Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Did you know Cuba is the only island nation in the western hemisphere to have had nuclear wheapons?
Using this *ahem* logic to exclude all non-island nations, we can imply that they are evil godless communists that want to cause nuclear war!
I'm assuming that your post about islands and other irrelevant non-sequiturs is a response to my post, but I can't find any evidence of that within the post, except for the timing and placement, so I'll go ahead and reply, just in case it is in reference to my post.
I used "independent republics" to exclude those which were under control of the British, French or Dutch, who were obviously called in to defend the homeland. Canada had no home authority to decide whether to enter the war or not. Of the 20 independent republics in the Americas who had the power to decide to do so, only the USA felt that rushing off that silly and suicidal war was to their narcissistic advantage.
Grenada must have had nuclear weapons, or the same capability as Cuba of harboring them, or else why were we so keen to add them to the long long long long list of countries that we gratuitously invaded??
Grenada must have had nuclear weapons, or the same capability as Cuba of harboring them, or else why were we so keen to add them to the long long long long list of countries that we gratuitously invaded??
That's the second time you've used 'gratuitous' or a derivative. While it could apply in the sense of 'uncalled for', the word tends to mean 'for no special reason'; that's its most common sense of meaning. You may argue that a US invasion was unjust, and in some cases you may be right. You will have a much harder time arguing that we involved ourselves in a war for no perceived reason. You may argue that we misread our own best interests, but you will have a hard time arguing that we weren't looking after our perceived best interests with involvement in a given conflict. If you are going to take this stand, perhaps you need a new adverb/adjective to qualify the wars. It's one thing to call the Bay of Pigs stupid. It's another to imply that it was done at random with no sense of anticipated benefit.
I'm assuming that your post about islands and other irrelevant non-sequiturs is a response to my post, but I can't find any evidence of that within the post, except for the timing and placement, so I'll go ahead and reply, just in case it is in reference to my post.
I used "independent republics" to exclude those which were under control of the British, French or Dutch, who were obviously called in to defend the homeland. Canada had no home authority to decide whether to enter the war or not. Of the 20 independent republics in the Americas who had the power to decide to do so, only the USA felt that rushing off that silly and suicidal war was to their narcissistic advantage.
Grenada must have had nuclear weapons, or the same capability as Cuba of harboring them, or else why were we so keen to add them to the long long long long list of countries that we gratuitously invaded??
Ah, so we got involved in WW2 out of narcissim. This thread is at least entertaining.
Brazil wasn't independent? You don't think Canada made up its own mind and could be considered a republic (though I acknowledge that it's still technically a constitutional monarchy)? The Commonwealth is an alliance and trade understanding, not a document of submission.
I stand corrected on Brazil, which sent a small force (25,000, mostly navy). Brazil was technically neutral, but the US had just invested in Brazil's iron industry, in exchange for US bases in Brazil, and persuaded them to join the allies. Brazil would never have done so, without the US pressure.
The Royal Canadian forces were under the direct control of the crown, and could not have refused to defend Britain. There was no "commonwealth" then---it was the Dominion of Canada.
I'm reposting my original, for the benefit of those of you who are having difficulty referring back to it. Relevent points bolded.
J. I really wish you would pick up a history book, rather than indulge in uninformed rants. Outside of Switzerland, name one European power that hasn't gone on an attempt to conquer massive amounts of territory. Denmark? Sweden? Heck, tiny little Belgium's activities eclipse the United States in terms of sheer wanton brutality.
In fact, pretty much every dominant people in Asia, Africa, and the Americas went on these kind of expeditions. Essentially you're blasting the United States for being reasonably good at it over the past 50 years.
Define "European Power". If Switzerland is one, so is Poland. If you define "power" as "colonizing distant lands", your statement is a very unnecessary tautology. "Every country that colonized distant lands, colonized distant lands. Except Switzerland, which did neither".
Fill me in on all those those "dominant peoples" in Africa who have sent their armies to other continents to wage war and defeat the standing defenses there, in the 20th century.
I guess I forgot to say "in the past century", and to exclude military force needed to quell uprisings in pre-existing colonies. Or did I say that? Gee, it's so hard to go back and look at what I actually said.
I guess this thread is just meaningless. "America and War", when there is no connection beween America and War. Anybody who tries to make the connection gets shouted down. All America has ever done is to repel invaders on her own shores. Never really went to war.
I stand corrected on Brazil, which sent a small force (25,000, mostly navy). Brazil was technically neutral, but the US had just invested in Brazil's iron industry, in exchange for US bases in Brazil, and persuaded them to join the allies. Brazil would never have done so, without the US pressure.
The Royal Canadian forces were under the direct control of the crown, and could not have refused to defend Britain. There was no "commonwealth" then---it was the Dominion of Canada.
Actually, an entire Brazilian division fought in Italy. If a division is 10-15K men, that's a pretty big proportion of 25K (if you're correct on that number). As for Brazil's motivations, perhaps you can offer a cite that will enable me to understand your reasoning.
The period between the wars brought the culmination of Canada's growth to independent nationhood within the British Commonwealth. Prime Minister Borden had been included in the Imperial War Cabinet in London. He piloted through the Imperial Conference of 1917 a resolution that the dominions "should be recognized as autonomous nations of an imperial commonwealth." To both the 1919 Peace Conference and the League of Nations Canada sent its own delegates. The Imperial Conference of 1926 confirmed in its Declaration of Equality that the United Kingdom as well as the dominions had become "autonomous Communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another." They were, however, "united by a common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations." These resolutions were confirmed by the British Parliament in 1931 in the Statute of Westminster.
The statute provided that no law passed in the future by the United Kingdom should extend to any dominion "except at the request and with the consent of that Dominion." Canadian sovereignty thus had been achieved by a long process of peaceful constitutional evolution. This was vividly demonstrated by the independent decision of its Parliament that Canada enter World War II at the side of Britain, which it did within a week of the outbreak of hostilities in September 1939.
Either the author is sorely deluded, or the decision of Canada to enter the war was an independent choice. Which do you suppose is more likely?
If you would like to know about the Third Afghan War please read:
"A Peace To End All Peace" by David Fromkin
'The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East'
It is an excellent book on that theater of the Great War that no one talks about.
And here is a link also:Third Anglo-Afghan War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Thanks
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
