War which's happened during the last 150 years

[russ_watters]

Forget about the situation when a country has to fend because of their independance.
I mean you think about wars which US started in thiis century like what he did in Iraq or Vietnam or wars like that.

The US didn't start the war in Vietnam, we took it over from the French.

Regarding WWII, the US didn't really have to enter - we could have let Germany conquer Europe. That we didn't is "good".

 

[Smurf]

That's an arguable statement Russ.

 

[Pengwuino]

That's an arguable statement Russ.

So are you going to argue or what

*gets popcorn*

Now which first, it was bad that the US helped the allies or that the French were never actually in Vietnam?

 

[Smurf]

Actually I was kind of aiming at the assumption that Germany would've won if the US hadn't 'helped'.

 

[Pengwuino]

Actually I was kind of aiming at the assumption that Germany would've won if the US hadn't 'helped'.

Oh well go for it, argue away

 

[Smurf]

Now, I'm not judging, but I, as a preference, don't usually argue with myself. I just don't find it as exciting, see?

 

[The Smoking Man]

Nothing is worth war but ever since we exised there has been war..so?

Well, keep it up and the original premise is solved. :tongue:

 

[Smurf]

Now, I'm not judging, but I, as a preference, don't usually argue with myself. I just don't find it as exciting, see?

On that note, if YOU want to argue with me Pengy, all you have to do is ask (erm, and make a thread... and tell me about it.. you know.. pleasantries really)


(yes I know you're reading this, yes I know I just quoted myself, no I don't care.)

 

[Daminc]

Oversimplification, as someone else said: Some of the most important firearm innovations were achieved in peacetime.

I did oversimplify it on the grounds that nothing is black and white and to get all the facts would probably require a lifetime of research

Firearms were created for war. Any 'peacetime' innovations to firearms were created in anticipation of war.

Rocket technology was advanced because of war.
The Internet WAS developed for stategic nuclear defence to prevent lines of communication being severed in a single strike.
Nuclear power was developed from the A-bomb.
Microchips were developed primarily for military use before they were used by the civilian population.
Advances in avionics were motivated by the need to have air superiority.
Advances in metallurgy...military oriented
Satellites...military oriented

and many, many more

 

[russ_watters]

Actually I was kind of aiming at the assumption that Germany would've won if the US hadn't 'helped'.

Well, whatever, the main point I was making was that the US didn't have to enter the war if we chose not to.

 

[Daminc]

Regarding WWII, the US didn't really have to enter - we could have let Germany conquer Europe. That we didn't is "good".

America only entered because they had to. Rooselvelt was a sly [email protected] who promised Churchill aid but only delived when he absolutely had to. If he had his own way he would have kept America out of it.
It had nothing to do with helping Britain win the war but was motivated by preventing America being next.

 

[Smurf]

I did oversimplify it on the grounds that nothing is black and white and to get all the facts would probably require a lifetime of research

Pfft, Wimp.

Firearms were created for war. Any 'peacetime' innovations to firearms were created in anticipation of war.

Yeah, I'll give you that one.

Rocket technology was advanced because of war.
...snip...
Satellites...military oriented

and many, many more

You're doing it again!

 

[Smurf]

America only entered because they had to. Rooselvelt was a sly [email protected] who promised Churchill aid but only delived when he absolutely had to. If he had his own way he would have kept America out of it.
It had nothing to do with helping Britain win the war but was motivated by preventing America being next.

That's untrue in so many ways. But I won't get into it here, we should start another thread, if you want to.

 

[Daminc]

That's untrue in so many ways.

My comments were derived from a documentory (Warlords, I think it was called) that used diaries, interviews, memos from the British and American politicians at that time including Churchills', Roosenvelts' and their aides

 

[Daminc]

Pfft, Wimp.

Nope. Busy :)

You're doing it again!

Yep :)

 

[Smurf]

My comments were derived from a documentory (Warlords, I think it was called) that used diaries, interviews, memos from the British and American politicians at that time including Churchills', Roosenvelts' and their aides

and I would absolutely LOVE to explain to you in vivid detail why it is completely wrong. If you think you'd enjoy that as much as I would go ahead and create a thread.

 

[Daminc]

Ok. I'll try and keep up but I'm not an authority on history :)

 

[Lisa!]

It's really surprising! I thought some of people who write here, support some of wars and think it should happen but now I don't see any of them.

The US didn't start the war in Vietnam, we took it over from the French.

Thanks to correct my mistake. But anyway why did US have to take it over from them?

Regarding WWII, the US didn't really have to enter - we could have let Germany conquer Europe. That we didn't is "good".

US did the rght thing in this war except at the end of war! But you know I think this war had lots of advantages for US after it finished.

 

[Skyhunter]

Unless grade school history is beyond you, you should know that the Vietnamese war had been going on before the US sent troops into it...

And i put "may" because if i told the truth, the ideologs from the GD:PWA forum will all rise up and start their cycle of rhetoric against Bush

Holy crap 5 models in their bathing suits just walked onto my tv... excuse me gentlemen.

Well, since when I was in grade school the war was on my TV, not in a textbook, does that make it beyond me, before me, or concurrent with me...

You are resorting to semantics and general speculation. The US at some point decided to kill 3 million Vietnamese, whether we started the "conflict" or not.

Here is how it started.

http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0013226.html
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/tonkin-g.htm [Broken]

Note that Johnson was a democrat.
Did you know that he refused to run for a second term?
His own party was against him because of the Vietnam conflict.

Sigh.... to bad the republicans 40 years later couldn't reciprocate.

 

[outsider]

Well, since when I was in grade school the war was on my TV, not in a textbook, does that make it beyond me, before me, or concurrent with me...

You are resorting to semantics and general speculation. The US at some point decided to kill 3 million Vietnamese, whether we started the "conflict" or not.

Here is how it started.

http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0013226.html
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/tonkin-g.htm [Broken]

Note that Johnson was a democrat.
Did you know that he refused to run for a second term?
His own party was against him because of the Vietnam conflict.

Sigh.... to bad the republicans 40 years later couldn't reciprocate.

refusal to admit err?
or
part of a bigger vision?