|
|
Post by oldnick on Nov 13, 2016 22:51:20 GMT
On a sombre note; The Cambridge American Cemetery and Memorial is a salutary reminder of the amount of effort and lives expended by America the last time Europe was at war. They can hardly be blamed for questioning whether it would be worth repeating it in the future. I thought it was the Soviets wot won it, and suffered 20-30 times as many deaths as the US or UK, perhaps Trumps is right and the Russkies deserve a bit of respect. No doubt - the Russians lost more people - but it was on their 'soil', whereas America could have looked the other way. I only mentioned this in light of DT questioning the value of NATO - rather than wanting to compare US losses to that of other nations.
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204 
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Nov 17, 2016 12:25:04 GMT
On a sombre note; The Cambridge American Cemetery and Memorial is a salutary reminder of the amount of effort and lives expended by America the last time Europe was at war. They can hardly be blamed for questioning whether it would be worth repeating it in the future. Did the Americans join in helping Europe before they were attacked by Japan?
|
|
|
|
Post by oldnick on Nov 17, 2016 13:01:42 GMT
The American contribution to WWll is what it is, and to question their timing and motives is to miss the point in my opinion - and also sounds rather ungrateful to my mind.
It seems strange to me that their sacrifice of lives might be diminished because another country started fighting sooner, or lost greater numbers of combatants. We have become so used to the US acting as the western world's policeman for the last 70 odd years, that it is easy to forget the fact that it was not always the case. My original post was not designed to spark a debate about timing, losses or even motives on their part, but rather to highlight the fact that their role of policeman may well be coming to an end, and any sense of entitlement or dismissiveness from those they protect is hardly going to help.
|
|
jonno
Member of DD Central
nil satis nisi optimum
Posts: 2,808
Likes: 3,241
|
Post by jonno on Nov 17, 2016 13:16:06 GMT
The American contribution to WWll is what it is, and to question their timing and motives is to miss the point in my opinion - and also sounds rather ungrateful to my mind. It seems strange to me that their sacrifice of lives might be diminished because another country started fighting sooner, or lost greater numbers of combatants. We have become so used to the US acting as the western world's policeman for the last 70 odd years, that it is easy to forget the fact that it was not always the case. My original post was not designed to spark a debate about timing, losses or even motives on their part, but rather to highlight the fact that their role of policeman may well be coming to an end, and any sense of entitlement or dismissiveness from those they protect is hardly going to help. Totally agree; and also the U.S. lost nearly 120,000 in WW1, a point many forget.
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Nov 18, 2016 20:51:23 GMT
The American contribution to WWll is what it is, and to question their timing and motives is to miss the point in my opinion - and also sounds rather ungrateful to my mind. It seems strange to me that their sacrifice of lives might be diminished because another country started fighting sooner, or lost greater numbers of combatants. We have become so used to the US acting as the western world's policeman for the last 70 odd years, that it is easy to forget the fact that it was not always the case. My original post was not designed to spark a debate about timing, losses or even motives on their part, but rather to highlight the fact that their role of policeman may well be coming to an end, and any sense of entitlement or dismissiveness from those they protect is hardly going to help. I tend to disagree. The US would have kept itself out of war if it was not attacked directly. Similar to what happened in 2001 when America was attacked. They dragged everyone with them with Bush saying " you are either with us or against us."
|
|
gc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 152
Likes: 141
|
Post by gc on Nov 19, 2016 8:42:38 GMT
President Trump: anyone think of any positives? I think that out of everyone, he spoke the most sense on this Trump on CBS That is definitely a positive thing... (whether he means what he says or not, that is another thing). Hillary's view on Russia was to have a harsher approach (enforce no-fly zones on them) and that could have led the USA (and the rest of us for that matter) down a path we could not turn back from with the Russians. I may not like him but you did ask for a positive and it was the closest thing to one I could find ;-)
|
|
|
|
Post by oldnick on Nov 19, 2016 9:43:42 GMT
The American contribution to WWll is what it is, and to question their timing and motives is to miss the point in my opinion - and also sounds rather ungrateful to my mind. It seems strange to me that their sacrifice of lives might be diminished because another country started fighting sooner, or lost greater numbers of combatants. We have become so used to the US acting as the western world's policeman for the last 70 odd years, that it is easy to forget the fact that it was not always the case. My original post was not designed to spark a debate about timing, losses or even motives on their part, but rather to highlight the fact that their role of policeman may well be coming to an end, and any sense of entitlement or dismissiveness from those they protect is hardly going to help. I tend to disagree. The US would have kept itself out of war if it was not attacked directly. Similar to what happened in 2001 when America was attacked. They dragged everyone with them with Bush saying " you are either with us or against us." What does your view of America's motives in involving themselves in the last European war lead you to conclude about their appetite for a future engagement?
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Nov 19, 2016 14:18:20 GMT
I tend to disagree. The US would have kept itself out of war if it was not attacked directly. Similar to what happened in 2001 when America was attacked. They dragged everyone with them with Bush saying " you are either with us or against us." What does your view of America's motives in involving themselves in the last European war lead you to conclude about their appetite for a future engagement? It depends on what they see their interests are. They always quote America's interests (in any part of the world) as their motivation. In the meantime they have destabilised the whole of the near east (Not to mention north Africa [with the help of the French and others of course]).
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,563
Likes: 1,171
|
Post by shimself on Nov 19, 2016 15:06:35 GMT
If this is Afghanistan in 2001, "everyone" was USA and UK. full stop. If this is Iraq in 2003, "everyone" was USA UK Australia and Poland. Also full stop Not everyone in fact.
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Nov 19, 2016 18:22:40 GMT
If this is Afghanistan in 2001, "everyone" was USA and UK. full stop. If this is Iraq in 2003, "everyone" was USA UK Australia and Poland. Also full stop Not everyone in fact. All the world is affected by the destabilisation of the near east. Just think of the oil prices - just to mention one example. Keep in mind that NATO is still involved in Afghanistan. Think of the long term results of destabilising Iraq. Result -- IS (or ISIS) in Iraq, Syria, Libya . . . . . No, in fact very much everyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by martin44 on Nov 19, 2016 19:04:30 GMT
seems to be a lot of expert war mongers about, i wonder how many actually served, FWIW i'm glad trump won.
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,563
Likes: 1,171
|
Post by shimself on Nov 20, 2016 18:17:45 GMT
If this is Afghanistan in 2001, "everyone" was USA and UK. full stop. If this is Iraq in 2003, "everyone" was USA UK Australia and Poland. Also full stop Not everyone in fact. All the world is affected by the destabilisation of the near east. Just think of the oil prices - just to mention one example. Keep in mind that NATO is still involved in Afghanistan. Think of the long term results of destabilising Iraq. Result -- IS (or ISIS) in Iraq, Syria, Libya . . . . . No, in fact very much everyone. Your original quote was Similar to what happened in 2001 when America was attacked. They dragged everyone with them with Bush saying " you are either with us or against us."My understanding of this was that "everyone" joined in the US war(s), in order to be "with" them. And my point there was that very few countries did participate, at least at the outset. I understand when the US goes to war we are all involved, but the getout (often invoked) that "everyone did the same, we were all fooled by the weapons of mass destruction" error, is utterly untrue. The UN and many western European countries and elsewhere said at the time it wasn't true and refused to join in because it wasn't true. As opposed to WW2 where they joined in only after Pearl Harbour, dragging hardly anyone with them
|
|
ablender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,204
Likes: 555
|
Post by ablender on Nov 20, 2016 21:56:35 GMT
All the world is affected by the destabilisation of the near east. Just think of the oil prices - just to mention one example. Keep in mind that NATO is still involved in Afghanistan. Think of the long term results of destabilising Iraq. Result -- IS (or ISIS) in Iraq, Syria, Libya . . . . . No, in fact very much everyone. Your original quote was Similar to what happened in 2001 when America was attacked. They dragged everyone with them with Bush saying " you are either with us or against us."My understanding of this was that "everyone" joined in the US war(s), in order to be "with" them. And my point there was that very few countries did participate, at least at the outset. I understand when the US goes to war we are all involved, but the getout (often invoked) that "everyone did the same, we were all fooled by the weapons of mass destruction" error, is utterly untrue. The UN and many western European countries and elsewhere said at the time it wasn't true and refused to join in because it wasn't true. As opposed to WW2 where they joined in only after Pearl Harbour, dragging hardly anyone with themexactly what I was saying about the claim of America's contribution to WWII. Read above.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldnick on Nov 21, 2016 13:26:38 GMT
ablender, clearly you have little time for the US and would prefer to point out the defects, as you see them, in their historical foreign policy rather than focus on their actual losses in WWll and how that might inform their decisions in future. To the average US citizen I suspect Europe is a distant (and in England's case almost certainly mythical) land full of strange, argumentative and lazy peoples, who have depended on the US military presence since the end of the war to protect them from the Russians. It matters not one jot to them whether their wartime contribution is seen by others as tardy, selfishly motivated or insufficient - the fact is they did fight and did lose thousands of combatants. My original point - made just after 11am on Remembrance Day - was that the enormity (to them) of their losses (and it's much harder to be sniffy about those losses while standing in front of a wall with the names of thousands of dead Americans inscribed on it) may well discourage them from making a similar effort in the future. Does that matter? I rather think so.
|
|
skippyonspeed
Some people think I'm a little bit crazy, but I know my mind's not hazy
Posts: 787
Likes: 424
|
Post by skippyonspeed on Nov 21, 2016 15:14:22 GMT
Perhaps they ought to update the old adage "The US sneezes, the World catches a cold", to The US trumps, the World............  |
|
