Yes it was a team effort but what would have happened without US aid? You cant leave that fact out. Europe was almost lost between italy and germany. If we had not stepped in what would have happened. So we turned the tide not won the war. We dont want to ever have to turn the tide again. So if you can contain these nuts within their own country we usually leave well enoigh alone but if its felt someone is gaining the capabilities to start this crap again of course we are stepping in. If we let a dictator do what he wanted as long as we did with Hitler again the ramifacations would be worse than stepping in early. The only way to have peace is to smack the bad ones around a bit cant have peace spreading daisies. Some people just want to watch the world burn in their name. I know cheesy movie line but it works for my point.
I have to ask now, when is it ok to step in? Its very discretionary.
What would have happened is that the Soviets would have taken all of Germany instead of just part, and possibly parts of France before the British got back across the Channel. The Germans still would have been beaten, but the Soviets would have had a much larger influence on Europe as a whole. It likely would have changed the balance of power in the world immensely, plus the US wouldn't have had large swathes of Europe to sell its products to during their recovery.
'Twas a cutlass swipe or an ounce of lead
Or a yawing hole in a battered head
And the scuppers clogged with rotting red
And there they lay I damn me eyes
All lookouts clapped on Paradise
All souls bound just contrarywise, yo ho ho and a bottle of rum!
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/380-600183?OpenDocument
1. Yes in fact the US military teaches all of it's troops the Geneva Convention and it's purpose. Which is to prevent unnecessary suffering of Civilians. The punishments for breaking the Geneva Convention are some of the Harshest punishments in the military out side of treason.
2. No that would be the UN, the Geneva Conventions are established to protect civilians and prisoners of war.
3. No loop holes, however if the Enemy places civilians in harms way they are responsible. In the cases of missed targets and stray bombs most of the time the US will prosecute the responsible parties.
4. And every single case has lead to court marshal and imprisonment of the offending parties. You however bring up a good point and that is during war it is actually unnatural for people to respect the enemy which is what the Geneva Convention forces on combatants. I should also point out that when Americas enemies get a hold of a US service person they usually do not fallow the Geneva Convention.
5. Lethal force is used during time of war, and is often employed in towns and cities, the convention does not say war is not allowed in in cities and towns. As for bombings the US is the only nation in history to try and make bombs which only target military targets. And this has only been possible since the invention of the microprocessor and GPS, neither of these technologies existed during Vietnam. In Fact the first time these technologies where used was the Gulf War of 1990-1991.
The soviets where able to build a military in Siberia to fight the Germans thanks to American Business and supplies, most of which where paid for by Armand Hammer, a wealthy Jewish American who was also a communist. Most of the resistance to the Nazis was because America had the ability to supply food and materials for the war effort to it's allies. So even though the US entered officially in 1942, it was supporting both the UK and the Soviets for the entirety of the war.
This is the part that has me confused also. Someone with a picture of the Israeli flag complaining about the USA monitoring the activities of a country that has flatly and openly stated its belief that Israel has no right to exist and should be destroyed...
What other country is an actual deterrent to Iran's wishes regarding Israel (besides Israel herself)?
I don't like it when the US beats its chest in public. I thought the war in Iraq was a mistake. I don't care for overly xenophobic threads in general (regardless of which country is being touted).
But really? If anyone's country posting in this thread was attacked, chances are the USA would be there to help, and American lives would be at stake. Again. How many other countries can/would do that? Please say the UN would be there - I'd love a nice laugh.
They need to start using imperial probe droids.
Culturally (as in, having a distinct one) it is on the brink of, say, where Britain/France/Germany were 40 years ago - being an isolated nation of 10 million it is now feeling the pinch of globalisation.
Also the Swedish Democrats (SD - what unfourtunate iniatials) have 20 seats in the Parliament, not bad for a far right party.
Basically, with a lack of information one could state any nation of your choice as perfect.
You could but you would be wrong :P
And yes, I have many Swedish friends - and we discuss the politics of Sweden often and generally chew the fat.
Both statements are true, the US bombed Japan with Nuclear weapons to force them to surrender unconditionally, and avoid what the US felt would be the most bloody invasion in history. American military advisers felt that if we put armed soldiers in Japan that every Japanese person would defend until dead. The idea was horrible in the minds of Americans because we calculated 1 million American deaths, and the total loss of the Japanese people. This is why we dropped the Bombs.
However in hind sight we now know that Japan was face with invasion by the Russians and Invasion by the US, they realized that the US would treat them much better than the Russians, the nukes just made them surrender faster and unconditionally.
I just dont understand the anti US beliefs by so many Europeans. Why is it so hard to accept that we were the reason the tide turned? Why is what we do so looked down upon, but not looking at what others do to us. The vietcong wete not even close to as nice to our pow. Also why cling to the notion that we are from another country when the Us now has over 200 years of freedom? We are AMERICANS and our nationality is such. Its americans own fault really to though. If people would realise such and not us their basically race for lack of a better term we wouldnt be looked at like this. Its a PC issur where people are afraid to gorget where their acestors came from and accept that we are one nation. We dont need any term but american.
In a nutshell:
Japs were beaten, but pride prevented them from surrendering.
After years of UK and Canadian research pre WW2 (in conjunction with the Manhattan project during with the UK/USA/Canada), the USA were ready to show the world it's new toy.
The USA were still deluded and ignored British advice that the Soviets were trying to take over as much of Europe and then Japan as they could grab until it was so late that...
They used the nukes to show US strength.
Post-WW2 they blocked the UK & Canada from using the jointly developed nukes.
The UK started to develop it's own, but then the USA said stop or be bankrupt you, and lease them to the UK to this day.
ALSO: You cannot debunk the estimates of casuaties that would have occured in Operation Downfall, this was also a factor but simply not the only one.
On Iran: Why are we always so focused on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, instead of Ali Khamenei? The Ayatollah (as the real leader of Iran) seems decidedly anti-nuclear weapon, and anti-first strike against Israel. It seems silly to focus so much on the President when the Ayatollah holds most of the power in the country, including when and how to use military force.
There is also now a contention about Ahmadinejad's remarks of "wiping Israel off the map", that what was actually said was that basically the regime would collapse, but the previous statement was easier to sell to demonize the President of Iran and so the media ran with that.
It could be assumed that the Ayatollah is simply lying, but honestly how can you deal with a nation when you automatically assume that anything they say to contradict your narrative is a lie?
Nah, they bascially told us to shutdwon the Blue Streak programme and buy Polaris missiles, we upgraded to Trident later on.
PS - Blue Streak research was sold to the French, and was known as the Ariane 1 rocket - the family is the only commercially-viable space entry system.
---------- Post added 2012-12-04 at 05:23 PM ----------
Nah, it self-destructed.
It's a good bet the imperials know we're here!
Though Admiral Ozzel brought the Imperial Fleet out of hyperspace too early!