h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>> When ~they~ attack ~us~ first, we're gung-ho. <<

~*~Exactly. They were a terrorist organisation with undefined borders and undefined identities. So why attack Iraq? If the 9/11 attackers had been from foreign power like Russia or Canada, I could understand it. But you cannot apply the same criteria to a terrorist organisations. You invariably miss the intended target and kill loads of innocents. Theres a time to be gung-ho and time to adopt the softly softly approach. ~*~

Weren't you listening a minute ago when I said I didn't like Iraq? Or are you simply explaining to everyone who happens to read this, and using my statement as an Object Lesson?

>> After invading Iraq the opportunity hasn't been presented however. <<
~*~You are not wrong there, that's for sure.
But the opportunity for a political solution was there before invading Iraq, but it was ignored.~*~

Which is why I didn't like Iraq.

It's a bad world, but somebody's got to paint it.

Some interesting reading for you fine folks... Where The Right Went Wrong, by Pat Buchanan. Right now I'm reading about the history of terrorism, from the days of Czar Alexander to the Irish Revolt to the current situation in the Middle East.

One of the interesting points that Buchanan's made is that the U.S. cannot afford to fight a war by itself. It killed the British Empire. After two wars, the British Empire had lost its holdings, and was relegated to that little patch of land in Europe.

Sounds like an interesting book, Lentilla, I thought he was a nut, maybe I've got the wrong guy - or maybe he's just not...

We ceased to be an 'Empire' in Britain after two wars because we couldn't afford the war bill from the US and the cost of other countries. I think we might still be paying it and sometimes wonder if we support the US today to get a discount on what must have been a humongous bill. whatever it cost us a lot and while the US is always quick to remind us that they saved us in both World wars by entering the arena a little late in the day (sometimes I wonder if it was Pearl Harbour that did it and the sinking of the Lusitania rather than a desire to be helpful) I think we've paid back in Iraq Twice and Afghanistan.

Pat Buchanan WAS a nut... back in the 80s. He made the ultra conservatives then look like moderates... He hasn't changed. The conservatives have leap frogged him making him look moderate!

Britain paid for the cost of WWI and WWII mostly by themselves. They took on too much, and paid dearly as a result. Most likely loans from the U.S. and other countries after the wars is what kept them down...

Count, that's exactly what happened. That's part of what this book is about. The more liberal Democrats jumped over to the Republican side.

Yeah, I thought Pat Buchanan was an evil man. But this book makes a lot of sense. Of course there's a lot of things I don't agree with in this book - he's an extreme conservative, and blames our current societal problems on liberalism. But as a conservative, he finds the neo-conservatives to be irresponsible, and fiscally liberal. He's for increasing tariffs on foreign imports, so that our companies in the U.S. have a chance to compete with lower wages in China and other countries.

Stuff I remember from the book:

• President Bush has created millions of new jobs - in China.
• Why do we need a Department of Homeland Defense when we already have a Department of Defense? Isn't that the job of the DOD?

~*~(Sometimes I wonder if it was Pearl Harbour that did it and the sinking of the Lusitania rather than a desire to be helpful.)~*~

Bull's Eye. I hate to admit it, but that's the Truth. Even though both Presidents were looking for an excuse, you can't go to War without Public Approval.

Well you could, technically, but I wouldn't count on it happening. And even if we did, then it would last long if the population didn't support it.

Correction: "wouldn't" instead of "would".

That's right... Hadn't WWII been going on for four years when the U.S. finally got involved?

I only mentioned this WWI and II bit because most of the letters to the Guardian, from *some* Americans, still seem to think that people from other countries should have no opinion about American politics. So I assume that there are quite a few people in the states whose answer to us tiny Islanders is that, 'We saved your asses' and we should be grateful and shut up. Well yes to a large extent we were helped by new troop enforcements and those loans (after the delay) I'd say that Hitler was most definately the agressor, but how long do we keep having to be reminded of US input? Look at the size of this country and then compare it to the states and yet we managed to hold this agressor off for four years, when we asked for help, it wasn't fourthcoming. The population, as you say Mr X, preferred to stay isolated - until they were attacked themselves. This has not been the case with England in response to 911 and yet we still get agression from *some* Americans when we plead with them to look at George Bush's policies and what he has done( and not done) in the last four years more clearly when voting. I even wonder if there would have been a 911 attack if a Bush had not been in the White House, since the 'sins of the father' are often visited on the son, although that can only be supposition.
So, it seems, quite a few Americans have the idea that the US was an all saving force that out of kindness rescued 'our asses' and dismiss the lateness of entry into the war, the actual reason for entry in to the war,the cost of the loans to rebuild (resulting in loss of empire) and expect us to see them as the planet's polie force sending troops to those places that appear to need change. Although I would suggest that this is only done if an end result benefited the states and wasn't/isn't truly altruistic and never has been.

Sadly Moth, quit true. Of all the belligerents in WWII, the USA was the only country to come out of it in a better state economically then it was when it went in which rather does dispel any altruistic motive.


BTW: Britain had only been at war for two years when America arrived, not the four you mention.

Donald

Donald
Sorry wasn't clear about timing, went with the previous post and didn't know which war they were refering to I or II

Nobody's perfect.

I doubt improving the economy had anything to do with WWII; it was merely a happy byproduct. In fact, the Country was only just getting out of the Depression and our economy was already getting better at the time, so WWII possibly had very little to do with it besides maybe speeding up the improvement.

It had a dramatic effect in that the US built up its industrial capacity whilst most of continental Europes was bombed out of existence and Britain bankrupted itself but I agree that the US didn't enter the war for economic reasons

One can try for perfection

World War I began in August 1914
On April 6, 1917, by a vote of 82 to 6 in the Senate and 373 to 50 in the House of Representatives, the United States of America declared war on Germany.

September 3 1939
After Hitler ignores their demand for German withdrawal from Poland, and as the British ship Athenia is sunk by German U-boats off the coast of Ireland, Great Britain and France formally declare war on Germany.

Dec 7, 1941 Japan attacks Pearl Harbor. Tokyo declares war on United States & Britain

Dec 8, 1941 U S Congress adopts declaration of war against Japan.

All true.

I think the fact that many Americans expect us to agree with whaterver they do out of gratitude for the World Wars is very hypocritical. In the first place, the two things have nothing to do with each other. Secondly, it is very uncourteous to help someone, and afterwards demand things because you helped. Lastly, If us Europeans would have given credit where credit is due concerning World War II, we would have been much closer to the USSR than the US would have liked.

Nice one Nbcdnzr; but in recent years I have visited both the US and Russia, and I have to reluctantly conclude I'd rather be more like America than Russia. But I must say I would prefer the UK to now move closer to the European Union than the United states.........after the re-election of Bush

So would I and I'm not particularly pro-European. Bush has probably done more to ensure a United Europe than any other politician in the last thirty years. We just have to get rid of one hindrance which hopefully will happen at the next General Election.

Harold Wilson had the right idea in the 1960s when America wanted Britain to to join them in Vietnam.

Donald

what hindrance do you mean at the next election?