[Jansar]

Born in Redwood City, CA then moved to Magnitogorsk, Russia (it's a very polluted city because of the metal plant) and spent some time there as a kid. I moved back to California in my early teens (San Mateo to be exact), and now I live in San Jose, CA in an apartment while I go attend school at Santa Clara University.

[y0y0]

Yeeehaaa! MacNStein has turned out to be quite the local board Nazi, hasn't he?

"Stop buying stuff from us, Stop selling us stuff"....

After I'd finished crying with laughter at this little bumpkin statement, I looked up who buys what, who owns what and who sells what, and dicovered that not only does the US import far more than it exports, but that the US treasury bonds are mostly owned by the Japanese and the Chinese. Try telling all those people in the US who import stuff, not to buy any of that anymore. See how far you'll get. Try stopping trade with Japan and China before they ask to cash in on their treasury bonds especially now that the US is so up to it's ears in fiscal debt that it would have to declare bankruptcy and default on payments.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by y0y0:
Yeeehaaa! MacNStein has turned out to be quite the local board Nazi, hasn't he?

"Stop buying stuff from us, Stop selling us stuff"....

After I'd finished crying with laughter at this little bumpkin statement, I looked up who buys what, who owns what and who sells what, and dicovered that not only does the US import far more than it exports, but that the US treasury bonds are mostly owned by the Japanese and the Chinese. Try telling all those people in the US who import stuff, not to buy any of that anymore. See how far you'll get. Try stopping trade with Japan and China before they ask to cash in on their treasury bonds especially now that the US is so up to it's ears in fiscal debt that it would have to declare bankruptcy and default on payments.

Mind if we keep your personal attack on me restricted to only one thread? Sheesh. all that wailing and teeth-gnashing is going to give you indigestion. Careful that you don't bite your tongue off, yankee.

[y0y0]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Mind if we keep your personal attack on me restricted to only one thread? Sheesh. all that wailing and teeth-gnashing is going to give you indigestion. Careful that you don't bite your tongue off, yankee.

Mmmm, you seem to have a really strong impression that I'm upset with your witty, clueful remarks. I don't want to burst your bubble, but the full feeling in my stomach is more likely to be from the Tandoori I had tonight than from the sweaty, stale air that you generate.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by y0y0:
Mmmm, you seem to have a really strong impression that I'm upset with your witty, clueful remarks. I don't want to burst your bubble, but the full feeling in my stomach is more likely to be from the Tandoori I had tonight than from the sweaty, stale air that you generate.

Right, ok, sure. Try a tub of hot water w/ epsom salts, then soak that head for a while.

[cpt kangarooski]

DBursey--

I am currently typing away in Watch City, a historic old mill town currently home to many many office parks. Where am I?

Would that possibly be Framingham, MA?

No. He's in Waltham, MA, where the famous Waltham Watch Company was for many many years.

I lived there for several years, and would not mind going back (although I'd prefer Brookline the most). Prior to that, I lived in Miami, FL and then Tallahassee, FL. After leaving Waltham, I moved to Brighton, MA for a year, then to Bellevue, WA for two years, Collingswood, NJ for three years, and now I'm in Concord, NH until summer, when I hope to move down to the Boston area permanently.

[andi*pandi]

Originally posted by DBursey:
Would that possibly be Framingham, MA?

nope, Captain K had it right! and thus we reveal another dreaded yankee. Hi Captain! Good luck with the move back south!

I commute daily to Canada's largest city from my adopted hometown in southern Ontario's moraine region named for a luminous phenomenon occuring in the upper atmosphere of magnetic polar regions.

I hail originally from that most fair region of Canada's far east. How ya gettin on, b'y? [/B]

DBursey, I would guess that you are living in Aurora, Ontario? Working in Toronto? And I'm not terribly familiar with Canadian accents, but maybe you're a Newfie?

[Shaddim]

Damned Yankees�.

[ringo]

Currently Jersey City NJ, but I've lived in New York and South Carolina for significant stretches of time too.

[spiky_dog]

currently in seattle, washington, via denver, nyc, cooperstown (ny), nyc again, mercer island (wa), tacoma (wa), boston

[cpt kangarooski]

andi*pandi--

nope, Captain K had it right! and thus we reveal another dreaded yankee.

Actually, I have very short hair, and of course I'm originally from the South. I just like it up here better.

So where in Waltham, roughly? Me, I was down on South Street near Deaconess.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
ah, indeed. The Arean nation.

Whoaaa! NICE ASSIST, SPLIFFDADDY!

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I HAD IN MIND.

It's good to know!

Way to go, Spliff!

I NEVER would have picked that up.

[CD Hanks]

Los Angeles, CA.

Best way of describing California to those who have never been: California is to the United States as the United States is to the rest of the world.

[aberdeenwriter]

Cleveland, Ohio - Ft. Jackson, SC - Ft. Monmouth, NJ - Ft. Carson/Colo Spgs/Manitou Spgs/Lowry AFB/Denver, CO - Los Angeles/Hollywood, CA - San Francisco/Daly City/Oakland/Concord, CA - MCRD/San Diego, CA - South Pasadena, CA - Washington, DC - Williams/Flagstaff, AZ - Manchester, NH - Aberdeen, WA.

[Xeo]

<---- I've never been shy about where I'm from.

[Krusty]

Mountains of Western North Carolina (Asheville/Hendersonville area) ... over the hills from MacNStein and Spliffdaddy it seems. Maternal family were among the first (white people) to settle the area. A bridge over Green River gorge and a State Park straddling NC/SC are named after a couple of great. great grand-somethings.
Raleigh/Durham NC .. 4 years for college
Cairo, Egypt -- 6 months during college .. during and after the 1st Gulf War
Cambridge (Boston) MA for just a few months (but I actually had a job .. so I guess I "lived" there) with my high school/college sweetheart who was going to MIT.
.. and now Charleston, SC for the last 8+ years. Most of it on the beach ... now living in the heart of downtown. I hold the view that most NC'ers (and most of the country I suppose) holds about SC (it sucks). Charleston, however, is a rare gem of a city ... I'll save my praises for another thread but I actually chose to live here FIRST and found a job here SECOND.

Though I love this town ... I'll have to agree (for the first, and perhaps last time) with MacNStein and SpfliffD . There is something about the Eastern TN/Western NC areas that is just "right" somehow (I have my theories ... but for another time). Doubtless, I will end up back there one day.

Oh ... and
yes my sig obscures my location
no I'm not a "foreign agent"
yes I'm highly critical of our current gov't
yes I think the international participation on these boards to be a huge plus ... I get plenty of "American-only" viewpoints in, like, the whole rest of my life.

[chalk_outline]

Where is moki, the American that used to post about his love of European politics? Was it Crash or Captain that had the wonderful thread about the lazy northern Europeans? It goes both ways.

[edit] Eugene, Oregon, USA..[/edit]

[Splinter]

Born Ft. Lauderdale Florida, USA moved at 2.5 years old with family to Jerusalem, Israel been there since.

[ebuddy]

One of the things I've found most interesting about this forum is the diverse collection of peoples from different parts of the world. This constitutes the primary reason for my posts. I want people to at least hear what THIS American has to say.

Tell the UN that no one is asking the US for money. Tell the OECD who considers us "stingy" because our total GNP percentage given by US Official Development Aid is at the bottom of the totem pole compared to other nations' giving. They fail to take into account some rather large chunks of data. The reason we give more? A tax structure in America that encourages corporations to give abroad. The result?

According to the BEA�s data on �Private remittances and other flows� to foreign persons and institutions, immigrant workers in the United States alone sent more than $15 billion worth of money, goods, and services to their families and friends abroad in 1998. The total dollar value flowing from U.S. nonprofit private sources�individuals via their remittances and foundations and corporations via their grants�to foreign countries or persons was almost three times as high as U.S. Official Development Aid that year. Adding what Americans are paying in taxes to foreign governments raises our total private flows overseas to $35.8 billion, more than four times the amount of our Official Development Assistance.

My point? Criticize our government, but please realize we collectively, are good people. We may support our administration's meddling in foreign affairs because all too often (i.e. Nazi Germany) if we don't, no one will. You disagree with our actions in Iraq? Well, some of your neighbors also disagree with you. No matter what policy the US holds firm to, we will have those that disagree. I refer to the term; "it's a heavy crown." When you wanted to start your own business, was there not at least one person there to tell you it won't work? Did it not require your vision of the future to endure the nay-sayers and make it happen regardless? It takes boldness, conviction, and a strong constitution to take your dream to the land of fruition. You may have a great idea and many believe it's wrong. This doesn't mean you're wrong.

In closing I'd like to reiterate to those who believe our "meddling" in Iraq is the wrong thing to do, then throw around words like Xenophobia;

It is, in fact xenophobic to assume the Iraqi's are barbarians who appreciate an environment of gender persecution, race persecution, religious intolerance, rape rooms, torture chambers, and mass genocide. Remember that when you throw around phrases like; "the US invaded a sovereign country", you'd do well to educate yourselves on the differences between tyranny and sovereignty. Like the process of desertification, oppression does not contract when left unchecked, it expands unless an equal or opposite force engages it. Was your government willing to check it? No. Was that oppression headed for you? Read the headlines, I dare say it was.

Before you rail on about who supports our actions internationally and who does not, consider whether or not your government was involved in the Oil-for-food scandal and what influence that "benefit" may have on whether or not you'd like to see the "benefactor" behind bars.

[Dakar]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
One of the things I've found most interesting about this forum is the diverse collection of peoples from different parts of the world. This constitutes the primary reason for my posts. I want people to at least hear what THIS American has to say.

Tell the UN that no one is asking the US for money. Tell the OECD who considers us "stingy" because our total GNP percentage given by US Official Development Aid is at the bottom of the totem pole compared to other nations' giving. They fail to take into account some rather large chunks of data. The reason we give more? A tax structure in America that encourages corporations to give abroad. The result?

According to the BEA�s data on �Private remittances and other flows� to foreign persons and institutions, immigrant workers in the United States alone sent more than $15 billion worth of money, goods, and services to their families and friends abroad in 1998. The total dollar value flowing from U.S. nonprofit private sources�individuals via their remittances and foundations and corporations via their grants�to foreign countries or persons was almost three times as high as U.S. Official Development Aid that year. Adding what Americans are paying in taxes to foreign governments raises our total private flows overseas to $35.8 billion, more than four times the amount of our Official Development Assistance.

My point? Criticize our government, but please realize we collectively, are good people. We may support our administration's meddling in foreign affairs because all too often (i.e. Nazi Germany) if we don't, no one will. You disagree with our actions in Iraq? Well, some of your neighbors also disagree with you. No matter what policy the US holds firm to, we will have those that disagree. I refer to the term; "it's a heavy crown." When you wanted to start your own business, was there not at least one person there to tell you it won't work? Did it not require your vision of the future to endure the nay-sayers and make it happen regardless? It takes boldness, conviction, and a strong constitution to take your dream to the land of fruition. You may have a great idea and many believe it's wrong. This doesn't mean you're wrong.

In closing I'd like to reiterate to those who believe our "meddling" in Iraq is the wrong thing to do, then throw around words like Xenophobia;

It is, in fact xenophobic to assume the Iraqi's are barbarians who appreciate an environment of gender persecution, race persecution, religious intolerance, rape rooms, torture chambers, and mass genocide. Remember that when you throw around phrases like; "the US invaded a sovereign country", you'd do well to educate yourselves on the differences between tyranny and sovereignty. Like the process of desertification, oppression does not contract when left unchecked, it expands unless an equal or opposite force engages it. Was your government willing to check it? No. Was that oppression headed for you? Read the headlines, I dare say it was.

Before you rail on about who supports our actions internationally and who does not, consider whether or not your government was involved in the Oil-for-food scandal and what influence that "benefit" may have on whether or not you'd like to see the "benefactor" behind bars.

WHile I don't agree with everything in the post, I give it a

[Troll]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Criticize our government, but please realize we collectively, are good people.

Agree 100%. One of the reasons why I love spending time in this otherwise godforsaken city of angels is the people. Americans should be flattered that other people are interested in their politics and as a nation that was founded on the recognition of the intrinsic value of a melting pot, Americans should revel in debate with people from other countries. They also need to understand that criticism of policies and specific individuals is not criticism of the people of the country which espouses those policies or whence the leaders come.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Before you rail on about who supports our actions internationally and who does not, consider whether or not your government was involved in the Oil-for-food scandal ...

There is no Oil for Food scandal. I'm really so tired of people using the term Oil-for-Food Scandal as if it's accepted that there was a scandal. Knowing something about how the contract approval system under the OFFP worked, I find it very hard to believe the allegations being made. I'm open to the suggestion that they may be true but I am resisting spewing forth criticism prematurely given the fact that the prima facie evidence is weak. And if the allegations are true, then the US is going to look pretty bad too considering it was one of the nations that approved the contracts.

The evidence is weak not only becuase it hasn't been backed up but because of its origins. Chalabi's buddies came up with these allegations. Allegations which, I remind you implicate INDIVIDUALS (including American and British individuals) rather than states, in corruption. We all know where Chalabi's credbility now is - hint: starts with "g". If and when the Commission looking into these allegations decides that there was a scandal, then we can talk about governments' (all governments') role in that scandal. So far, the only one of the individuals accused who is a member of government, is British (the UK is part of the Coalition of the Willing). For the moment, the United States of America cannot claim the moral high ground in invading Iraq on the basis of other countries actions in the OFFP.

According to Dewars Whisky, there are talkers and Dewars (doers). Clearly you consider the US to be doers and the rest of the world to be talkers. I think we were all doing something for Iraq. We were all enforcing the no fly zones, we were all involved in inspections, we were all involved in sanctions, we were all supporting moves to weaken Saddam. And I think that with a bit more dedication to the task from all of the members of the UN those actions would have brought about regime change in Iraq. They almost did in 1996 and I believe they would have once again. They would have brought about a lasting change because the people would have been ready for change. The rest of the world wasn't just talking but perhaps they weren't doing enough. You went further and invaded. Whilst laudable in comparison to inaction, the action that you took turned out to be wrong. Wrong for peace, wrong for Iraqis, wrong for collective security, wrong in the struggle against terrorism. It made the world a more dangerous place. The *world* a more dangerous place. And that is why the rest of us are so interested in American foreign policy. Because we live in the world.

[Ω]

Forgive me if I thought that other nations other than the USA fought against the Nazi's.

Or maybe I was sick that day when that lesson was given......

[Spheric Harlot]

German citizen, born in Tokio, grew up in Hong Kong and Japan. American middle/high school.

Aberdeenwriter will now proceed to explain to me what exactly I am and what I am not qualified to discuss, please.

[boots]

Started in Michigan (northern part of lower peninsula), moved to The Great State of Texas for grad-school (UT Austin -We're Texas, Dammit!), then did a short jaunt over to Atlanta, Georgia. Now I'm back in the midwest...virtually neighbors with Xeo and Forkies...St. Peter, MN.

BTW, I loved the SW, but didn't every really fit into the Deep South. I guess I'm not as tradition bound and a bit outspoken and pragmatic for their liking.

[ebuddy]

Nazi Germany didn't attack the U.S. It was our preemptive policy that facilitated the downfall of that dictator. One could only hope you'd fight nazi's if they invaded your home town. It took a lot of courage for a nation NOT attacked by Nazi Germany to act in this manner. Sounds all too familiar to me.

The Oil-for-food scandal is real. The full report should come about by next spring. I love how we Americans can endure scrutiny regarding our scandalous "oil-grab" and contracts to Haliburton grand conspiracies, but make mention of a possible International scandal involving your own governments...proposterous! Not true! Impossible!

Just so you know how transparent you are.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Nazi Germany didn't attack the U.S. It was our preemptive policy that facilitated the downfall of that dictator. One could only hope you'd fight nazi's if they invaded your home town. It took a lot of courage for a nation NOT attacked by Nazi Germany to act in this manner. Sounds all too familiar to me.

You need to brush up on history, my friend.

There was nothing "preemptive" about US involvement in WWII. Britain and the US were allies, and Britain got involved - and thus, so did the US.

WWII was going on for quite a bit before the United States bothered with it.

-s*

[Troll]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
The Oil-for-food scandal is real. The full report should come about by next spring.

Well that's a convincing argument - "The Easter bunny is real and we'll know if he's real when the report comes out next year."

[Troll]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Nazi Germany didn't attack the U.S. It was our preemptive policy that facilitated the downfall of that dictator.

From the Library of Congress. Note the date:

December 11, 1941
The President's Message

To the Congress of the United States:
On the morning of Dec. 11 the Government of Germany, pursuing its course of world conquest, declared war against the United States.

The long-known and the long-expected has thus taken place. The forces endeavoring to enslave the entire world now are moving toward this hemisphere.

Never before has there been a greater challenge to life, liberty and civilization.

Delay invites great danger. Rapid and united effort by all of the peoples of the world who are determined to remain free will insure a world victory of the forces of justice and of righteousness over the forces of savagery and of barbarism.

Italy also has declared war against the United States.

I therefore request the Congress to recognize a state of war between the United States and Germany, and between the United States and Italy.

Franklin D. Roosevelt

The War Resolution
Declaring that a state of war exists between the Government of Germany and the government and the people of the United States and making provision to prosecute the same.
Whereas the Government of Germany has formally declared war against the government and the people of the United States of America: Therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the state of war between the United States and the Government of Germany which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the government to carry on war against the Government of Germany; and to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.

[y0y0]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
One of the things I've found most interesting about this forum is the diverse collection of peoples from different parts of the world. This constitutes the primary reason for my posts. I want people to at least hear what THIS American has to say.

Tell the UN that no one is asking the US for money. Tell the OECD who considers us "stingy" because our total GNP percentage given by US Official Development Aid is at the bottom of the totem pole compared to other nations' giving. They fail to take into account some rather large chunks of data. The reason we give more? A tax structure in America that encourages corporations to give abroad. The result?

According to the BEA�s data on �Private remittances and other flows� to foreign persons and institutions, immigrant workers in the United States alone sent more than $15 billion worth of money, goods, and services to their families and friends abroad in 1998. The total dollar value flowing from U.S. nonprofit private sources�individuals via their remittances and foundations and corporations via their grants�to foreign countries or persons was almost three times as high as U.S. Official Development Aid that year. Adding what Americans are paying in taxes to foreign governments raises our total private flows overseas to $35.8 billion, more than four times the amount of our Official Development Assistance.

My point? Criticize our government, but please realize we collectively, are good people. We may support our administration's meddling in foreign affairs because all too often (i.e. Nazi Germany) if we don't, no one will. You disagree with our actions in Iraq? Well, some of your neighbors also disagree with you. No matter what policy the US holds firm to, we will have those that disagree. I refer to the term; "it's a heavy crown." When you wanted to start your own business, was there not at least one person there to tell you it won't work? Did it not require your vision of the future to endure the nay-sayers and make it happen regardless? It takes boldness, conviction, and a strong constitution to take your dream to the land of fruition. You may have a great idea and many believe it's wrong. This doesn't mean you're wrong.

In closing I'd like to reiterate to those who believe our "meddling" in Iraq is the wrong thing to do, then throw around words like Xenophobia;

It is, in fact xenophobic to assume the Iraqi's are barbarians who appreciate an environment of gender persecution, race persecution, religious intolerance, rape rooms, torture chambers, and mass genocide. Remember that when you throw around phrases like; "the US invaded a sovereign country", you'd do well to educate yourselves on the differences between tyranny and sovereignty. Like the process of desertification, oppression does not contract when left unchecked, it expands unless an equal or opposite force engages it. Was your government willing to check it? No. Was that oppression headed for you? Read the headlines, I dare say it was.

Before you rail on about who supports our actions internationally and who does not, consider whether or not your government was involved in the Oil-for-food scandal and what influence that "benefit" may have on whether or not you'd like to see the "benefactor" behind bars.

Excellent and well thought out post ebuddy. While I don't agree with your assessment of the Iraq invasion (I think it was far too hasty, far too divisive, too badly planned and was done for the wrong reasons - The humanitarian approach, i.e. giving the reason for Saddam's ouster on humanitarian grounds, would, IMO, have taken much longer to get started, but it would have far more effective and unifying in the long run-), I have to agree that Americans are, on the whole a good people.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
There was nothing "preemptive" about US involvement in WWII. Britain and the US were allies, and Britain got involved - and thus, so did the US.

WWII was going on for quite a bit before the United States bothered with it.

-s*

Those two statements don't mesh well. Britain and the US were not officially allies prior to the US' declaration of war. Officially, the US was neutral. There was an unofficial relationship between the US and the UK (the secret submarine war, and the Lend-Lease act) but no official alliance.

I think maybe you are confusing how Britain got into the war with how the US did. Britain got in because of its treaty with Poland. But the US didn't have any such treaty obligations. It got in only when attacked by an Axis power -- Japan. That was over two years after Britain went to war.

I agree though that WW-II wasn't preemptive. Had the allies (WW-I allies, that is) smacked Germany when Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland it would have been preemptive. Or similarly at many other stages prior to September, 1939. Or for that matter, had the world responded to Japanese agression in Manchuria, then it would have been preemptive. As it was our response was deeply reactive.

He is an interesting question, though. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt invaded North Africa, not japan. Did he take his eye off the ball?

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
He is an interesting question, though. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt invaded North Africa, not japan. Did he take his eye off the ball?

Were there Germans in North Africa? In a jar I have a bullet taken from my grandfather's leg at El Alamein that would suggest there were. Were the Germans not part of a formal alliance with the Japanese who attacked? Had the US not already declared war on Germany some years before?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
Were there Germans in North Africa? In a jar I have a bullet taken from my grandfather's leg at El Alamein that would suggest there were.

The Germans were in North Afica. But the Germans didn't attack the US -- Japan did.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The Germans were in North Afica. But the Germans didn't attack the US -- Japan did.

In the words of a great leader, "I KNOW WE WEREN'T ATTACKED BY GERMANY." Oops, got carried away

I edited my message after you hit reply. Germany was in a formal alliance with Japan. I don't recall Saddam and Osama announcing that they were allies.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
I edited my message after you hit reply. Germany was in a formal alliance with Japan. I don't recall Saddam and Osama announcing that they were allies.

That's a legalistic (and irrelevant) distinction. A decision about threats, responses, and strategy doesn't turn on what Osama or Saddam said or did not say.

Nor, I think, did Roosevelt care much about the formality of the Axis. What he was worried about was the threat, and what was the best way to ultimately win. That's the right approach.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Pointless post.

[y0y0]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Nazi Germany didn't attack the U.S. It was our preemptive policy that facilitated the downfall of that dictator. One could only hope you'd fight nazi's if they invaded your home town. It took a lot of courage for a nation NOT attacked by Nazi Germany to act in this manner. Sounds all too familiar to me.

The Oil-for-food scandal is real. The full report should come about by next spring. I love how we Americans can endure scrutiny regarding our scandalous "oil-grab" and contracts to Haliburton grand conspiracies, but make mention of a possible International scandal involving your own governments...proposterous! Not true! Impossible!

Just so you know how transparent you are.

This is not true. It was Germany that declared war on the USA after Pearl Harbor, not the other way around. (Do a google on the history of WWII).

No one knows whether the US would have declared war on Germany if Hitler had not done it first. While the US supplied the UK with a good deal of its war material and was very sympathetic to the UK's cause, the US's main priority immediately following 12/7/1941 was to fight Japan.

An excellent example is the case of Finland. Finland, although very reluctantly as they had little or no sympathy with the Nazis, fought on the side of the Germans following the German invasion of the USSR in 1941, mainly because of their fear that the USSR would eventually take control of the whole of Finland. They fought the USSR until the end of 1944, when they signed a peace treaty with the USSR. The UK declared war on Finland almost immediately in 1941.

The US never did, not even after Pearl Harbour and Germany's declaration of war against the US.

There was nothing preemptive about the US' involvement in WWII.

In fact, in history, I would argue that most of the times when the US did go to war preemptively, the end result was a bad one. Examples:
1812 - Britain fairly solidly thrashed the US and even burned Washington after hawks in the US decided to "liberate" Canada.
1898 - The US won the Spanish American war hands down, only to be saddled with two major sources of unrest and injustice in that Cuba became a dictatorial puppet of the US, with major internal dissatisfaction which lead to castro and company, and the massacre of Phillipine rebells, which did not exactly enarmour the Phillinpinos to the US. (Although the US liberated the Phillipines from the Japanese in WWII, the Phillipinos widley demonstrated against the US presence in Subic bay until the base was vacated)
1964 - After the Tonkin GUlf incident, everyone knows what happpened in Vietnam.
2003 - Gulf War II. Possibly the most divisive war in US history. All of the sympathy that had existed after 9/11 evaporated, and the US' relations with many of its allies became very very bad, and the insurgency in Iraq itself is worsening continually with spiraling US and Iraqi casualties and Iraq has served to become a rallying call and magnet for Islamic fanatics all over the world, which it wasn't before.

Contrast this to the wars in which the US went to war after being attacked:
1916 - WWI. The US helped win this one, and, if it had been up to the US, the treaty of Versailles would in no way have been as harsh as it was, and would have possibly spared us both the Nazis and WWII. This cannot be overemphasized enough.
1941 - WWII. As stated the US was attacked and war was declared on the US by Germany, nott the other way around. The US was very isolationist until Pearl Harbour.
1950 - The US and the UN went to war in Korea after the North attacked the South. This was, although it remains a major political desaster today with the North being a horror state and a real danger, a major success for South Korea in the long run.
1991 - Gulf War I. The US went to war with the blessings and support of the UN. The results were a free and pro-american Kuwait, but it started the rise of Osama Bin Laden, sadly. But there was no political fallout against the US from its allies.
1995 - Bosnia. The US went to war with Nato after the genocide in Srebrenica. War won and Bosnia, while a problem area, is much better off (I hope)
1999 - Kosovo. Again, the US went to war with Nato. While Kosovo can't be described as a resounding success, it at least doesn't have a full scale insurrection.
2001 - Afghanistan. The US went to war after 9/11 with the aid of all its allies, including France, who supplied both jets for bombing missions and soldiers on the ground, and Germany. Today Nato forces help out with a large amount of the work in tha country freeing the US to fight the Taleban in the south.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
That's a legalistic (and irrelevant) distinction. A decision about threats, responses, and strategy doesn't turn on what Osama or Saddam said or did not say.

Nor, I think, did Roosevelt care much about the formality of the Axis. What he was worried about was the threat, and what was the best way to ultimately win. That's the right approach.

WWII was a single war between groups of nations on both sides. The US is currently fighting two wars - the WOT which is like WWII and the War in Iraq. You can be distracted from one war by another when you are fighting two wars. You can't when you're fighting one!

Attacking Germany in North Africa wasn't a distraction from the war against Japan because 1) to win WWII, the allies had to beat Germany and Japan and Italy and Austria etc.; 2) Germany was quite open about the fact that it was coming to kill you.

Iraq was a distraction from the War on Terror because: 1) You didn't need to beat Iraq to win the WOT - Iraq and Al Qaeda were never allies and Saddam left unchecked had no impact on the WOT; 2) Iraq wasn't coming to kill you, indeed it wasn't any threat to you at all.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by y0y0:
the US's main priority immediately following 12/7/1941 was to fight Japan.

No, that's simply not true. The US's main priority was to fight Germany. It's secondary priority was Japan. Most forces were sent to Europe.

An excellent example is the case of Finland. Finland, although very reluctantly as they had little or no sympathy with the Nazis, fought on the side of the Germans following the German invasion of the USSR in 1941, mainly because of their fear that the USSR would eventually take control of the whole of Finland. They fought the USSR until the end of 1944, when they signed a peace treaty with the USSR. The UK declared war on Finland almost immediately in 1941.

You have missed out a rather important fact. Finland was invaded by the Soviet Union in 1939. Link

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
WWII was a single war between groups of nations on both sides.

That's a very Eurocentric perspective. I suspect that people in China or Ethiopia would disagree.

[y0y0]

Back on topic. I could state where I am, but I choose not to. I probbaly would have done so had it not been for aberdeenwriter's comical theatrics in the other thread, where I felt that there was far too much, albeit clumsy, pressure by him and company to force both the foreigners and the Democrats on this board into revealing their locations and history by using McCarthy like tactics against them. That means that it was (un)subtely suggested that these could be anti-american, i.e. traitors or fifth columnists merely because of their location and/or sympathies. It was also suggested that if, for example, they were foreigners, their opinion would mean far less than it would if they were US citizens, although even that was suggested to mean less than US political party allegiance.

This thread is far more open and I might change my mind at some point.

[y0y0]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
No, that's simply not true. The US's main priority was to fight Germany. It's secondary priority was Japan. Most forces were sent to Europe.

I'm not sure about that, i.e that most forces were sent to Europe, but you're right about Operation Torch, the US North African landings in November of 1942. On the other hand, that came after both the battle of Coral Sea and the battle of Midway in May and June of 1942, and after the latter, which the US won by sinking a large portion of the Japanese carrier fleet, the US had basically established dominance in the Pacific, starting the long haul of operations to win back territory.

You have missed out a rather important fact. Finland was invaded by the Soviet Union in 1939. Link

No, I didn't. If you'd have read my post closely, you'd have noticed this sentence:

Finland, although very reluctantly as they had little or no sympathy with the Nazis, fought on the side of the Germans following the German invasion of the USSR in 1941, mainly because of their fear that the USSR would eventually take control of the whole of Finland.

I know full well about the Winter war. The Finns had to surrender territory to the USSR in the treaty of 1940, but they were convinced that they might become a pawn between the USSR and Nazi Germany, and having already fought the Soviets and being otherwise alone in Scandinavia, they supported the Germans and started the Continuation war in 1941 a few days after Germany attacked the USSR.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
That's a very Eurocentric perspective. I suspect that people in China or Ethiopia would disagree.

That's not a Eurocentric perspective! My grandfather fought for the independent country of South Africa. They saw WWII as a world war between the Axis powers and the Allied powers which is why he fought against Germans, Italians, Austrians and Japanese (according to him there were Japanese pilots flying Zeros in North Africa). The rest of the world saw it as one war too afaik. Notwithstanding what China or Ethiopia may say to the contrary (and I'm not sure they do), I'm sure you aren't seriously trying to argue that it was a bunch of different wars, so we may as well drop the discussion right here. You know as well as I do that WWII was a single contiguous war. Prioritising one battle in that war over another doesn't amount to a distraction from one war to another. Furthermore, the US generals didn't pull troops out of the battle for Japan and send them to North Africa which is what happened in the ME.

I realise that some of you see Iraq and Afghanistan as two battles in one war even though you have different alliances for each one and face different enemies in each, but Kerry doesn't. And so raising a point comparing that situation to North Africa vs. Japan by way of a counter to Kerry's argument is really a strawman. And I think you realise that.

We agree that WWII was not a preemptive war by the US. Let's just leave it at that.

[Secret__Police]

Where are you From??

Born in California, grew up in Saratoga and I now live in Milpitas.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
You know as well as I do that WWII was a single contiguous war. Prioritising one battle in that war over another doesn't amount to a distraction from one war to another.

You are right that prioritizing one battle over another isn't a distraction from one war to another, but I think your view is highly simplistic as far as how the Second World War war was perceived around the globe. It isn't as though on one particular date the world went from peace to war and then back again on another date in 1945.

When it began and ended varied considerably from place to place. In China it began in 1935 and only involved China and Japan. For Korea it began even earlier. For Czechoslovakia you would really have to say it began in 1938, Poland 1939, and Britain 1939 or 1940, depending on whether you count the Phony War. Most of the Commonwealth (AFAIK including South Africa) declared war with Britain in 1939, but the United States didn't until 1941. The Soviet Union began invading countries in 1939, but wasn't invaded until 1941. The end point for all these theaters also varied considerably. For example, Vietnamese tend to argue that the French Indochina War is a direct continuation of the Second World War. For them the fighting didn't stop. Nor did it in China until after their Civil War.

Basically, the treatment of World War II as one war based around the dates of 1939 to 1945 is a Eurocentric convention. Those dates happen to be the ones in which the British Commonwealth were at war, but not the ones in which other countries fought. As with all history (or contemporary politics) the closer you look, the less clean-cut things seem.

What is odd is that you want to put a hopelessly naive label on WW-II to treat the whole thing in schoolboyish way as one big war ignoring all the subtleties, yet at the same time you want to ignore the reality that Iraq is a part of the war on terror. Bizarre.

I would have thought that whether or not you agree that Iraq ought to be percieved as a part of the war on terror, it is quite plain that the actual participants think it is a part of the war on terror. It's like arguing that the Vietnam War or the Korean war were wholly separate from the Cold War. Of course they weren't. The wider Cold War are part of the essential backdrop of those conflicts. Similarly, but for the war on terror, Iraq probably wouldn't have happened.

So whether or not you like the fact, objectively, they are connected. Recognizing that big-picture reality is a construct in the same way as recognizing the big picture reality of World War II. However, locally, there may be nuances that also can be recognized. Your analysis doesn't have to be simplistic. Iraq is in some ways separate from the war in Afghanistan, in others it is connected.

[y0y0]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
... The Soviet Union began invading countries in 1939, but wasn't invaded until 1942. ...

1941.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by y0y0:
1941.

You are right. Will correct.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
German citizen, born in Tokio, grew up in Hong Kong and Japan. American middle/high school.

Aberdeenwriter will now proceed to explain to me what exactly I am and what I am not qualified to discuss, please.

SH, it is obvious by your inability to understand the nature of the other thread's sentiments and intent you have (with THIS post) sufficiently disclosed the MOST pertinent criterion by which a casual reader or swing voter might consider any of your future posts.

You, sir are from the land of the confused and now have my permission to babble away without anyone possibly being influenced.

[Nicko]

I declare this thread is officially dead.

[ThinkInsane]

I was born in Belfast and lived there until I was 12 years old, when my mother packed us up and moved me to the US (she was, well still is, a native New Yorker). Grew up in upstate New York, traveled quite a bit while in the service, my official billet was in Okinawa (but I was deployed often), and traveled quite a bit more when I got out. I'm currently back in upstate NY, for the time being anyway. I'm in desperate need of a warmer climate.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
SH, it is obvious by your inability to understand the nature of the other thread's sentiments and intent you have (with THIS post) sufficiently disclosed the MOST pertinent criterion by which a casual reader or swing voter might consider any of your future posts.

You, sir are from the land of the confused and now have my permission to babble away without anyone possibly being influenced.

Whatever you say, aberdeenwriter, whatever you say.

*nods and smiles*