Its sort of sad when people refer to the US involvement in WW II as some sort of US success.

We must remember that in Europe it was fundamentally the USSR that defeated Germany. The major conflicts, including the largest tank battle ever waged, occurred on the Eastern Front between Germany and the USSR. The invasion of Normandy was really a diversionary attack to draw off German forces from the Eastern Front. We can also note that the US did not try to impose US puppet governments in Europe and that half of Europe merely traded dictators from Hitler to Stalin. In all of Europe you can only point to success in 1/2 of Germany.

In Asia and the S. Pacific where the US did lead the fight against Japan the majority of Asia ended up under communist rule with dictators taking charge.

Of course WW II was not a war of US imperialism. We were attacked by both Japan and Germany.

We can also throw the idea that the US supports democracy. We attempted to overthrown the democratically elected government in Nicaragua and have opposed the election of Hamas in Palestine. We could throw in the democraticly elected governments of Iran and Afghanistan as well. Seems we only like democracies of "our" choosing. I remember when the USSR collapsed and the US sent a team over to ensure that Yeltsen was elected "because he was our man" in Russia. What the hell was the US doing becoming involved in the elections in Russia? We sure as hell won't tolerate China or another country becoming involved in US elections but its somehow okay for the US to become involved in the elections of other nations? Even in Iraq the US made sure that only "our" candidates were on the ballot.

Yes, we Americans always like to think we're right but you are never right when you are intervening in the sovereign affairs of other nations. You are never right when you become involved in regional conflicts that do not directly effect the security of your nation.

Considering America's state at this point, I'd have to say I fear America most of all.

Of course, we're all in a state of fear (read the book, "State of Fear") over global warming, impending doom from nukes and bioweapons, all those fearsome things. But I think that America is the least stable of all the countries I would fear most (those with nuclear weaponry and materials).

Considering the bordering-on-completely-pointless war in Iraq and thus the refusal of the US to remove itself from Iraq, I'd say America's pride and ego is causing the most trouble in the world nowadays. Too many politicians are trying to 'save face' that we lost the point of democracy and the idea of America.

I wish I could say worse things are occuring in Russia and China, but I don't know. Therefore, fear of America, the country I'm in right now, solidifies.

__________________
"Currency is god."

"Life is eternal, but never meaningless."

"If there is anything America needs, it's more lawyers."
Lionel Hutz, from the The Simpsons

What specifically are you "afraid" of?

Least stable in what way? We are going through the process of electing a new government leader, the entire House and 1/3 of the Senate. No bombings, no assassinations, a quite civil process. What is the instability you see?

You didn't listen to the UN debates, the debates here and in the UK Parliment as to the "points"? And why should we surrender to the enemy?

I'd say the rest of the world's pride and ego which they put above their own security is the most trouble in the world nowadays. Had they swallowed it ( and also not violated the UN sanctions and supported Saddam) we'd all be much safer and better off.

What is this "point of democracy" you speak off. The people through their representatives voted overwhelmingly to overthrow Saddam.

Really? Are you trying to say that without US involvement Hitler and Japan could have been defeated? First without US involvement in Africa Hitler would have controled the Med and we would not have been able to attack from the west. Without our being able to open a western front the Russians would have been defeated. Without our defeating Japan, the Russian eastern border was threatened along with the Japanese holding China and taking over SE asia, Australian, NZ , Malasia and on and on. Without the materials and equipment supplied to Russia by the US Russia would have fallen quickly as would have the UK.

And of course we managed to put together the atomic bomb which save millions of lives in the end and put a final stop to it all.

Success? HUGE success. Joint effort, by far. Too bad the jealousy and ego of the rest of the world prevents them from helping in the current situation and the US has to go it virtually alone.

We have to "deal" with countries all around the world. Sometimes the leaders, elected or not, are who they are and we have to "deal" with them. Just as we dealt with Stalin in WW2. That's just reality.

USA ,CANADA , France , England

Yes, if our enemies engage in violence to achieve their goals it will be met with violence.

How was the Bali bombing tied to the US? Indonesia? The UK?

So your plan is to just hunker down and wait for them to come?

Originally Posted by VoiceofReason View Post
Well yes it is the right discussion, the poster brought up the fact we used it. Would it have been better if Japan had surrendered and we not have to use the A bomb yes. They refused.

No I think "we can invade and lose hundreds of thousands of American lives and millions of Japanese lives or we can use the weapon to put an end to it saving those lives and that destruction" Which do you choose?


Yes, definitely.



And in each case our goal was to make it better, it can't all be done in one step it takes little steps along the way, a constant proding and pushing. Too bad more people and countries don't support it.

What do you have against the rest of the world having the freedoms and liberties we do?


Saddam didn't tell you where they were? That's why he's gone.
Nope Saddam did when he invade, again, one of his neighbors and an ally of ours. From that point on he was under a cease fire and served at our pleasure.


So you admit this war is not about imperialism. Since he had violated the cease fire and all the UN sanctions and the inspectors had reported back he still refused to cooperate.....................what was your plan?


It doesn't make it worse.


ROFL they are mighty close.


So we just hunker down and wait for them to come and then count our dead and hope there aren't a lot of them.

Was that your plan for WW2 too?

Not necessarily. Had we used military actions against Hitler early on instead of peaceful ones the price would have been far far less in both treasure and lives.

So what is the peaceful solution with OBL? What was the peaceful solution with Saddam?

Like in Tinneman Square?

By one side yes.

That's not a moot point, it's a fact. Conscription and being shot as deserter...total war and the arm industry.

Ironically pacifists like Carl Ossietzky warned already in the Weimar Republic because of the "secret" remilitarization.


And that would have stopped Hitler and Japan how? Did civil defense, which was in full force at the time, stop the attack on Pearl Harbor? Was it civil defense that defeated Japan at Midway? Was it civil defense that stopped Hitler at Kursk, the Battle of the Bulge, Africa?

no that's not "just reality" it's like a horrible space movie with green aleins talking in another planet laguage all the time.
US or any other country should have nothing to do with another countries' government accept negociation not to mention that comparing an elected government with a dictator like stalin is as bad as insisting on US's right to interfere.

Moderation is likely best. USA should be isolationist, whenever reasonably practical. On the other hand we have to make reasonable projections of what evil regimes are likely do in 5 or 10 years, and take descive action to avoid a disater for the USA.
As far as I know the USA foreign policy has been moderate, except we have been influenced excessively by the rich internationalists. We need to cut back sharply on outsorcing goods and services that we are importing. Neil

Include Cambodia and Laos to your list..Two neutral countries which just happen to have borders with Vietnam..Laos has the unenviable reputation of being the most bombed nation on this planet due to US bormbing sorties..Two and a half million tons of bombs fell on Laos in 9 years..Between 10-15 million UXOs (unexploded ordinances) still litter the Laos countryside inhibiting agriculture and ecconomic growth in one of the poorest countries in the world..But the sad part is the US Government is doing nothing to clean up their mess..At the rate The Mines Advisory Group (MAG) and UXOLao are going it could take 180 years to clear Laos of UXOs..

Ok,,,my rant is over but please read this.

Bomb Harvest - Cinemas