Lets face it if it had not of been for massive French military aid and actually intervention to America in The US war of independence America would be like Australia and Canada today members of the British Commonwealth .
The French Contribution to the American War of Independence (http://people.csail.mit.edu/sfelshin/saintonge/frhist.html)
French military aid was also a decisive factor in the American victory. French land and sea forces fought on the side of the American colonists against the British.

The war of 1812 (http://www.historycentral.com/1812/Index.html) Americas attempt to invade Canada was an utter debacle as British forces incinerated Washington D.C .

Vietnam was a defeat , American idled away 10 years unable to beat men in black pygamas .

WW1 , WW2 , Korea were fought alongside several other allied combatant nations . Gulf War 1 & 2 was fought with a coalition of allies .

In fact even the Spanish American War was possible only with the help of Cuban and Philipine rebels . Spain was a dilapidated country fully spent with an outdated military a suitable victim and America exploited this weakness .

Panama and Grenada as well as other Caribbean adventures were so to say just that , advetures , that is unless you want to scrape the bottom of the barrel .

The gulf wars weren't wars were they? The US didn't declare war did they?

Not every war is won on the battlefields.

At the beginning of 1775, the British army was consisted of about 36,000 men worldwide, but slowly this number rose due to wartime recruitment. Additionally, over the course of the war the British hired about 30,000 Prussian mercenaries, also known as "Hessians." Hessians made up about 1/3 of the British troops in North America. By 1779, the number of British and German troops stationed in North America was over 60,000, though they were spread from Canada to Florida
The Hessian soldiers didn't really care who won and often deserted to America's side. In fact 5,000 Hessian troops


Although as many as 250,000 Patriots may have served as regulars or militiamen in the eight years of the war, there were never more than 100,000 total men under arms for the Patriots in any given year. French help was a mere 31,000, sailors and 18,000 soldiers....75% of French deaths, which were minimal as they saw far less action, were sailor deaths.


British:
Who sided?
Great Britain

Hired Hessian Mercenaries(soldiers fighting for a foreign nation simply just for money), but neither Hesse or Prussia were British allies.

50,000 Loyalists
60,000 Britons and Hessians at their highest point (1/3 of them were Hessian)

110,000 British Strength Grand-total
-------------------------------------------
30,000 Hessians fought in the war in total.
-------------------------------------------
American:
Who Sided?
France, Holland, and the kingdom of Sardinia (which included most of northern Italy)
Spain sent troops through France, not directly to the US, but did not "Officially" recognise the new Republic.

Polish officers and soldiers fought for the Patriots, but I do not think the Polish government officially supported the patriots...Sort of like the Hessians, but not on nearly so grand a scale.

100,000 patriots
49,000 Frogs
Dutch?
Spanish?
Sardinian?
Polish?

Far beyond 149,000 was the Grand total (because does not include other nations), I'll tell you that much.

250,000 Patriots fought in the war in total

As you can see, more Americans fought for the British, than French fought for the Americans. Calling this a "French victory" would be like calling it an American loss (50,000 colonists fought for British, 49,000 Frenchmen fought for America)

Just remember, does it feel like we are at war now? We can go into a nation and defeat it in a few days/weeks, we are powerful. Most troops in the Gulf War and this war are American.

Victories;

King philip's War

Also we won other countless victories against the American Indians

The First Barbary War(Against Tripoli, a state that no European nation would take on and were paying the Bribes that the Barbars demanded. The Americans refused and defeated them on the shores of Tripoli)

After the War of 1812 came the Second Barbary War (1815), the Seminole Wars, the Black Hawk War, which America won.

The Texas Revolution, even though Texas was technically a different nation until the US annexxed it, it was made up of Americans.

Mexican-American War

First Cortina War (1859) and Second Cortina War (1861), in which the paramilitary Mexican forces led by the local leader Juan Nepomuceno Cortina confronted the U.S. Military, the Texas Rangers and the local militia of Brownsville, Texas, and Matamoros, Mexico, in the Rio Grande Valley area.

Thoush you say America only won the Spanish-American War because of help, we then went and won the Philippine American War and obtained our biggest colony.

The Banana Wars we won.

We won several interventions over the years following the Second World War, which would not have been won without us, but they don't really qualify as wars.

We invaded Iraq, which took from March 20, 2003–May 1, 2003 to conquer the nation. 98% of the troops were British and American. 250,000 were United States troops, with support from 45,000 British, and 2,000 Australian. The next biggest is Poland with a mere 200.

Did it feel you were at war when you saw the WTC towers crashing down?

Did it feel you were at war when you saw the WTC towers crashing down?

Nope. Plus we weren't at war. It was a terrorist attack.

We can go into a nation and defeat it in a few days/weeks

Shame that you loose more troops after the war than during it. Perhaps if you weren't so good and stretched the war out a bit you might take fewer casualties overall.
or perhaps winning isn't everything. :)

BTW

The Mexican American War (http://www.nps.gov/fosc/mexican.htm)

There ya go!
DeeCee returns pride to America!

Oops Harold got there first.
But I had a link!

Dee Cee

We can go into a nation and defeat it in a few days/weeks

Shame that you loose more troops after the war than during it. Perhaps if you weren't so good and stretched the war out a bit you might take fewer casualties overall.
or perhaps winning isn't everything. :)

BTW

The Mexican American War (http://www.nps.gov/fosc/mexican.htm)

There ya go!
DeeCee returns pride to America!
In comparison to other wars, we have barely scratched the surface in casualties, not to diminish those who fought bravely and died prematurely.

However, the nation has been conquered, though we have lost more troops since, it is not by the Iraqi army.

Oops Harold got there first.
But I had a link!


in case you didn't know, my name really isn't harold Godwinson. He was the guy that fought William at hastings. My avatar is a picture of him...

However, the nation has been conquered, though we have lost more troops since, it is not by the Iraqi army.


LOL, defeating a crippled and highly sanctioned country is nothing to brag about. Iraq was about to collapse on it's own, the U.S. just sped up that process.

However, why is it that the U.S. must win a war on it's own? What exactly does that prove? You try to dimish the United State's contribution to WWII, please tell me, how successful were the allied forces before the U.S. was violently thrust into that war by the Japanese?

Here is an awsome 9/11 video-clip to watch. It is about 9 minutes but really good. I highly encourage you to watch it:

http://wtc.macroshaft.org/index2.htm

Here is an awsome 9/11 video-clip to watch. It is about 9 minutes but really good. I highly encourage you to watch it:

http://wtc.macroshaft.org/index2.htm


It's 7 megs and I'm using 56K dial-up, so you'll have to give me a good reason to watch it.

It's 7 megs and I'm using 56K dial-up, so you'll have to give me a good reason to watch it.

Well it is really good, but I haven't used something that slow for a while so I wouldn't know how long it would take. It took me less than a minute.

Well it is really good, but I haven't used something that slow for a while so I wouldn't know how long it would take. It took me less than a minute.


7 megs will take 30 minutes to an hour, depending on the speed of their server. Is it supposed to refute my statement that defeating Iraq is nothing to brag about?

Quark:

However, why is it that the U.S. must win a war on it's own? What exactly does that prove? You try to dimish the United State's contribution to WWII,

Which is ironic, since Americans tend to do the opposite. They diminish the contribution of every other ally to WW2.


please tell me, how successful were the allied forces before the U.S.

They were highly successful, especially when Russia attacked from the East, drawing away troops from the West.


was violently thrust into that war by the Japanese?

You mean that the Japanese imposed an oil embargo on America, whose economy relied on oil taken from Japanese oil wells? Could have fooled me...

Indeed, one could easily postulate that without the soviet union Germany could have easily kept the allied forces at bay.

But we can merely speculate on the matter. We will never know.

What if germany had the oil and the crack troops from the east front (that never had engaged the USSR in this scenario) to battle in the west?

Remember the battle of the bulge? Now multiply that ferocity that was unleashed by several factors fueled by oil wells in the balkan area and oil purchased from a still friendly USSR.

That would have been quite a fight you would have to deal with.

They were highly successful, especially when Russia attacked from the East, drawing away troops from the West.

And the Lend-Lease Act which sent $11 billion USD in aid to the Soviet Union had absolutely no postive affect on the Soviet Union armed forces, right? Keep in mind this is $11 billion USD in the 1940's, which thanks to inflation was worth a lot more than it would today. Without the Lend-Lease Act, how successful would the Soviet Union have been?

You mean that the Japanese imposed an oil embargo on America, whose economy relied on oil taken from Japanese oil wells? Could have fooled me...

Um, no, I mean that one attack in Hawaii, I think it goes by the name of Pearl Harbor which decimated the U.S. naval fleet. :rolleyes:

Indeed, one could easily postulate that without the soviet union Germany could have easily kept the allied forces at bay.

And we could also postulate that without the Lend-Lease Act + the U.S. fighting for the allied forces, the Germans would have won the war. We will never know. But again, why postulate such things? WWII brought many countries together to defeat a nazi regime and pretty much save democracy, isn't that a good thing? Or would you rather be yelling sieg heil all day with everyone who isn't Aryan being sent to a death camp?

Actually the good old USA had technological advantages, material addvantages, manufacturing advnatages and one of the greatest modern military thinkers of all time. When we entered WWII we were out producing the entire world lumped together. We had stabilized tank turrets. We had tanks that were tougher and tanks that were faster than the german panzers. We had bombers that flew higher that AA Flak could reach. We had vastly superior fighter pilots. We had every advantage. Truth be told the Russian and Britsh both know that without our aid that they would have been defeated.

how succesful would the soviet union have been?

Their progress would have been slower since most of their transport was dependent on rail and american trucks. Without american trucks the local transport would have been much slower. that is one thing I know about. Don't know where the rest of the money went. I would imagine quite a lot of it went in Stalin's deep pocket and other smaller pockets.

But the day i can't think or speculate anymore I must be in the US (sarcasm intended).

So I will speculate, and will keep wondering what kind of opposition the americans would have met when Germany and the USSR never had broken their agreement.

Crack fucking german troops. Their best armour divisions in the west. Plenty of oil.

It would have been an epic battle. And although the allied forces had the best logistics (which could easily be speculated - if I may - that this won them the war) it is questionable if the allied forces could have 'opened' the beachhead with firmer opposition? Because for the invasion to succeed the allied forces needed space to deploy their enormous supply of troops and equipment.

Of course, maybe such an invasion in france would never even been tried in this case and maybe a long and hard battle had to be fought from the south.

Actually the good old USA had technological advantages, material addvantages, manufacturing advnatages and one of the greatest modern military thinkers of all time. When we entered WWII we were out producing the entire world lumped together. We had stabilized tank turrets. We had tanks that were tougher and tanks that were faster than the german panzers.

Really?

Best tank was the Russian T34 (IMHO)

or maybe the german tiger/king tiger for monstrosity's sake, or G panther for its allround capabilities. Or maybe the Russian JS-II.

The american M26 pershing was a very late entry into the war. I assume you are talking about that one.

the americans only claim they won ww2 because they nuked hiroshima and nagosaki. what they dont tell you is that the soviets had already taken outlying islands on japans northwestern front, and were a mere few days away from a full invasion into mainland japan. japan had been ready to surrender since they lost on the soviet front, and without soviet troops waiting to invade, americas nukes would have done nothing at all to stop japanese resistance on the mainland.

Quarkmoon:


And the Lend-Lease Act which sent $11 billion USD in aid to the Soviet Union had absolutely no postive affect on the Soviet Union armed forces, right? Keep in mind this is $11 billion USD in the 1940's, which thanks to inflation was worth a lot more than it would today. Without the Lend-Lease Act, how successful would the Soviet Union have been?

We can only speculate on how successful the Soviets would have been without the Lend-Lease Act. My bet is that they still would have drawn German troops away from the West and kept them occupied, due to
1. Superior Russian manpower.
2. Highly defensible position.

Quite simply, it is thanks to the sacrifices of the Soviets that an invasion from the West was feasible. The Allies may have lent the Soviets some weaponry, but the Russians were the ones who were dying on the Eastern Front...


, no, I mean that one attack in Hawaii, I think it goes by the name of Pearl Harbor which decimated the U.S. naval fleet.

Which was in response to an oil embargo that America imposed on Japan. Japan needed oil which America would sell it, otherwise its economy would collapse (which is rather bad during a war, when you need lots of oil...). So the obvious solution is to take those oil fields by force.

Japan didn't 'thrust' America into war, the Americans goaded the Japanese to attack by cutting off their oil supply.

We can only speculate on how successful the Soviets would have been without the Lend-Lease Act. My bet is that they still would have drawn German troops away from the West and kept them occupied, due to
1. Superior Russian manpower.
2. Highly defensible position.

Quite simply, it is thanks to the sacrifices of the Soviets that an invasion from the West was feasible. The Allies may have lent the Soviets some weaponry, but the Russians were the ones who were dying on the Eastern Front...

Quite simply, without the $11 billion the Soviet Union would have taken more casualties and possibly would have lost. Your anti-American views are clouding your judgment, you can't possibly downplay the amount of aid the Lend-Lease Act provided the Soviet Union (and it was all FDR could do without the Republicans impeaching him for bringing the U.S. into a "foreign war").

Japan didn't 'thrust' America into war, the Americans goaded the Japanese to attack by cutting off their oil supply.

Again, it was all FDR could do to help the allied forces. The Republicans (and sadly some Democrats) would not let him fully declare war on Japan or Germany, so he did the next best thing. But I wouldn't call that "goading". Did the Japanese honestly believe the U.S. would continue to sell them oil? The biggest mistake Japan ever made was to attack the U.S., if they wouldn't have attacked, WWII might have had a different outcome. You can make the claim that the Soviets played a huge role in the overall victory, but can you honestly say that without the U.S. the allied forces would have won? Keep in mind the allied forces barely won even with the United States' tens of millions of troops and hundreds of billions of dollars in weaponary (not to mention those two nukes).

americas nukes would have done nothing at all to stop japanese resistance on the mainland.

So you're saying the Japanese would have been stupid enough to continue the war after the U.S. just dropped two atom bombs in their faces? I would give the Japanese a little more credit than that, I think they would have backed off just a little bit. ;)

7 megs will take 30 minutes to an hour, depending on the speed of their server. Is it supposed to refute my statement that defeating Iraq is nothing to brag about?

Half an hour! wow. Like I said it is about 9/11, which has nothing to do with Iraq.

Quarkmoon:

Quite simply, without the $11 billion the Soviet Union would have taken more casualties

Correct.


and possibly would have lost.

'Possibly'. They still would have drawn the finest German troops away from the West for a while, allowing the Allies to stage an invasion.


Your anti-American views are clouding your judgment,

Ad hominem attack. Who ever said that I had anti-American views?


you can't possibly downplay the amount of aid the Lend-Lease Act provided the Soviet Union (and it was all FDR could do without the Republicans impeaching him for bringing the U.S. into a "foreign war").

Who's 'downplaying' it? It seems to me that your anti-Soviet views are clouding your judgement...


Again, it was all FDR could do to help the allied forces. The Republicans (and sadly some Democrats) would not let him fully declare war on Japan or Germany, so he did the next best thing. But I wouldn't call that "goading".

Actually, I would call it goading, and you just unwittingly admitted that FDR wanted to declare war on Germany. This is the same man who promised that public that America would only join the war if America itself was attacked. I'll let you piece two and two together. ;)


Did the Japanese honestly believe the U.S. would continue to sell them oil?

What they believed or didn't believe is irrelevant. The Japanese needed the oil, and the U.S wouldn't sell it to them.


The biggest mistake Japan ever made was to attack the U.S.

No, it was the only legit choice they had. The biggest mistake that Japan ever made was that they didn't raid the north eastern coast of the U.S.A.


, if they wouldn't have attacked, WWII might have had a different outcome.

Yes. Japan's war machine and economy would have collapsed in less than a year. Oil was essential back then as it is today. Especially since Japan was occupying China.


You can make the claim that the Soviets played a huge role in the overall victory, but can you honestly say that without the U.S. the allied forces would have won?

Perhaps. But merely because the U.S finally tipped the scales does not mean they should be given the majority of the credit for winning the war. Can you understand this logic? Just because a basketball player makes the tie-breaking, game-winning shot, does not mean that he should receive all of the credit for the won game...


Keep in mind the allied forces barely won even with the United States' tens of millions of troops and hundreds of billions of dollars in weaponary (not to mention those two nukes).

Yes, the U.S of A tipped the scales. But who did the majority of the fighting? Who ensured that there was a war to fight in the first place?

the veatamese war was only lost because the politisions were fighting it at home in politics instead of letting the generals do their job

'Possibly'. They still would have drawn the finest German troops away from the West for a while, allowing the Allies to stage an invasion.

A diversion only works if it is properly backed. Without Lend-Lease, the Soviets would have taken casualties so fast the Germans could have gotten back.

Ad hominem attack. Who ever said that I had anti-American views?

Your other posts and your attempt to downplay the United States' efforts and affect on the war.

Who's 'downplaying' it? It seems to me that your anti-Soviet views are clouding your judgement...

You are downplaying it. Read your own posts, the U.S. only tipped the scales? Yeah, that's all they did.

Actually, I would call it goading, and you just unwittingly admitted that FDR wanted to declare war on Germany. This is the same man who promised that public that America would only join the war if America itself was attacked. I'll let you piece two and two together. ;)

Ah, I see. You have just revealed yourself as an anti-American conspiracy nut. Those people who say FDR urged an attack and let it happen. I'm not going to get in an argument about that because it's futile to argue with a nut. I will say this, it was known that FDR did not want to block oil, but instead block steel. FDR had no intention of discontinuing oil transactions.

No, it was the only legit choice they had. The biggest mistake that Japan ever made was that they didn't raid the north eastern coast of the U.S.A.

No, they got cocky. The U.S. was intent on not joining the war, it made us look weak. Japan got cocky and struck, a strike that led to their downfall. "The intent of the attack on Pearl Harbor was to neutralize American naval power in the Pacific, if only temporarily, as part of a theater-wide, near-simultaneous coordinated attack against several different countries." And invading the East Coast? Please tell me how such an attack would have been possible, considering their plan was for a sneak attack. And even if they just planned a full on invasion, how does Japan attack us from the East without us knowing about it well in advance and putting up our defenses? Your common sense is now being clouded, not just your judgment.

Yes. Japan's war machine and economy would have collapsed in less than a year. Oil was essential back then as it is today. Especially since Japan was occupying China.

No it wouldn't have, they had control of oil fields in the East Indies. The intent of the attack was to buy some time for a bigger assault. They got cocky, plain and simple.

Perhaps. But merely because the U.S finally tipped the scales does not mean they should be given the majority of the credit for winning the war. Can you understand this logic? Just because a basketball player makes the tie-breaking, game-winning shot, does not mean that he should receive all of the credit for the won game... Yes, the U.S of A tipped the scales. But who did the majority of the fighting? Who ensured that there was a war to fight in the first place?

The U.S. merely tipped the scales? This revisionist history is disgusting. Read a history book, from any country, and it will tell you the U.S. didn't simply just tip the scales. Unless you call dropping an elephant on a scale that was weighing a couple of rats just "tipping the scale". :rolleyes:

Crack fucking german troops. Their best armour divisions in the west. Plenty of oil.

It would have been an epic battle. And although the allied forces had the best logistics (which could easily be speculated - if I may - that this won them the war) it is questionable if the allied forces could have 'opened' the beachhead with firmer opposition? Because for the invasion to succeed the allied forces needed space to deploy their enormous supply of troops and equipment.

I almost want to ask if you are smoking crack. We chose Omaha beach becuase it was the toughest place in the seawall. We wanted to show them they had no chance.

quarkmoon;

how long did the pointless(because of the soviet scorched earth policy) german attack go on without any major battles before it was finally sent back to berlin at stalingard? there was plenty of time for a british attack if they had sent more troops to egypt/southern front, rather than trying to push their way back through france on the western front.

I almost want to ask if you are smoking crack. We chose Omaha beach becuase it was the toughest place in the seawall. We wanted to show them they had no chance.

Hmmm...The landing itself was the easiest part of the invasion (the casualty figures of the first days aren't really that high if you compare it with a day at stalingrad. It was mostly the first waves that got the shit kicked out of them).
A study of the probable casualty total estimates the ‘butcher’s bill’ for the invasion was more than 9,000, of whom 3,000 were killed. Estimates of German casualties on D-Day vary between 4,000 to 9,000
9000 casualties during D-Day, the butcher's bill.

Most casualties occurred amongst the airborn troops and at omeha beach. Another beach landing just resulted in about 200 casualties with over 20.000 troops landed on the beach. You think the real battle was on D-Day?

And is 9000 in total really a lot?
Stalingrad:
During one Soviet counter-attack to recapture Mamayev Kurgan, the Soviets lost an entire division of 10,000 men in one day.
One attack...10.000 men blown to smithereens.




Deployment of enough forces to mount a proper offensive requires space.

If you read some analyses of D-day and the subsequent weeks of invasion you will see that the analysts that Hitler dug his own grave by insisting on static defenses (initial tough, but once broken through useless) and paralyzing the chain of command with the divisions present at the scene by insisting they couldn't act without authorization of hitler himself.

The real battle would have been in normandy. If the allied forces didn't have the space to deploy their armour and other troops and the space to move them around you are basically depended on the actions of the enemy.

Now imagine the allied forces have a beach head. They have all this equipment and troops. They can pile them up on the beach and a bit inland, but there is no room to deploy the reserves.

Germany attacks with their best tank armies (who were wasted in real life at the ostfront). Germany still has some air support left (which was also wasted at the ostfront, not just at the battle of England). Historians do have speculated on the matter you know.

So I don't think I am on crack.
------------------------------------------

Would the soviet union have won without the allied invasion in the west?

Sure. They were already winning. The war at the ostfront was already won in Stalingrad. After that is was just mopping up (at great cost of life). That was in 1942-43 (january 1943). D-day was in june 1944.

Would the soviet union been capable of beating the germans without US support.
I think so, just add a few more million victims at the soviet side. That wouldn't really have mattered to the Soviet leadership.

as unparalleled for its high intensity, ferocity, and brutality. The fighting involved millions of German and Soviet troops along a broad front. It was by far the deadliest single front in World War II, with over 4 million deaths on the Axis Forces, Soviet battle deaths were about 7 to 8 million, and civilian deaths were about 14 million.

However, why is it that the U.S. must win a war on it's own? What exactly does that prove?
Well, I believe this thread was posted as a counter-point to a previous thread entitled “What Wars has France Won?”, an example of the utterly ridiculous and un-warranted notion that the French are poor fighters. If someone is going to claim that the French haven’t “won” any wars then exactly the same poor logic can be applied to the arrogant US of A.

America's greatest achievment is not her awesome ability to make war but rather her great compassion in making the peace. That is why inspite of many mistakes she remains the shining city on the hill.

America's greatest achievment is not her awesome ability to make war but rather her great compassion in making the peace.
Did you leave out an emoticon? Please don’t tell me you are being serious! USA making peace?!?!?!?!


1953
US overthrows Prime Minister Mossadeq of Iran. US installs Shah as dictator.

1954
US overthrows democratically elected President Arbenz of Guatemala. 200,000 civilians killed.

1963
US backs assassination of South Vietnamese President Diem.

1963-1975
American military kills 4 million people in South East Asia.

Spetember 11, 1973
US stages coup in Chile. Democratically elected President Salvador Allende assassinated. Dictator Augusto Pinochet installed. 5,000 Chileans murdered.

1977
US backs military rulers in El Salvador. 70,000 Salvadorans and four American nuns killed.

1980’s
US trains Osama bin Laden and fellow terrorists to kill Soviets. CIA gives them $3 billion.

1981
Regan administration trains and funds “Contra” rebels. 30,000 Nicaraguans die.

1982
US provides billions in aid to Saddam Hussein for weapons to kill Iranians.

1983
White House secretly gives Iran weapons to kill Iraqis.

1989
CIA agent Manuel Noriega (also serving as President of Panama) disobeys orders from Washington. US invades Panama and removes Noriega. 3,000 Panamanian civilian casualties.

1990
Iraq invades Kuwait with weapons from US.

1991
US enters Iraq. Bush reinstates dictator of Kuwait.

1998
Clinton bombs “weapons factory” in Sudan. Factory turns out to be making aspirin.

1991-present
American planes bomb Iraq on a weekly basis. UN estimates 500,000 Iraqi children die from bombing and sanctions.

2000-2001
US gives Taliban-ruled Afghanistan $245 million in “aid”.

I did not suggest that the US has a perfect record only that the peace treaties proposed by the US have been marked by their forgiving nature.

what the hell? americas 'peace' deals have led to nothing more than another war for them to profit from.

what the hell? americas 'peace' deals have led to nothing more than another war for them to profit from.

Yup. You can even look at the examples Hercules gave and they go back and forth between the same countries.

I did not suggest that the US has a perfect record only that the peace treaties proposed by the US have been marked by their forgiving nature.

What peace treaties? Those examples listed above are way greater than the amount of wars we've officially been involved in. That's not even being good 50% of the time, heh. The scandals and covert things we've done far outnumber any peace deals we've done in the past.

- N

For all of her flaws I can not think of a major country with a better track record at giving fair terms to the losing side in a war than the US.
That the politicans have meddled where they should not can be said of all the major players. No country has a perfect record in it's dealings with other countries. Does the US do better when it stays out of the internal affairs of others? I think it does but when there is no US aid in times of need someone is screaming how selfish the US is. People are not perfect. Why would you expect nations to be perfect? Countries are driven by the same motives as individuals. Sometimes what is seen as good for the national interest is every bit as selfish as what is seen as being good for one individual at the expense of another.

And it is not that hercules mentioned all 'war crimes' (lack of a better word) commited in more recent history by the US. It's the short list.

that is unless you want to scrape the bottom of the barrel
What about the Mexican-American War, 1846-48? At that time, Mexico was certainly not at the "bottom of the barrel". It was a strong country with a well-trained and well-equipped army. The US Army beat them in the span of two years, losing only one major battle.

I suspect that if you started compiling lists of for lack of a better term "crimes againist humanity" of all nations the US would not have the longest list.

As super powers go the US is not so bad as others have been.

I suspect that if you started compiling lists of for lack of a better term "crimes againist humanity" of all nations the US would not have the longest list.

As super powers go the US is not so bad as others have been.

wikipedia
A superpower is a state with the ability to influence events and project power on a worldwide scale. It was a term applied to the Soviet Union and the United States during the Cold War. There is a view that any retrospective application of the term to an earlier Great Power or Global Empire is anachronistic.

As for a current superpower, the USA surely is not as bad as the others have been.

There was only one other has been superpower, the Soviet Union.

You were better than the soviet Union.

Bring out the flags and fireworks.

Because that must have been a difficult feat.

EDIT:

I don't find the anything on the list excusable.

The problem is not excusability but repetition. Unfortunately the US keeps shooting itself in the foot with stupid acts liking the recent attack in Pakistan. Hopefully we get over this strike back mentality before too many more people are killed. The US is capable of much better leadership to enhance individual liberty.

You are just being sarcastic aren't you?

You had me going for a while.

Quarkmoon:

A diversion only works if it is properly backed. Without Lend-Lease, the Soviets would have taken casualties so fast the Germans could have gotten back.

The Soviets were taking casualties fast... it didn't matter. Their advantage was in sheer numbers. They could have easily kept the Germans occupied while the Allies stage an invasion.


Your other posts and your attempt to downplay the United States' efforts and affect on the war.

I'm not attempting to 'downplay' anything. And once again, it's an ad-hom to attempt to refute an argument by attacking the person himself.


I'm not going to get in an argument about that because it's futile to argue with a nut.

Ad hom.


I will say this, it was known that FDR did not want to block oil, but instead block steel. FDR had no intention of discontinuing oil transactions.

Which is why an oil embargo was placed on Japan... which is why when FDR July 25, 1941, ordered the freezing all Japanese assets on July 25th 1941, Japan lost its oil imports. I guess that was just a bonus side effect.

Which is why you yourself claimed that FDR imposed the oil embargo on Japan to help the allies. Remember this?


Mountain Hare: Japan didn't 'thrust' America into war, the Americans goaded the Japanese to attack by cutting off their oil supply. ”

Quarkmoon: Again, it was all FDR could do to help the allied forces. The Republicans (and sadly some Democrats) would not let him fully declare war on Japan or Germany

I have you on record stating that...

1. FDR cut off Japan's oil supply to help the Allies.

2. FDR wanted to declare war on the Axis, but the Republicans and some democrats wouldn't let him.


No, they got cocky. The U.S. was intent on not joining the war,

Yes it was. As you yourself admitted, FDR wanted to, but the Republicans and some Democrats prevented him from doing so.


it made us look weak.

Nonsense. What ever happened to you bragging about sending the Allies millions of troops, top notch equipment, and billions of dollars?


Japan got cocky

Japan got desperate after you cut off its lifeline...


And invading the East Coast? Please tell me how such an attack would have been possible, considering their plan was for a sneak attack. And even if they just planned a full on invasion, how does Japan attack us from the East without us knowing about it well in advance and putting up our defenses? Your common sense is now being clouded, not just your judgment.

Whoops, me bad. I meant the northwestern coast. I get mixed up between east and west sometimes.

A quick strike against the northwestern coast of the U.S of A could have caused quite a bit of havoc. And then the Japs could have went back past Pearl Harbour. Trying to rebuild, eh? *POW*


No it wouldn't have, they had control of oil fields in the East Indies.

Wow, the East Indies! Quite simply, Japan received 80% of its oil from America. If America lost 80% of its oil imports today, what would happen to its economy? And if America was at war, how would this dramatic drop in their oil imports affect their war machine?


The U.S. merely tipped the scales?

That's right...


This revisionist history is disgusting.

Why? Do you think that the Americans won the war by themselves?


Read a history book, from any country, and it will tell you the U.S. didn't simply just tip the scales. Unless you call dropping an elephant on a scale that was weighing a couple of rats just "tipping the scale".

Now who's revising history?

Quarkmoon:

The Soviets were taking casualties fast... it didn't matter. Their advantage was in sheer numbers. They could have easily kept the Germans occupied while the Allies stage an invasion.

Again, you continue to downplay the affect of the aid. It gave the Soviets a fighting chance, sheer numbers can only buy so much time. The equipment lent by the U.S. and the money used to manufacture more Soviet arms helped them succeed.

I'm not attempting to 'downplay' anything. And once again, it's an ad-hom to attempt to refute an argument by attacking the person himself.

Ad hom.

Who's refuting anything with personal attacks? I'm responding to your "points" the same as you. The "personal attacks" are just obvious observations I've made about you.

Which is why an oil embargo was placed on Japan... which is why when FDR July 25, 1941, ordered the freezing all Japanese assets on July 25th 1941, Japan lost its oil imports. I guess that was just a bonus side effect.

And that shows your lack of knowledge. FDR knew that an oil embargo might urge an attack (a sentiment I don't agree with), which is what he told his cabinet. Dean Acheson drew up the embargo that way, not FDR (look up Dean Acheson if you don't know who he is - although you should if you know anything about U.S. history).

Which is why you yourself claimed that FDR imposed the oil embargo on Japan to help the allies. Remember this?

It was my mistake. I was referring to the steel embargos, I wasn't thinking straight so I guess I deserve that.

I have you on record stating that...

1. FDR cut off Japan's oil supply to help the Allies.

I deserve that.

2. FDR wanted to declare war on the Axis, but the Republicans and some democrats wouldn't let him.

Very true.

Yes it was. As you yourself admitted, FDR wanted to, but the Republicans and some Democrats prevented him from doing so.

And FDR represents all of the U.S.? When I say the U.S. was intent on not joining the war, I'm referring to the people. But even the politicians were against it as well except FDR because (in my opinion) he was on a higher level of thinking.

Nonsense. What ever happened to you bragging about sending the Allies millions of troops, top notch equipment, and billions of dollars?

Don't twist my words. You know I mean before the U.S. declared war. The World was not aware of our overwhelming might until the people finally authorized FDR to declare war.

Japan got desperate after you cut off its lifeline...

Way to ignore my point only to repeat the argument point I was refuting. The attack was not solely for oil, they had plans of granduer.

Whoops, me bad. I meant the northwestern coast. I get mixed up between east and west sometimes.

Fair enough.

A quick strike against the northwestern coast of the U.S of A could have caused quite a bit of havoc. And then the Japs could have went back past Pearl Harbour. Trying to rebuild, eh? *POW*

Agreed. However, a flight across the entire Pacific to get to our West Coast would have surely been detected? Hawaii is pretty far away, and there wasn't many ways to detect an oncoming attack in the waters between Japan and Hawaii.

Wow, the East Indies! Quite simply, Japan received 80% of its oil from America. If America lost 80% of its oil imports today, what would happen to its economy? And if America was at war, how would this dramatic drop in their oil imports affect their war machine?

Yes, when you don't include the East Indies. The situation wasn't as desperate as you make it out to be. As I have already showed, they had much larger plans than just oil.

That's right...

Why? Do you think that the Americans won the war by themselves?

Now who's revising history?

When did I ever say that? The United States did not win WWII by themselves, and to state such a thing would be outrageous. However, I do contend that the U.S. played a huge role in the war. Just think if the U.S. decided to side with the Germans. :eek:

What about the Mexican-American War, 1846-48? At that time, Mexico was certainly not at the "bottom of the barrel". It was a strong country with a well-trained and well-equipped army. The US Army beat them in the span of two years, losing only one major battle.
Oh yeah a nation that had never fought a war before , and since its independence in 1823 was run like a banana republic heavily in debt and corruption . And its armies made up of disgruntled metizo's and Indians who were despised by the ruling whites .
Mexico (http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/mexico_history.asp)
In 1823, the republican leaders Santa Anna and Guadalupe Victoria drove out Iturbide and a republic was set up with Guadalupe Victoria as its first president. Politics were dominated by groups formed around individuals (mostly army officers), each seeking his personal ends. There was a frequent turnover of governments, and the national budget usually ran a deficit. Guerrero, with the support of Santa Anna, became president in 1829, but was ousted in 1830 by Anastasio Bustamante . In 1832, the ambitious Santa Anna, who had a great influence over Mexican politics until 1855, toppled Bustamante and became president. Santa Anna fell from power after being captured during the Texas revolution (1836), but he served again as president from 1841 to 1844. Waste, corruption, and inefficiency were widespread at the time, as inequities in the social order went unchallenged.
As I said if you want to scrape the bottom of the barrel .

Walnut what wars are going on inside your head, thats what i want to know, your at war with the americans the jews, what are you a anarchist, walnut.