posted
Very true. However, that side was not the side of France by a long shot. If anything, the US was solidly allied with one enemy of France (the UK, which after the Phony War withdrew first the RAF and then the Expeditionary Army, then bombarded the French Navy and its North African ports, invaded French Mideastern colonies and mandates, and generally did its damnedest to turn Petain into a Hitler ally) while gearing up for a war against another.
The history of the past century is quite a bit more complex than just "A against B between years X and Y". Trying to evoke analogies, symmetries and other such simplifications is likely to be met with a barrage of exceptions and counterexamples.
posted
Does anyone think that this is about OIL amongst other things. A lot of these terrorists are funded through the OIL industry. Why doesn't the US Government and Oil companies who have bought the technology start releasing this new tech? I mean it'd totally remove the power-base of these terrorist groups and their associated sympathetic countries.
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
posted
When I said "war", I was referring to actual full-fledged shooting wars. One could argue that we've been continuously at war w/ Iraq since '91, what w/ the no-fly zones, and such. In WW2, we may have been siding w/ the UK, and we may have helped escort their ships and such, but we weren't actively seeking German targets to strike at. And, regardless, even if we chose sides before being attacked ourselves, someone had been attacked. The war started because Germany invaded Poland. No-one invaded Germany because they thought Hitler might attack someone, which is basically what we're doing here.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
In the 1940's, a nation sent a declaration of war. This simple courtesy was badly handled by the Japanese on December 7, 1941. Due to inexperience with a typewriter and a shortage of qualified typewriters, the Japanese declaration of war was delivered, contrary to instructions from Tokyo, after the strike on Pearl Harbor. We can assume the American people were infuriated by an attack which was not preceded by a declaration of war.
I am confused as to the procedures followed by nations nowadays. I question if our leaders have a similiar confusion and are choosing a path which is the most clear to them.
Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: Charles Kennedy rules, frankly.
Where's frankly?
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
