Why didn't USA join right away with Britain to fight Hitler?WW II

[Gloer]

Americans should always remember that USA and americans did not want a war against Hitler and did not want to take part in the fight against Germany.

It was not an American issue and it never really became one until the Japanese diretly inflicted damage on US interest on the 7th of December 1941. Hitler declared war.

Situation has changed. Now Europe is reluctant to join an American war. Where is the European Pearl Harbour? I can't see it coming...

[Celebthôl]

because they were trying to be isolationist and leave the rest of the world to its own business and it was trying to mind its own business...

[Gandalf White]

Europe should remember that we saved their rear ends in WWII because they were too weak to do it themselves. :p

[Arvedui]

We have not forgotten. At least, not all of us...:rolleyes:
That, however, does not give you the right to expect every European to jump when you want us to.;)

[Samweis]

Originally posted by Gandalf White
Europe should remember that we saved their rear ends in WWII because they were too weak to do it themselves. :p

I think Europe remembers very well, that U.S.A. played a mayor role in WWII against the Third Reich.

But if you think that Europe has to share every decision of the US-administration because of the above mentioned historical fact, I couldn´t agree.

Critic has to be possible between friends! Of course from both sides

If the US-administration decides something unilateral and starts a diplomatic "tour" around the world not until an uproar in different countries, the US-administration shouldn´t be very astonished.

Of course our "fabulous" German Chancellor Schröder did the same, but from the total opposite side.

[Galdor]

Americans at that time were very isolationist, and so we were just trying to let Earope deal with it's self and keep ourselves out of it. I'm not sure if I think we should have joined up sooner in WWI, because really WWI was just some old disputes between nations that sparked a whole big war, and it really was just Earopes busness. But as to WWII I do think we should have joined up right away. But either way remember that even though we were lait we entered both wars and saved the allies rear end.:D

[Celebthôl]

well yeah there is no denying that, since about after WW1 America has been the undesputed powerhouse of the world, but they soon found out that it is impossible in a vastly hi-tech world to remain isolated!

[Gandalf White]

That, however, does not give you the right to expect every European to jump when you want us to.
I think Europe remembers very well, that U.S.A. played a mayor role in WWII against the Third Reich. But if you think that Europe has to share every decision of the US-administration because of the above mentioned historical fact, I couldn´t agree. If the US-administration decides something unilateral and starts a diplomatic "tour" around the world not until an uproar in different countries, the US-administration shouldn´t be very astonished. Please don't take me wrong, I was merely responding in kind to Gloer, and was not 'bashing' any European, (or other) nation. :(

[Lantalasse]

actually the us didn't really just march into europe and liberate it. that was true for france and the netherlands etc but other european countries were freed with the help of russia which of course back then was very powerful. the war was fought in two fronts not one.
and in any case that was nearly 60 years ago, to be expected to fulfill an ally's requests just because of previous help is ridiculous in my opinion. one does not jump into a war with a country that has been suffering from sanctions for the past 12 years just because a "friend" decided it's imperative.

and in any case my belief is that nations either unite, thus carving a common route(e.g. EU) or they are antagonistic. most of the time "nations" are never friends. the people are.

[Arvedui]

Originally posted by Gandalf White
Please don't take me wrong, I was merely responding in kind to Gloer, and was not 'bashing' any European, (or other) nation. :(
Don't worry, I saw your smiley, and the word 'you' in my response, was not personal, but more directed towards the US Government.:)

[Aragorn21]

Hey guys, we could discuss this in the WWII and the kicking of Nazi Germany if you want.

[faila]

are their not just as many european nations as those agaisnt us? Why does every one assume that france and germany and belgium are the opinions of all of europe? The fact is much of Europe is with us. It bothers me because it was a UN mandate if so then all of the UN should join together and attackto enforce the mandate if not the UN is pointless and the US should attack with out france and germany. And any way alot of Europe could be threatened as well. I personally think that if we had even the slightest thought that they were going to attack us that we should of attacked them first, but thats just me.

[Eledhwen]

Why should the USA have turned to fight a war across the other side of the world? Even Pearl Harbour wouldn't have brought that about (surely the troops were needed in the Pacific after that). They joined the European war partly because Hitler, in his misbegotten pride, had the audacity to declare war on the USA. Another reason they came was that we got down on our bended knees and signed away almost interminable leases to the USA for strategic islands of the Empire (now Commonwealth) to encourage them to come and help.

[Samweis]

Originally posted by faila
I personally think that if we had even the slightest thought that they were going to attack us that we should of attacked them first, but thats just me.

I can understand your opinion - especially after the 11th September 2001, but there is a danger in it.

It is a high resposibility to "decide", which foreign country might attack the own country in future - and no administration in the world can claim to be perfect in this question!

The charta of the UN says that a war is legal after an attack, only - and the USA is a founding member of the UN.

[faila]

Originally posted by Samweis
I can understand your opinion - especially after the 11th September 2001, but there is a danger in it.

It is a high resposibility to "decide", which foreign country might attack the own country in future - and no administration in the world can claim to be perfect in this question!

The charta of the UN says that a war is legal after an attack, only - and the USA is a founding member of the UN. Please dont get me started on the UN:)

It is a high responsibility, but I think I personally could handel it:). True, but right now people are pretty much saying we cnt attack, unless we have a suitcase nuke going off in ny, I disagree. I believe tat we now saddam is a threat to us, he hates us and could possibly attack us with soething like a suitcase nuke.

WE also think that he is related to the original bombing of the world trade center since it was an Iraqithat did that.

I think we have sufficient amount of evidence and should attack Iraq as soon as possible.

[Samweis]

Originally posted by faila
It is a high responsibility, but I think I personally could handel it:).

Oh, you belong to the Bush-administration?

True, but right now people are pretty much saying we cnt attack, unless we have a suitcase nuke going off in ny, I disagree. I believe tat we now saddam is a threat to us, he hates us and could possibly attack us with soething like a suitcase nuke.

Touche, Saddam is a threat for the West, but have we the right to kill innocent people in Iraq?

WE also think ....that he is related to the original bombing of the world trade center since it was an Iraqithat did that.

Who is WE? The US-administration? All 278.230.000 inhabitants of the USA? The CIA? A court?

Everybody is innocent so long until his guilt is proved - Saddam Hussein included - otherwise you step down on his level! Do you have a prove, that this Iraqi person has a connection to Saddam?

I think we have sufficient amount of evidence and should attack Iraq as soon as possible.

I agree, that war is a means to prevent danger, but it has to be the last means.

[faila]

Originally posted by Samweis
Oh, you belong to the Bush-administration?



Touche, Saddam is a threat for the West, but have we the right to kill innocent people in Iraq?



Who is WE? The US-administration? All 278.230.000 inhabitants of the USA? The CIA? A court?

Everybody is innocent so long until his guilt is proved - Saddam Hussein included - otherwise you step down on his level! Do you have a prove, that this Iraqi person has a connection to Saddam?



I agree, that war is a means to prevent danger, but it has to be the last means. no im much better than any one in the bush administration, Im humble too.
We should obviosly avoid killing innocents where ever possible.

We is the United States government and People

I know that last statement was speculation, but we have evidence of illegal activity, and killing many of his own people.

[Samweis]

Originally posted by faila
no im much better than any one in the bush administration, Im humble too.

Your are humble?

We should obviosly avoid killing innocents where ever possible.

I agree we should obviously avoid killing innocent where ever it is possible, but we are not allowed to approve this as inevitable.

We is the United States government and People

Sorry, you can´t claim to speak for the people and for the US-adminstration.

I know that last statement was speculation, but we have evidence of illegal activity, and killing many of his own people.

Yes, Hussein used nerve gas against his "own" people and he did or do illegal activities, but I think a war is acceptable as last mean, only.

There is by the way a problem for the US-administration the lack of plausibility. The regime of North-Korea is an autocracy, too - The adminstration admit that North Korea has nukes, but the US-adminstration differ between Iraq and North Korea!

[faila]

Originally posted by Samweis
Your are humble?

[b]

I agree we should obviously avoid killing innocent where ever it is possible, but we are not allowed to approve this as inevitable.

[b]

Sorry, you can´t claim to speak for the people and for the US-adminstration.

[b]

Yes, Hussein used nerve gas against his "own" people and he did or do illegal activities, but I think a war is acceptable as last mean, only.

There is by the way a problem for the US-administration the lack of plausibility. The regime of North-Korea is an autocracy, too - The adminstration admit that North Korea has nukes, but the US-adminstration differ between Iraq and North Korea!
True, but if we kill a few but save more, it sometimes happens in war.
THe Un bothers me for it should enforce its own mandate or get out. It has come to war.

Attacking nk would cause ww3 with China, thats why we dont attack them. Even though I think we should take out both, go ahead and get rid of all the communist in the world (cuba wouldnt last long with out the other two) their would no longer be any communist nation that mattered.

I was being saracastic about being humble.

[Parrot]

Originally posted by Samweis

There is by the way a problem for the US-administration the lack of plausibility. The regime of North-Korea is an autocracy, too - The adminstration admit that North Korea has nukes, but the US-adminstration differ between Iraq and North Korea! [/B]
We MUST treat them differently, they HAVE nukes, whether we like it or not. Wouldn't it be nice if someone had stepped in before they got the ability to hold this threat over the world? Say maybe the U.N. Security Council, for instance.

Ahh, crazy talk, no point in learning from past mistakes.

[Samweis]

True, but if we kill a few but save more, it sometimes happens in war.

You can´t count lifes against each other. Life is the highest good of men. So war is the ultimate.

THe Un bothers me for it should enforce its own mandate or get out. It has come to war.

Is the war irreversible now or has it irreversible since last year in your point of view?

Attacking nk would cause ww3 with China, thats why we dont attack them.

You are applying double standard! You are saying the USA is able to attack Iraq, because it is a poor opponent, not because Iraq is a dictatorship or has weapons, which Hussein might give to terrorists ("freedom-fighters"). North Korea could give weapons to terrorists ("freedom-fighters"), too!

Even though I think we should take out both, go ahead and get rid of all the communist in the world (cuba wouldnt last long with out the other two) their would no longer be any communist nation that mattered.

I agree that the communism doesn´t work, but a change is only able, when the population has the possibility to see that we are not their enemies. Of course we have to defend ourself.

I was being saracastic about being humble.

We persue the same target, but we have different ways.

[faila]

Originally posted by Samweis
You can´t count lifes against each other. Life is the highest good of men. So war is the ultimate.



Is the war irreversible now or has it irreversible since last year in your point of view?

[b]

You are applying double standard! You are saying the USA is able to attack Iraq, because it is a poor opponent, not because Iraq is a dictatorship or has weapons, which Hussein might give to terrorists ("freedom-fighters"). North Korea could give weapons to terrorists ("freedom-fighters"), too!

[b]

I agree that the communism doesn´t work, but a change is only able, when the population has the possibility to see that we are not their enemies. Of course we have to defend ourself.

[b]

We persue the same target, but we have different ways. but if you have to kill a few to save more i belive it is justified.
You missunderstand I personally think we should attack nk, i was explaining whywe arent
In china atleast theirs are millionsof people who disagree with their government, those who live in underground churches and such, they would see us as their savior, that would like us, but alot of them will never see that because of the indoctrination that goes along with communism.

[Samweis]

Originally posted by faila
but if you have to kill a few to save more i belive it is justified.


If I agree with your opinion, I would decide which life is dispensable at last. NOBODY HAS THIS RIGHT


You missunderstand I personally think we should attack nk, i was explaining whywe arent

I didn´t missunderstand you. I tried to show you, that the US-policy toward Iraq is not conducted by the danger of the suitcase bombs or Saddam Hussein but that Iraq is a weak opponent.

Please don´t missinterpret my messages, I agree that Saddam Hussein is a dangerous dictator, but Kim Jong Il of North Korea, too. I want to show you, that the US-policy toward Iraq is problematic, because the reasons for this policy seems to be pushed forward.

In china atleast theirs are millionsof people who disagree with their government, those who live in underground churches and such, they would see us as their savior, that would like us, but alot of them will never see that because of the indoctrination that goes along with communism.

Savior is little exxaggerated! ;)

[Gandalf White]

If I agree with your opinion, I would decide which life is dispensable at last. NOBODY HAS THIS RIGHT By saying this you are directly implying that you would rather see a possible hundreds of thousands of Americans die, rather than a relatively small number of Iraquis. Incredible. :rolleyes:
didn´t missunderstand you. I tried to show you, that the US-policy toward Iraq is not conducted by the danger of the suitcase bombs or Saddam Hussein but that Iraq is a weak opponent. Please don´t missinterpret my messages, I agree that Saddam Hussein is a dangerous dictator, but Kim Jong Il of North Korea, too. I want to show you, that the US-policy toward Iraq is problematic, because the reasons for this policy seems to be pushed forward. Actually, we like to go one target at a time. We were already involved with Iraq when NK became a problem, just in case you had forgotten that.:rolleyes: After Iraq we will deal with NK, and hopefully the UN will get off their rear ends and do something this time!