Pacific Campaign... Who better prepared?

Since we are comparing the US economic output to Canada rather than to countries in Europe it would make more sense to determine what wartime life in Canada was like..rather than Britain..which would probably have starved without aid.

 

yeah there was a special war economi in the us but fact is since the civil war the usa never knew what war means they had no hunger, diseases, refuges and ruined citys the war is always far away over oceans and continents europe knows it and now they go togheter for example the us had more deaths in the years of civil war than in all wars of the 20th century including 1.ww 2.ww and vietnam

 

Not sure what point you are trying to make. We are glad of it and like it that way.
There is no nobility in suffering and privation.

 

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say here either. America is far from the perfect Utopia you think we enjoy.

 

ill try to say that most of the americans forgot what suffering and pain comes along with war that way america is always so fast to solute their problems on
a millitary base instead to negotiate or aid . if the civil war generation were still alive and make up a large ammount of the population they wouldent be agree with us policy of the last decades

 

We have been involved in military actions since the American Civil War I can assure you. Anyway, In ww2, civilians were as much a part of the war as soldiers, with the war bonds, the clothing drives, the home gardens so more food could go overseas etc.

Hate to break it to you, but we do have quite a bit of hunger going on. The number of homeless has been on the rise.

We got plenty of that, trust me. As of right now, our health care sucks.

Great Depression anyone?

I don't understand. Are you trying to insist that leaving your loved ones behind to fight a war on another continent is somehow easier than fighting for your own soil?

I... just... don't understand. I mean, what are you trying to say here? You pretty much wrote two posts saying "Americans are pussies, that's why they have a big bad army." I just don't get it.

 

That doesn't really make sense. There were members of the Civil war generation around during the Great War and the Second World War, the US was involved in them.

The US has been saved largely from fighting on its own territory because of the fortunes of Geography and political stability on the continent of North America. I see no reason to hold that against them though. In any case the same can basically be said of Western Europe from the end of the second world war.

I don't think America particularly jumps to military solutions any more than any other nation would. Whether you agree or disagree with the invasion or occupation of Iraq or the motives for it I think that hostilities there were more or less inevitable since the end of the first Gulf War, over a decade (And two presidents) earlier.

There seems to be an assumption that the US relishes war as a chance to prove itself the big, strong superpower. I really doubt that's the case. War and Occupation are expensive businesses, no world power is going to enter into that kind of endevour lightly, not to mention a potentially divisive factor on the political climate at home (For example the Vietnam era).

If it really was the case that the US just invaded everywhere they couldn't be bothered to negotiate with, a lot more countries would be being patrolled by Abrams and Bradleys by now.

I'm not saying the US government is saintly, no government is (Britain included), but I don't think they're the demons they're portrayed as.

 

well you cant compare the aftermath of ww2 in europe with a depression and a shity healthcare sytem of the us today thats ridiculus.

and for sure its easyer to fight away in a other continent so you always know youre loved ones are save unlike the victims of the us you can die at the front while your familie is burnig in their houses

or another example is 911 the us called the wtc now ground zero thats an insult to all a bomb victims and survivors the us laid so many citys in ruins over the hole world and killing millions thru their bombs including two a bombs on a civil citis, and know they lost two buildings for the first time in history and they make such a big deal about it .
they should take it like the other folks that were bombed out by them and stand up and build up instead of leading two wars
and dont compare two collapsed buildings with a a-bomb

just for you to know in afghanistan more people died thru collateral damage than people died in 911

please this is to my us friend here i dont bash america but i tell facts so dont be pissed

 

im not comparing the wtc to the a-bombs but the wtc was an unprovocked attack on innocent people that had done nothing wrong. i think the situation would be different if it was from an enemy whilst a war was going on(kamikaze attack but scaled up) but there was no war, and these people hadnt provocked anything or building the war machine so thats maybe y it was such a tragic time.

 

Al Amin, at some point you must realize that even if you don't mean to insult anyone, what you write will insult many people. Your post does not contain pure facts, it is a distorted view of history intended to make the US seem like a morally and emotionally weak country boasting about a misplaced sense of greatness. In fact, the US was attacked by a terrorist organization without any kind of incentive, and the attack was aimed at killing as many civilians of the city of New York as possible, whereas all American strategic bombing offensives if cruel and costly were supposed to end wars rather than start them.

Your post has been edited, please take caution when you say these things in the future.

 

what are you serious
come on do you want to present america as a country wich was forced to war for almost a century and that all these million victims were necesary to

"restore freedom and peace and liberate the suppressed that the free world
will rise oh yeah god bless america and only america"

it is absolutly wrong to say that this was all just to stop wars or dictators there are so many wars and dictators around the world but as long as they cooperate with the us its ok only when their intresses are disrupted then they go to war take pinochet or the persian shah even the taliban and saddam were once good friends of the us as long as they were fighting the iranians or the russians i instandly hope that you dont belive this the good american world police show

let me say again i have nothing against the american people i just disagree with us policy if i would think like the us gov i would lauch operation "american freedom" :lol:

 

Al Amin, you obviously do have something against American people. You demonstrated this when you flat out called us a weak people.

 

Hi Al Amin, welcome to the world.

America did prop up a number of highly questionable regimes - when it needed to. Would you rather that the world was run by the CCCP? (now dead & gone, thanks largely to America). Where you have the freedom to do whatever you like, providing you do not mind being sent to the gulag for doing it. Or being shot.

Since the demise of the CCCP (and before it, I should point out) America has 'interfered' in several countries, generally overthrowing dictators and installing democracy. Is that wrong?

Yes, these will often co-incide with America's interests, but then find me any country that has acted purely altruistically all the time!

America, for all that we knock it, is actually not doing a bad job. Would you prefer an Iraq still under Saddam, where ethnic minorities are gassed, and attacked by the army?

Personally, I reckon that the US should throw more weight behind the UN (even just as a camoflage), rather than acting alone so much, as this would
a) help make the UN more effective & less of a money-leech
b) help improve the US's world image.

 

Al amin, are you seriously saying the alternatives are better?

The Soviet Union, or even modern Russia for example... You think the occupation of Iraq is bad? It's nothing, if the Russians had to put up with what the Coalition troops have in Iraq they would have just pulled the ground troops back, bombed the cities and shot anything that moved (Chechnya style).

just for you to know in afghanistan more people died thru collateral damage than people died in 911

The US was at war, the civilians knew they were in a war zone, they could prepare or leave the country if possible, or stay if they chose to, their choice. Crucially, the US did not go into Afghanistan to kill civilians. The WTC attackers on the other hand did, their whole aim was to kill as many civilians as possible, there was no warning, no ultimatum, no declaration of war.

they should take it like the other folks that were bombed out by them and stand up and build up instead of leading two wars

What do you mean by this? Just ignored it? That's ridiculous.

I'm not American at all by I really take issue with your apparent assumption that the US has spent a century flattening cities and deliberately killing civilians for the fun of it.

Your view of history seems very twisted to me.

The history of the US in the 20th century is certainly coloured, yes they made mistakes, yes there were bad decisions, but overall I would much rather have been this side of the Iron Curtain than the other for the Cold War. If I had to live in a country under military occupation, I'd rather be occupied by the US than the Russians, Soviets, Chinese, Iraqis, Israelis, well pretty much any other nation outside of Western Europe!

 

hey danny when did i call the americans weak?
and i have nothing against america i spend 4 weeks of hollyday performing an east coast tour and i had so much fun overthere and the food was so fat and delicous and plenty and when i order food in any other country in a restaurant for example i still could order a 2. portion but i usa i was so full after one pizza. steak or burger just for the international house of pancakes
i love america

and rick you should not point out who is worser than us instead who do it better
i think the europeans or canadians are much more friendly and peacefuller than the us (exept uk who joind w blind just to slime or what ever the reason was) even the majotityb of britain was against it so there correct also its just about blair. :lol:

 

and rick you should not point out who is worser than us instead who do it better
i think the europeans or canadians are much more friendly and peacefuller than the us

A peaceful nature is not a particularly useful characteristic when fighting an insurrection. Also the US is the best placed, economically, to be able to afford the expensive business that is war and occupation, much more so than Europe.

You think Europeans are peaceful? What about the former Yugoslavia? Those little events World War One and World War Two? The genocide of the Jews... oh, yeah, fantastically peaceful lot the Europeans! You complain about the US being more or less at war for a century, Europe has been at war for most of its recorded history.

Are you aware the Canadians commited "warcrimes" when serving with the UN in Somalia?

Why not point out who is worse? It helps put things in perspective.

 

To say that the CCCP would have ruled the world had the US not proped up dictators and repressive regimes; had not gotten involved in Vietnam; had not helped Saddam (who was also supported by the CCCP) during the Iraq-Iran war; and had not re-installed the Shah when he was first ousted in 195-something is a major overstatement.

US foreign policy, all the way up until the fall of the CCCP, believed that Moscow was to blame for any unrest in the third world. This (as well as ignorant nuclear proliferation on both sides) kept the Cold War going so long. When any country was threatened by a revolution or coup de'tat it was instantly communist Russia to blame and all that did was complicate American objectives and further alienate America from the rest of the world.

Nationalism was the major cause of politcal and civil unrest in the 3rd world and even though US foreign policy makers saw this as a major problem, they continued to blame the CCCP because it was easier to pass on to the rest of the nation.

You are not wrong, but the number of repressive regimes installed by the US far, far exceeds the number of democratic governments installed. Frankly, I don't think the US was all that wrong in these tactics. These regimes were all installed for legitmate reasons, something the Soviets could not say. When you control a country as economically great as the US, you will do what ever you have to do to keep it running effectively, or I would so anyways.

 

did you read my former posts or not i wrote europe is now so peacefull because they were salaying each other the last two milleniums and after ww2 they come to a point where they recognized that the next war between them would end up in the destruction of the mankind and that they have more in common then they expect
yes the canadians tortured somalis but these were single sadistic soldiers
and no canadian goverment told them to do so or create isolatoin camps
or use dogs beatings no sleep or phoney executions to press out answers during interogation these methods were authrised by dod
no western european country also cnd aus and nz did that unfortunatly humans are sometimes sadistic and if these subjects managed to wear a uniform its in the hand of the local goverment to take them out and not to let them do their sadistic work to recive an outcome that satifies the gov or dod

 

I don't like American foreign policy either, but as Ricky said it should be considered preferrable that the US is the world's current superpower because others could be much more disrespectful and violent towards other countries. Obviously they should use the UN to channel their ideals into policy; they don't, so I don't support them when they go to war again. However, it is simply ridiculous to suggest that the US should pretty much ignore an aimed attack at its civilian population, because they killed so many civilians themselves in previous wars. During the Cold War they started wars, that's true; but World War I and II they fought to end, and they fought on the morally right side. This can't be compared with the 9-11-01 attacks.

 

When I first read this, I thought - yeah, fair enough. But then I started thinking about a serious 'what if America went Isolationist after WW2'?

Step 1) Greece becomes Communist. You are all probably famliar with the infamous Churchill-Stalin 'Spheres of Influence' agreement. Did you know that after WW2, Greek Communists damn near took over the country anyway, and that Britain tried mighty hard to stop them but just could not afford it. In the real world, America sepped in & took over.

Step 2) Britain, trying to stop both Grece & Malaysia becomming Communist, goes even more bankrupt, and fails in both countries. Malaysia is now Communist.

Step 3) Anybody here think that The Korean War would have turned out the same way without US involvement? Korea is now Communist

Step 4) Taiwan is overwhelmed by China.

Step 5) Vietnam happens very quickly.

Sidelight 1) Israel, obviously, ceases to exist sometime in the 60s or 70s.

Step 6) Africa - now, while most troubles were based in Nationalism, and even inter-tribal fighting, Marxist guerillas were present in many areas, and - the clincher - guess where the bad guys bought their weaponry from? The CCCP is not going to allow debtor nations much leeway...

Essentially, even without exploring possible 'domino theory' style effects (yes, I know, silly theory) you now have much of SE Asia Communist, All of Eastern Europe (Turkey is the exception, but is only partly European) is now Communist, and the Soviets have unlimited access to the Med, and good shipping ports. Plus Africa is getting more & more dlominated by the Soviets.

Add in a pinch of 'we can do what we like because we are more powerful than you' on behalf of the CCCP...

Hello comrade!