How the US won the war
in [Aussie Drivers]
|
From: Noddy on 11 Aug 2010 06:58 "Jordan" <jprincic(a)yooha.com.au> wrote in message news:tUo8o.3238$Yv.2089(a)viwinnwfe01.internal.bigpond.com... > Americans are by nature isolationists, I see nothing wrong with that. It's perfectly fine if breeding a nation of ignorant pissants is your plan, and that seems to be working incredibly well for the yanks. > When they get dragged, kicking and screaming into other peoples' messes > they often do a very good job of sorting it out indeed. Hadn't you > noticed? WWII was about the last time they had any real success on that score. Since then it's been a tale of incredible woe. -- Regards, Noddy.
From: George W Frost on 11 Aug 2010 08:10 "Noddy" <me(a)home.com> wrote in message news:4c628449$0$56728$c30e37c6(a)exi-reader.telstra.net... > > "Jordan" <jprincic(a)yooha.com.au> wrote in message > news:tUo8o.3238$Yv.2089(a)viwinnwfe01.internal.bigpond.com... > >> Americans are by nature isolationists, I see nothing wrong with that. > > It's perfectly fine if breeding a nation of ignorant pissants is your > plan, and that seems to be working incredibly well for the yanks. > >> When they get dragged, kicking and screaming into other peoples' messes >> they often do a very good job of sorting it out indeed. Hadn't you >> noticed? > > WWII was about the last time they had any real success on that score. > Since then it's been a tale of incredible woe. > > -- > Regards, > Noddy. WW1 and WW2, were both "declared wars" as in countries facing off to each other whereas, in later years, the Yanks have got them selves involved in guerilla warfare and have been beaten and everyone knows that you can never win a guerilla war with regular troops or should do If anyone believes anything else, they have got fairies in the bottom of their garden A guerilla war must be and can only be fought by the same means and that is with the same type guerilla warfare
From: Noddy on 11 Aug 2010 08:13 "Jordan" <jprincic(a)yooha.com.au> wrote in message news:f7t8o.3339$FH2.1704(a)viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com... > I'm thinking of Pearl Harbour 1941, and the Lusitania sinking in 1915 > (which killed many Americans). Before those the USA seemed happy to stay > out of it. I think it was more a case of the American Government looking for a justifiable excuse to get *into* it that their populace would swallow rather than any real desire not to get involved. There was a very stong isolationist sentiment amongst the US population when WWII broke out, but that softened considerably in late 1940 when England "stood alone" against the Germans. There was still a stong sense of not wanting to get involved in a "European conflict", with people like Charles Lindburgh doing promotional tours campaigning against any US Military involvement, but feelings had mellowed enough to permit assistance in the form of supplies and equipment being sent to England under the Lend Lease agreement. When Pearl Harbour was attacked in 1941, the feeling in America had shifted from not wanting to be involved in any conflict to the pacific war being "their war" and the European war being fought by the Europeans. Roosevelt desperately wanted the US to get involved on England's side, as did Churchill, and had Adolph Hitler not unexpicably declared war on the US in 1941 Roosevelt would have had an incredibly hard task of convincing the American public that Hitler was the greater threat to world peace. > Maybe, after recently having its nose bloodied so badly in Somalia, they > were less than keen to get involved in Rwanda? By the way, Rwanda is a > French-speaking country - who do you feel is more responsible for that > disaster? Why no Euro intervention? Or UN? Because it's been a very long time now since the UN (or anyone else for that matter) was on an altruistic bent. -- Regards, Noddy.
From: Noddy on 11 Aug 2010 08:19 "Clocky" <notgonn(a)happen.com> wrote in message news:4c627d65$0$11122$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > That's not true of the war in Europe though. Or Africa. > Dropping atom bombs certainly puts people on notice ;-) It does indeed. Especially the Japanese :) -- Regards, Noddy.
From: Noddy on 11 Aug 2010 08:24
"George W Frost" <georgewfrost(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:Oqw8o.3354$FH2.3071(a)viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com... > WW1 and WW2, were both "declared wars" > as in countries facing off to each other > whereas, in later years, the Yanks have got them selves involved in > guerilla warfare and have been beaten > and everyone knows that you can never win a guerilla war with regular > troops or should do > If anyone believes anything else, they have got fairies in the bottom of > their garden > A guerilla war must be and can only be fought by the same means and that > is with the same type guerilla warfare I disagree. Both the Korean and Vietnam wars could have been won in *very* short order if the US government approached them from the military perspective rather than a political one. They could have dished out the same treatment to North Korea and Vietnam as they did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki and made an "artificial sun" over a couple of major cities and it wouldn't have taken the locals too long to realise that the yanks weren't pissing about and planned to use all their tools to get the job done. Instead they worried about what the neighbours might think, and that's what fucked them. -- Regards, Noddy. |