Defining Picture of the Iraq War

[Jessper]

Originally posted by: Y The Alien
The U.S. couldn't remain neutral in World War II because Germany declared war on us after their allies bombed us.

Prior to that the U.S. was rightfully neutral, much like we should have been in World War I.

Acctualy, before we were bombed we gave supplies only to Britain and France, we would not have given Germany anything because of an act passed in congress. This violates international law for neutral countries. We even shot down a few German U-Boats. We were not fighting only because Germany couldn't afford it so they didn't openly attack us outside of some British supply routes (the U.S. Navy guarded these routes, hence the U-Boats being shot down).

I'm curious on your opinion on how the US should not have been involved in World War I. I would love to hear it, though this may be wandering off topic a little.

All in all, I can't wait until we have a worth while president to vote for again. Kerry was no shining star, most would only argue that he was the lesser of two evils.

Originally posted by: Deblas

edit: Ohh no. SK just grammar burned me!

Lol, the grammar attack is just about as valid as your attack on him for not having anyone marked as friends in the community.

[Board of Command]

Originally posted by: -Sharingan-Kakashi-
wwi was started because of crazed nationalism and imperialism

No, WWI was the direct result of a retarded alliance system that was used back then. Nationalism and imperialism was the cause of the conflicts, not the war. The conflict did not cause every western country to participate in a global war, the alliance system did. It should have just been a few European countries fighting.

wwii because germany got shitted on with the treaty of versailles and britain and france allowing them to build back up

No, that's only the root of the problem. It was Hitler who played the emotions of the German people, and they put him in power. Without Hitler there probably would not have been a war, since the Nazi party really wasn't anything without Hitler. WWII is a result of human emotions.

War's a complicated thing. All wars are started by conflicts, but not all conflicts turn into wars, especially world wars. The only thing preventing WW3 is nuclear weapons.

[Deblas]

Originally posted by: Deblas

edit: Ohh no. SK just grammar burned me!

Lol, the grammar attack is just about as valid as your attack on him for not having anyone marked as friends in the community.[/quote]

*sniffs* Yea. Well your stupid. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-sad.gif[/img]

[Y]

Originally posted by: Jessper


Acctualy, before we were bombed we gave supplies only to Britain and France, we would not have given Germany anything because of an act passed in congress. This violates international law for neutral countries. We even shot down a few German U-Boats. We were not fighting only because Germany couldn't afford it so they didn't openly attack us outside of some British supply routes (the U.S. Navy guarded these routes, hence the U-Boats being shot down).

Sorry I wasn't specific. I meant neutral militarily, in that we didn't enter combat against them directly. I have absolutely no problems (and neither did Adams) with supporting allies in ways other than direct military intervention in a foreign country.

I'm curious on your opinion on how the US should not have been involved in World War I. I would love to hear it, though this may be wandering off topic a little.

"World War I" wasn't a world war. It was a European squabble that turned into a horrifying bloodbath, and the American involvement therein was only due to our provocations towards Germany.. Now, this is with hindsight googles squarely on, but without the U.S.' entrance into World War I, Germany would have ruled Europe and probably made peace with the United States (an attack would have been extremely foolish and unlikely) with far less casualties all around, with the added bonus of World War II never happening.

[SK]

except for that letter germany sent to mexico eh?

[Y]

Of which the first line was:

Berlin, January 19, 1917

On the first of February we intend to begin submarine warfare unrestricted. In spite of this, it is our intention to endeavour to keep neutral the United States of America.

The only stipulation in the letter was that if the U.S. declared war on Germany, Mexico was to also declare war on the U.S. It wasn't an attempt to secretly strike at the U.S., it was setting up a countermove for a possible U.S. strike.

EDIT:

The Germans weren't morons. They knew the possibility that the U.S. would intervene would significantly decrease the odds of their winning. Germany would have struck peace with the U.S. if they ever thought it was possible.

[Jessper]

Originally posted by: BOARD_of_command
No, WWI was the direct result of a retarded alliance system that was used back then. Nationalism and imperialism was the cause of the conflicts, not the war. The conflict did not cause every western country to participate in a global war, the alliance system did. It should have just been a few European countries fighting.

The alliance system back then (balance of power) required that you shift alliances constantly to keep any country from gaining too much power. People stopped wanting to be flexible because their nationalism got in the way of making allies with communist states ect. With democracy came inflexibility and thus a useless system.

Also the alliance between Germany and Mexico pissed the American people off, war may have been demanded from the people, though I forget at the moment.

As I understand it Y, the U.S. waited until our observers in Europe said that they thought the British and French would win then helped them to get a say in the treaty to be made (though we ended up not signing the Treaty of Versailles but made our own with Germany, a much kinder one). Though my mind isn't fresh on the subject so I can't say for sure. Interesting idea of letting Germany take over Europe, would be interesting.

[Xollence]

Originally posted by: Y The Alien

The U.S. couldn't remain neutral in World War II because Germany declared war on us after their allies bombed us.

Prior to that the U.S. was rightfully neutral, much like we should have been in World War I.

Well the US wasn't really neutral, we were supplying Britain, and even some American pilots were fighting in Britain even before Pearl Harbor. - oops someone already said this.

[Turkish-S]

but what do you think of the plan to start a war vs iran??
i dont know what to think. its just stupid. i think if amerika attacks iran it will cause a chain riaction and all the terrorist in the mid east will strike more and harder and there really could start a WW3.

[Board of Command]

That is among the most retarded things I've ever read. WW3: USA vs Terrorists

Cmon man, it's not Counterstrike here.

[SK]

exactly, and i thought your last post was 2 pages ago turkey. also to the world war ii thing, after the us entered the war they helped the brits before going after japan.

[Turkish-S]

k maybe ww3 is a bit exaggerated. but scip that i wanted to ask what do you all think off starting a war ageanst iran..

[yallo]

This is in response to the string of pictures posted by DB_Hunter a couple of pages back.

Prison Experiment

Hmm why am I posting this link, I wonder. Definitely not because I'm attempting to provide an excuse for the acts that were committed. But I just thought that this experiment is, to say the least, a very interesting and fascinating (in the kinda fixated-by-horror way) read. And also, that it reveals a lot about human nature that I feel we should all know. I just find it scary how an average Joe can do the most unimaginable things when put under extreme conditions, be it a prison setting, a war, or simply just stress.

Also, it has been brought up several times here, that America chose the "lesser of two evils" when they decided to drop the two atomic bombs on Japan. I'd just like to point out that the lesser of two evils is still an evil. Also, nobody can foretell what would have happened if America had chosen a different way of bringing the war to an end. All those estimates of war casualties in alternative scenarios are simply just that - estimates. So do take them with a pinch of salt.

*deep breath*
Ok, this is quite enough serious talk from me. =)

Edit: fixed some grammer.

[SK]

Originally posted by: turkish-shikamaru
k maybe ww3 is a bit exaggerated. but scip that i wanted to ask what do you all think off starting a war ageanst iran..

they shouldent have nucleur weapons.

[Y]

Originally posted by: -Sharingan-Kakashi-

they shouldent have nucleur weapons.

Jesus, you want war with Iran too?

[Board of Command]

Originally posted by: turkish-shikamaru
k maybe ww3 is a bit exaggerated. but scip that i wanted to ask what do you all think off starting a war ageanst iran..

What do I think about starting a war? I think they shouldn't. I really don't see any threats posed by the Middle East.

[SK]

no i dont think we should have war with anyone, i would rather see the UN deal with iran, and north korea.

[Xollence]

Originally posted by: -Sharingan-Kakashi-
exactly, and i thought your last post was 2 pages ago turkey. also to the world war ii thing, after the us entered the war they helped the brits before going after japan.

Actually they were fighting in both theaters at the same time, and operation overlord didnt happen until 1944, although they did do some fighting Africa. America was fighting Japan in 1942 and already started island hopping.

[Samanosuke]

<3 yallo.