 is in Reply To:
 | | Re: The US gives too much/not enough aid
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
