New thread for those who want to discuss this issue and started in an attempt to preserve Doc's thread.

Sheep is busy, there are 10 Swedish women prancing around his house.

And boy was he surprised!

It is very interesting that, today, some of the same people (the vast majority of the population of the UK, France, et.al.) who detest the U.S's involvement in certain foreign affairs would all be under Nazi rule today were it not for that same "meddling" policy of the US.

quote:

Originally posted by CrazyPoet:
And boy was he surprised!

He knew it was coming, but he didn't expect 10.

quote:

Originally posted by Rogers72:
It is very interesting that, today, some of the same people (the vast majority of the population of the UK, France, et.al.) who detest the U.S's involvement in certain foreign affairs would all be under Nazi rule today were it not for that same "meddling" policy of the US.

This vast majority of people have an awfully short memory. I think Colin Powell said it best: "We have gone forth from our shores repeatedly over the last hundred years and we’ve done this as recently as the last year in Afghanistan and put wonderful young men and women at risk, many of whom have lost their lives, and we have asked for nothing except enough ground to bury them in...."

quote:

It is very interesting that, today, some of the same people (the vast majority of the population of the UK, France, et.al.) who detest the U.S's involvement in certain foreign affairs would all be under Nazi rule today were it not for that same "meddling" policy of the US.

That's not really a very apt comparison, and it lacks an understanding of the American position, both domestic and in foreign affairs, in the late '30s and early '40s, and subsequent entry into WWII.

quote:

Sheep is busy, there are 10 Swedish women prancing around his house.

More than i can handle help JMS.
Did you have to send them all at once.

Posted December 07, 2007 10:12 AM Hide Post
It is very interesting that, today, some of the same people (the vast majority of the population of the UK, France, et.al.) who detest the U.S's involvement in certain foreign affairs would all be under Nazi rule today were it not for that same "meddling" policy of the US.



The world would be in really terrible shape.
Don't you think?
Remember what Winston Churchill said.
"If it were not for America there would be no England"
I think that is an understatement there would be no Europe is more like it.
Well at least not in the traditional sense.
How quickly people forget.

A friend has suggested to me that this thread would be a more appropriate place to post this:

quote:

Unprovoked Yes.
Surprise Attack No.

As a matter of historical fact, the attack was hardly unprovoked, at least in the estimation of the Japanese. The total trade embargo the U.S. placed against Japan had deprived her of the natural resources she needed to continue her Asian expansion and war in China.

I'd rather use the phrase 'without reason', since provocation implies justification, and that's certainly not my meaning here.

Sadly, you're right about it not being a surprise. As early as July of 1941, the Japanese government had gone on record as favoring war with the U.S.

As a matter of historical fact, the attack was hardly unprovoked, at least in the estimation of the Japanese. The total trade embargo the U.S. placed against Japan had deprived her of the natural resources she needed to continue her Asian expansion and war in China

'Question authority. Think for yourself. Filter out the spin. Engage elected officials critically. Make them defend what they're doing in your name. Derive the truth. Speak truth to power.'[/quote]

Well then i guess Japan got just what they wanted.By there way of thinking Cuba should have attacked us for the same reason.Hope it made them happy that big mushroom cloud.I guess one should really be careful in life what they wish for.

quote:

Well then i guess Japan got just what they wanted.By there way of thinking Cuba should have attacked us for the same reason.

Kinda, sorta. Hard to compare the war-making capacity of the Japanese empire in 1941 with that of today's Cuba, though.

It's really an interesting exercise to read about an event and what led up to it from the perspective of the enemy. This is a reasonably objective study of the attack by Japanese historian Yuichi Arima, published by American University's Inventory of Conflict & Environment.

quote:

The total trade embargo the U.S. placed against Japan had deprived her of the natural resources she needed to continue her Asian expansion and war in China.

This is true. The US imposed a trade embargo when Japan invaded China. From a resource standpoint (oil), Japan was put in a corner and had to make the decision to bow to American demands or fight.

quote:

Originally posted by SHEEPSHEAD BAY:

quote:

Sheep is busy, there are 10 Swedish women prancing around his house.

More than i can handle help JMS.
Did you have to send them all at once.

Seems we're hijacking this thread as well. A "Sheep's escipades with Swedish women" thread might be in order lol.

quote:

Originally posted by KKL:
This vast majority of people have an awfully short memory. I think Colin Powell said it best: "We have gone forth from our shores repeatedly over the last hundred years and we’ve done this as recently as the last year in Afghanistan and put wonderful young men and women at risk, many of whom have lost their lives, and we have asked for nothing except enough ground to bury them in...."

True, to some extent. And what follows in simply for the sake of argument...

Notwithstanding the gratitude we should all bestow the US for it's (rather late, I might say) involvement in WWII (which would probably never have happened without Pearl Harbor), there are certain factors to consider.

1) The US was not alone in the war in Europe -- though it was instrumental in the fianl victory. Many Canadians, and others, sacrificed their lives to defeat the Nazis and should receive the same respect.

2) Why does US involvement in WWII justify that those countries should blindly approve any foreign policy decision made by the US for all eternity ?

quote:

2) Why does US involvement in WWII justify that those countries should blindly approve any foreign policy decision made by the US for all eternity ?

Yes, exactly! I couldn't agree more.

Our European allies have a long, proud history of fighting beside the U.S., and none of them would abrogate any treaty obligations binding them to us militarily, or we to them.

But a nation has a legal and moral obligation to its citizens to make foreign policy based on a determination of its own national best interests, not ours. Supporting Bush's misadventure in Iraq is clearly not in the best interest of their people.

quote:

Originally posted by flashman:

quote:

Originally posted by KKL:
This vast majority of people have an awfully short memory. I think Colin Powell said it best: "We have gone forth from our shores repeatedly over the last hundred years and we’ve done this as recently as the last year in Afghanistan and put wonderful young men and women at risk, many of whom have lost their lives, and we have asked for nothing except enough ground to bury them in...."

True, to some extent. And what follows in simply for the sake of argument...

Notwithstanding the gratitude we should all bestow the US for it's (rather late, I might say) involvement in WWII (which would probably never have happened without Pearl Harbor), there are certain factors to consider.

1) The US was not alone in the war in Europe -- though it was instrumental in the fianl victory. Many Canadians, and others, sacrificed their lives to defeat the Nazis and should receive the same respect.

2) Why does US involvement in WWII justify that those countries should blindly approve any foreign policy decision made by the US for all eternity ?

1.) This is true. Canada's 3rd Infantry Division was assigned to secure Juno Beach on D-Day. However, in respect to lives lost & treasure spent on the war, the Candadian contribution pales in comparison to that of the United States. But that is not a point worth arguing IMO, I respect the contribution of all Allied service members.

2.) I don't think I, or anyone else on this forum, is suggesting such. However, I will say this, the United States was attacked on 9/11. Under NATO, an armed attack against one or more countries in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all. That being said, the European and Canadian commitment to helping the Americans fight the Taliban and al qaeda in Afghanistan has not been sufficient.

quote:

But a nation has a legal and moral obligation to its citizens to make foreign policy based on its own national best interests, not that of the United States. Supporting Bush's misadventure in Iraq is clearly not in the best interest of their people.

That's a matter of opinion. If the terrorist who are now occupied fighting our men in Iraq were busy planning attacks on the United States with all of their free time, then one could argue that our people are much better off. I hardly think anyone can argue that Alqaeda did not move into Iraq to fight us once we invaded, where would those people have gone had we not invaded Iraq? No one can answer that...BTW-We are under a represenative democracy and your represenatives voted in your place to send us to Iraq, therefor we are there. BTW, don't try to bring up the overplayed, overrelied upon faulty intel arguement.

quote:

Originally posted by Jack White:
A friend has suggested to me that this thread would be a more appropriate place to post this:

Thank you sir.

quote:

That being said, the European and Canadian commitment to helping the Americans fight the Taliban and al qaeda in Afghanistan has not been sufficient.

I could be mistaken, but I'm not sure terrorism was a consideration when the NATO treaty was written. What it does provide for is a military attack by a nation -- the specific political entity of a nation -- against a member nation. Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but their treaty obligation doesn't legally require them to intervene in an act committed by a terrorist group that has an association or allegiance to a religion, but not to any nation or political entity.