I predict that they ultimately will. Why? Because they have a history of appeasement. After WWI many English people thougt that it would have been better to have appeased the Kaiser in 1914 instead of rushing to the aid of Belgium thus saving millions of lives. When Hitler came along the natural response was to appease. Let him have Austria, Chekoslovakia, who cares. Not another war. Thank God for Winston Churchill.
Is England, as well as the U.S. willing to fight this war the way it has to be fought? With grim ferocity and cold unconcern for legalistic niceties? (Who cares if a few Korans get flushed down the toilet. What else is it good for? Broken air conditioners at Gitmo? Dont get me started.)
Are we willing to lay waste great territories and their peoples, innocent and guilty alike, to level cities, to burn forests and divert rivers, to smite our enemies hip and thigh, to carry out summary execution of captured leaders? Of course not — how barbaric! Shall we fight this war Clinton style? They bomb an embassy and we bomb an aspirin factory? If we are not willing to respond ten-fold to their cowardly acts and make them realize that when they kill innocents in our country innocents will lose their lives in theirs then what's the point? If we here in the United States are not willing to fight a war like that then dont be surprised when our allies cut deals with the enemy like Spain did.
Will Great Britain cave and pull a "Spain"?
Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by Ps104_33, Jul 8, 2005.
Page 1 of 2
-
church mouse guy Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
I think in spite of all the talk about a stiff upper lip and how tough Londoners are that the English will cave. I think that you are right.
-
Blair won't cave!
-
Ps104_33
What is the US/British military supposed to lay to waste?
It's not like Al-Qaida has a standing army. -
-
-
Do as I say not as I do...is that it? -
Talk about appeasement. -
Roger,
You are correct there. And if the Constitutionalists, America First, isolationists of their day had been in charge, we would never have gone to war.
Joseph Botwinick -
Touche Joseph - point taken.
-
So the constitution is bad, Americans for America is bad and people that constantly interfere with other countries internal affairs by supporting "friendly revolutionarys and freedom fighters" setting up dictators, despots, and drug dealers loyal to "our" interests is good. Hmmm.
I'm sure glad that our government had the foresight and wherewithall to maniplute Japan into making the "first strike" with their 8 step plan. -
Interesting. So you don't believe that the Japanese had free will?
-
Talk about appeasement. </font>[/QUOTE]I don't remember any peace at any cost agreements we had with Nazi Germany. Although we may have had one I don't know about. That would have been appeasement.
The US helped and supported Britain in a number of ways, but Roosevelt was faced with a public that just did not think it was their fight.
At any rate, Roosevelt devised a strategy to coax the Japanese into attacking us and it worked.
The rest is history, as they say. -
"Interesting. So you don't believe that the Japanese had free will?"
Pearl Harbor was not about war with Japan -
It was about war with GERMANY
Most important was the promise FDR had made to the American people - solemnly given and repeated--not to send their sons into foreign war unless attacked (audio). He did not mind violating that pledge. He merely feared the political effect of the violation. Alsop and Kintner, White House columnist pets, had written a short time before that "He (Roosevelt) does not feel he can openly violate them (his pledges). But he can get around them the smart way." They explained this meant getting the Germans to shoot first. Then he could shoot back. But it was clear to him by November that the Germans were not going to shoot first. But FDR knew that he could force the Japanese to do so.
HITLER WOULD NOT DECLARE WAR IF U.S. UNBEATABLE
OBJECTIVE: War with Germany. How do you bait Hitler to declare war on you? You don't get it by looking unbeatable!
Direct provocation in Atlantic had failed - Hitler didn't bite.
FDR knew from magic that if Japan attacked, Germany would declare war.
Therefore: the problem was how to maneuver Japan into firing the first shot or make the first overt act.
Japan must succeed or Hitler would renege.
War with Japan was a given because they had to attack the Philippines. If Japan's fleet were destroyed, it would defeat the purpose. It would have been obvious suicide for Hitler to declare war if Japan were crippled - it would allow the US to attack him without even the possibility of a two-front war. That was what he had just been avoiding for months. The plan could only work if Japan's attack succeeded. The lure of a weakened US in a two-front war focused on Japan seemed to make a German war declaration cost-free. But it was all a trap - FDR was always going to ignore Japan and go after Hitler, for his ultimate goal was to save his beloved Soviet Communism.
LINK
LINK
LINK -
-
-
-
There are times that I am glad that I do not live with the same perception of reality that you do, poncho. -
"No, we don't and never have harbored or supported terrorists. We have worked with various leaders and governments over the years that have changed their tune with time. Sometimes we've made the best call we could at the time given the choices on the table. That hardly means we've ever supported terrorism. Americans, and America's government, have never supported the kind of terrorism we're fighting today. We've always deplored it. To think otherwise is another one of those liberal antiwar fallacies that circulates among those gullible enough to fall for it."
Semantics. If it looks like a rabid rat, walks like a rabid rat and bites like a rabid rat it is really a furry little kitten. :rolleyes:
"There are times that I am glad that I do not live with the same perception of reality that you do, poncho. "
Well you come purty close at one time partner so I know your plausible deniability ain't made of steel. ;) -
Page 1 of 2