The war in Afghanistan was a result of 9/11 and the resultant intervention to destroy terrorist training camps.

The war in Iraq was based on the perceived threat of WMD that Iraq was alleged to be developing. There is no evidence to suggest that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 as far as I know.

These wars took place as there was a perceived threat to national and international security. I don't have an issue with countries going to war to defend themselves if there is a genuine threat.

If people try and justify wars by saying it is action against evil then it leads them being open to criticism when they stand back and watch other evil acts take place.

As an aside, if the US went to war with Nazi Germany because Hitler was evil, how come they didn't enter the war until Hitler declared war on them shortly after Pearl Harbor?

Well, I'd say that we were in the war long before Pearl Harbor. Just ask the British troops who were using the materiel and weapons being brought across the Atlantic (at great risk) in the teeth of German U-Boats.

That Hitler was evil was one reason for the war, not the only reason.

The same can be said for Saddam Hussein, WMDs, and 9/11. Contributing factors leading to the war, not sole reasons.

So there were no WMDs? Really? Our bad. At least Saddam is gone and his murderous sons are gone. And the WMDs were definitely there at some point, to judge by looking at pictures of villages full of dead, gassed Kurds. Somehow he hid them or disposed of them, not being suicidal enough to use them against US troops or launch them against Israel.

Taking action against SOME evil doesn't mean you are able, or should be necessarily willing, to take action against ALL evil. You have to pick your battles, just like in your personal life. Resources are limited, even for the world's greatest military power.

I might walk by a bully picking on a man of similar height and weight to himself, but I probably would get involved if the victim were in a wheelchair, or was otherwise infirm. You can't fight all the battles, and just like everything else you have to weigh the risks and examine your priorities.

QuickSabre wrote:
Well, I'd say that we were in the war long before Pearl Harbor. Just ask the British troops who were using the materiel and weapons being brought across the Atlantic (at great risk) in the teeth of German U-Boats.
The UK only finished paying America back the war debt a couple of years ago.
Make no mistake, the UK was exploited commercially.

Then there was the forced introduction of Sterling Currency, but don't get me started on that one tonight.

You lost me there. The UK was exploited commercially by whom?

The national language in the UK is currently English, not German, because the USA decided to get involved in the war and prevent Hitler from enslaving our staunchest ally (then and now).

As far as 'war debts' are concerned, we in the USA truly appreciate the UK paying their bills, and would fervently hope that other nations would step up and also pay what they owe. That will never happen, of course, but the gesture would be nice to see.

Indeed I have relatives who would say the 'war debt' can never be repaid. Some of those relatives occupy graves in places like Normandy, and at Arlington, Virginia, and in Okinawa. Those blood debts will never be repaid.

QuickSabre wrote:
You lost me there. The UK was exploited commercially by whom?
By America.
Like I said, read up on the history of 'Sterling Currency'

The national language in the UK is currently English, not German, because the USA decided to get involved in the war and prevent Hitler from enslaving our staunchest ally (then and now).
Oh please!
That's an insult to the thousands of men in Europe who gave up their lives before America could see what they had to gain or lose!
How dare you!

As far as 'war debts' are concerned, we in the USA truly appreciate the UK paying their bills, and would fervently hope that other nations would step up and also pay what they owe. That will never happen, of course, but the gesture would be nice to see.

Indeed I have relatives who would say the 'war debt' can never be repaid. Some of those relatives occupy graves in places like Normandy, and at Arlington, Virginia, and in Okinawa. Those blood debts will never be repaid.
As someone who's visited the battlefields and cemeteries of both the first and second world wars and traced grandparents and relatives to their final resting places, don't you dare!

QuickSabre wrote:
You lost me there. The UK was exploited commercially by whom?

The national language in the UK is currently English, not German, because the USA decided to get involved in the war and prevent Hitler from enslaving our staunchest ally (then and now).

As far as 'war debts' are concerned, we in the USA truly appreciate the UK paying their bills, and would fervently hope that other nations would step up and also pay what they owe. That will never happen, of course, but the gesture would be nice to see.

Indeed I have relatives who would say the 'war debt' can never be repaid. Some of those relatives occupy graves in places like Normandy, and at Arlington, Virginia, and in Okinawa. Those blood debts will never be repaid.

Unbelievable! I find this whole line of thinking that Europe would be a German-speaking, goose-stepping , Volkswagon driving mass if it weren't for the Americans bizarre and slightly delusional. Contributions were made by ALL of the allies. Americans were latecomers, only AFTER they had been attacked and had already sat back a few years making major coin off of the war efforts on the continent.

Yes, many brave, idealistic, wonderful American men and women were killed and wounded all over Europe and the Pacific and their contribution made a difference. I would never say any different. But to have the audacity to tell those who countrymen also paid the ultimate price and whose cities were bombed and pillaged, and until very recently were still paying the financial obligations of defending not just their own soil but the countries of other is astounding!!!

I think anyone of the the allied nations could claim their contribution swung the balance of the war. There is no way of knowing but that is why an alliance existed. Together the aggressors were defeated and to sit back and try to take more glory is selfish, short-sighted and obviously based on sketchy knowledge of the reality of what a World War is.

In very simplistic terms, my view is that WWII was won due to Britain's geographical position and the fact that the Nazi war machine was mainly geared to land war, USSR's geographical size, America's money and industrial capacity and of course the sacrifice of millions of people from many countries whether they fought because they were invaded or because they stood against Hitler and his allies.

As CTD stated it was the fact that it was an alliance of a lot countries and everyone worked together, at the end, that won the war. Unlike the Axis, there was coordinated action and planning. Who knows what might have happened if one of the allies had decided to not fight. If Britain had negotiated peace with Nazi Germany or if they and France had turned a blind eye to the attack on Poland.

What if Hitler hadn't declared war on America after Pearl Harbor? A decision that I always found a bit strange, but may be explained by him thinking he could emulate Frederick the Great of Prussia. Would America have entered the war in Europe? What would have suddenly changed in American policy to come to the aid of their "staunchest ally"? We'll never know.

Things would probably would have been different if America was German speaking rather than (American)English as the natural affinity may have meant them taking a different side. Little decisions in history can have a large knock on effect many years later.

There is no way of measuring who sacrificed the most, was it the general populace of Stalingrad? Shanghai? London? industrial cities of Britain? the Jews sent to concentration camps? the resistance in invaded countries? soldiers from numerous countries involved in North Africa, Dunkirk, D-day, Italy, Midway, Okinawa? And that is only looking at the victors.

I'll pass on reading about Sterling Currency, no offense, but that sounds awfully boring. From the way things look, the UK will be using the Euro soon enough anyway. That will be a sad day, and I hope it doesn't happen, but events don't look promising.

Of COURSE all of the combatants in WWII contributed to the defeat of Nazi Germany, and Facist Italy, and Imperial Japan. Just as obviously, all of the Allies had more than one reason to be in the war. To say that one nation's justification for fighting is any better than another's is to ignore history.

Alternate histories abound, but from what I can see, Hitler may never have become so powerful had not the Allied leadership spent so much time trying to appease him.

Here's an interesting quote from Sir Winston Churchill: "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."

The French could have opposed Hitler's move into the Rhineland in 1936. They didn't. Emboldened, the crocodile came on.

The USA could have sat still, wringing our hands and begging for negotiations, after the 9/11 massacres. We didn't - we went after terrorists in Afghanistan and later, Iraq and other places, and continue to do so. There were many contributing factors for each action, but the main one was a reaction to the 9/11 attacks.

An alternate history may have had us sitting around, doing nothing, and suffering further attacks from an enemy with no reason to fear us. Or maybe Osama would have found Jesus and we'd all be smoking the peace pipe (wishful thinking).

QuickSabre wrote:
I'll pass on reading about Sterling Currency, no offense, but that sounds awfully boring. From the way things look, the UK will be using the Euro soon enough anyway. That will be a sad day, and I hope it doesn't happen, but events don't look promising.
Maybe if you read up on 'Sterling' Currency, you'd have a clue about European economics and the impact the US war debt had on them.


Alternate histories abound, but from what I can see, Hitler may never have become so powerful had not the Allied leadership spent so much time trying to appease him.

Here's an interesting quote from Sir Winston Churchill: "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."
Good find.
Let's take some random quotations and use them to validate our points?
Now let's take George Bush for example.
I bet I can quote him and make it look like he reccomends a particular brand of cream for a Chimpanzee'z nipple rash.

The French could have opposed Hitler's move into the Rhineland in 1936. They didn't. Emboldened, the crocodile came on.
OK, blame the French.
Good one. It's the cheese, onions, garlic and long bread stuffed down the stripy shirt, while cycling around gay Paris.
Makes em combat ineffective eh?
Stereotype much?
Let's have some data here.
Do you know the size of Germanys armed forces, compared to those of France?
Presuming you could even put a pin on a map and get within 5,000 miles of France; when you do, can you see, tactically, strategically, geographically how hard it would be to defend given the technologies of war in the 1940's?

The USA could have sat still, wringing our hands and begging for negotiations, after the 9/11 massacres.
Jumps to 9/11 ( rest of the world calls it 11/9 btw)


We didn't - we went after terrorists in Afghanistan and later, Iraq and other places, and continue to do so. There were many contributing factors for each action, but the main one was a reaction to the 9/11 attacks.
Ignoring the fact that, yet again, it was not just America, who exactly was caught?
Did Saddam Hussein fly any planes into the twin towers?
Osama (not to mention being funded and trained by the US in the first place) is in Guantanamo Bay having his human rights abused right now eh?

An alternate history may have had us sitting around, doing nothing, and suffering further attacks from an enemy with no reason to fear us. Or maybe Osama would have found Jesus and we'd all be smoking the peace pipe (wishful thinking).
You are "sitting around doing nothing".
You are pontificating meaningless crap, clearly based on media you haven't even barely read/watched.
The real weapon of mass destruction is Opium, but seeing as the American economy depends on its production (ok not just that, cos oil plays a major part too), the rest of the known world has to put up with the misery of its byproduct!

You've made no apology for your earlier insults re WW2 to everyone non US.

Go fly your stars n stripes and bless your American God that your ass is too dumb to be bitten by reality!

I'm not insulting America, just the people too dumb to represent it!

I just wanna say one thing about this Myth that we would all be speaking German if it wasn't for the Yanks.


Have you no idea about how crap the British are at learning languages?? I don't think we would have picked it up in 60 years when we are one of the lowest countries for language education...

Not sure why we went from 9/11 to this but fact still remains that any war is bad, any greed is bad and collectivley its not a good way to live and survive as a species. Doesn't matter who caused what, the fact it happened is bad enough for us all.

Your reply is SO typical of left-wing liberals everywhere - if anyone disagrees with you, hurl insults! That will fix them! Talk about juvenile!

Why do you assume I have never been anywhere but the USA? Reacting to a stereotype, are you? I've been to the UK, and to France, Germany, Italy and Spain. Also Japan, Korea, Australia and a few other points in between. Of course it's because I was born here in the USA, but I prefer to live in this country. Some of those places were nice to visit, but I prefer the USA. I do plan to visit the Middle East, and China; but haven't had the chance yet. But I'm sure when I do, I'll be glad to return to the greatest country on Earth, IMHO, the USA.

Anyway, I repeat, Sterling Currency, European economics and how difficult it was for the UK to repay their war debt is VERY boring to me. I understand it is not boring to you, but everyone has a different perspective on what's interesting, don't they? Go ahead and type in a treatise on the subject, or start a new thread on it, and MAYBE someone will read it (I doubt it, though).

Good find.
Let's take some random quotations and use them to validate our points?
Hey, I was just trying to relate. Sir Winston Churchill said a lot of things, and the statement about appeasement of aggressors is right on the money. Don't you agree? As a martial artist, would you seek to appease a bully? Try it sometime, and see what it gets you. Quite often, they just get bolder.

Makes em combat ineffective eh?
Stereotype much?
Let's have some data here.
Do you know the size of Germanys armed forces, compared to those of France?
It wasn't the size of the German army that was the problem for France - Germany's forces were numerically inferior to France's (and certainly to the Allies as a whole) in 1939-40. It was the Germans' technological and tactical prowess. Technology, strategy and tactics beats brute size and force every time. That's why we study martial arts, isn't it? So the biggest guys don't just get to have their way?

can you see, tactically, strategically, geographically how hard it would be to defend given the technologies of war in the 1940's?
Especially if you're fighting the last war, as France was attempting to do, by fortifying their border with the Maginot Line. That may have been "effective" in 1918, but certainly not by 1940. All the Germans had to do was drive around it, and it was all over.

Jumps to 9/11 ( rest of the world calls it 11/9 btw)
As far as calling it "9/11" is concerned; it happened here, so that's as good a reason as any, don't you think? If it happens in London, we'll be fair and call it 11/9, how about that?

And I wasn't "jumping" to 9/11, I was just trying to return to the topic of this thread. Something you should also try to do, or perhaps start other threads on exciting topics of interest (to you), like perhaps, Sterling Currency vs. the gold standard? Of course, an equally exciting topic might be, "Watching paint dry" vs. "Watching the grass grow." But to each his own.

Ignoring the fact that, yet again, it was not just America, who exactly was caught?
A murdering thug and his murderous sons. Bringing that regime down was a good thing, as well. Something you Brits had a hand in, and your help was greatly appreciated!

You are "sitting around doing nothing".
You are pontificating meaningless crap, clearly based on media you haven't even barely read/watched.
And I guess surfing this web site and participating in the forums is indeed "sitting around doing nothing," but it's fun nonetheless. Even when people like you get all emotional and start bravely throwing around insults that amount to nothing more than "Oh Yeah? Well, you're stupid!" Very amusing.

And the mainstream media here in America is controlled by the Left, the socialists as it were. So you can't believe anything you see on CNN. You may as well be watching Al Jazeera.

The real weapon of mass destruction is Opium, but seeing as the American economy depends on its production
Your opinion on opium and the American economy is, I'm sure, interesting to you. Not valid in any realistic sense, but you are entitled to your opinion, no matter how vapid.

You've made no apology for your earlier insults re WW2 to everyone non US.
I'm still not sure what 'insults' I should be apolgizing for - England would definitely be a German province, or more likely, a radioactive wasteland, had not the USA had some very good reasons (about which we may disagree) to intervene. There's no shame in that. No one nation could have defeated Germany, Italy, and Japan.

Without the UK, Russia, or Australia (among others) America also would have been destroyed.

So what? It didn't happen that way - who cares who contributed most to the victory? My whole point was to illustrate that the attempted appeasement that took place in the 1930's resulted in a bolder Germany (and her allies) - and that this attempt at appeasing a mass murderer ended up costing millions of lives in the war that followed. Can you not see parallels in today's world? Should we appease Kim Jong Il, or the nut job in Iran, Ahmadinejad? No way.

Go fly your stars n stripes and bless your American God
I DO fly the stars and stripes proudly, as all Americans should. Are you not proud of your country? I am certainly not ashamed of my patriotism - oh and I'd hazard a guess that my "American God" is the same as your "English God," if we're talking about Christianity, that is.

I'm not insulting America, just the people too dumb to represent it!
At least I don't stoop to throwing insults every time someone disagrees with me. Is that stereotypical of Brits? I didn't think so, but maybe you're the exception? For your country's sake, I hope so.

Have you no idea about how crap the British are at learning languages?? I don't think we would have picked it up in 60 years when we are one of the lowest countries for language education...
That's the spirit! Why SHOULD you have to learn other languages? Let them speak English! Secretly they really want to, anyway! And yes, I know I speak "American," not English - at best a bastardized form of the language! But who cares!

Not sure why we went from 9/11 to this but fact still remains that any war is bad, any greed is bad and collectivley its not a good way to live and survive as a species. Doesn't matter who caused what, the fact it happened is bad enough for us all.
I agree, staying on topic is a good thing in forums like this. But I disagree that 'any war is bad,' unless you mean for the losers of said war. War is a political tool, like any other (monetary policy, for example?). It has its uses.

To say ALL war is bad is like saying ALL self-defense is bad (work with me here, I'm trying to work the martial arts angle, in deference to the web site). Sometimes, maybe most times, war is unnecessary and even evil, but sometimes it's just necessary. And you may as well be good at it (war or self-defense, take your pick), since it can be so useful at times.