I am absolutely confident we wouldn't have seen that war to its conclusion. I believe liberals would've convinced America that Germany was Europe's problem or that France didn't really want us there.
What are your feelings?
If we had the media coverage we have now during WW2, would it have happened?
Started by Cript, Jul 18 2007 09:23 AM
12 replies to this topic
#1
Cript
-
-
- 1940 posts
Posted 18 July 2007 - 09:23 AM
I am absolutely confident we wouldn't have seen that war to its conclusion. I believe liberals would've convinced America that Germany was Europe's problem or that France didn't really want us there.
What are your feelings?
#2
Rikku
-
-
- 2109 posts
Posted 18 July 2007 - 09:27 AM
oh yeah definetly, if the people are making this big of a fuss when we have lost almost 4 k soldiers now, imagine what it would of been like when everyone knew that we lost 300k... there is no way it would of been that bad, if everyone truly knew whawt was going on overseas.
#3
chaoticguymike
-
-
- 2221 posts
Posted 18 July 2007 - 10:42 AM
People are stressing out about losing 4k soldiers rather than 300k because it's a different situation. We are fighting for occupation right now. We lost majority of the 300k soldiers DURING WWII.. Not the occupation time.
#4
Master Control Program
-
-
- 6 posts
Posted 20 July 2007 - 12:39 PM
I assume you (the topic starter) are on the right, correct? 
Uh, I would have to disagree with you for one main reason: our motives for our involvement in each respective war are completely different. Primarily, in WWII our objective was to prevent Germany from gaining control of Europe in addition to stopping their torture of the Jews. However, the primary reason for our involvement in the 'War on Terrorism' is oil. So, during WWII they were fighting not only for our protection, but also to free the Jewish captives. Isn't that a just reason? Their 'beef' with our current situation is that we are fighting for something that isn't worthwhile (essentially wasting our troop's lives).
While I can't say that our occupation is warranted, I do believe our time there is up as they have already asked us to leave (that and the war seems to be a huge failure). Anyway, just my two cents.
Uh, I would have to disagree with you for one main reason: our motives for our involvement in each respective war are completely different. Primarily, in WWII our objective was to prevent Germany from gaining control of Europe in addition to stopping their torture of the Jews. However, the primary reason for our involvement in the 'War on Terrorism' is oil. So, during WWII they were fighting not only for our protection, but also to free the Jewish captives. Isn't that a just reason? Their 'beef' with our current situation is that we are fighting for something that isn't worthwhile (essentially wasting our troop's lives).
While I can't say that our occupation is warranted, I do believe our time there is up as they have already asked us to leave (that and the war seems to be a huge failure). Anyway, just my two cents.
#5
Cript
-
-
- 1940 posts
Posted 20 July 2007 - 08:23 PM
QUOTE(Master Control Program @ Jul 20 2007, 03:39 PM) 
I assume you (the topic starter) are on the right, correct?
Uh, I would have to disagree with you for one main reason: our motives for our involvement in each respective war are completely different. Primarily, in WWII our objective was to prevent Germany from gaining control of Europe in addition to stopping their torture of the Jews. However, the primary reason for our involvement in the 'War on Terrorism' is oil. So, during WWII they were fighting not only for our protection, but also to free the Jewish captives. Isn't that a just reason? Their 'beef' with our current situation is that we are fighting for something that isn't worthwhile (essentially wasting our troop's lives).
While I can't say that our occupation is warranted, I do believe our time there is up as they have already asked us to leave (that and the war seems to be a huge failure). Anyway, just my two cents.
Uh, I would have to disagree with you for one main reason: our motives for our involvement in each respective war are completely different. Primarily, in WWII our objective was to prevent Germany from gaining control of Europe in addition to stopping their torture of the Jews. However, the primary reason for our involvement in the 'War on Terrorism' is oil. So, during WWII they were fighting not only for our protection, but also to free the Jewish captives. Isn't that a just reason? Their 'beef' with our current situation is that we are fighting for something that isn't worthwhile (essentially wasting our troop's lives).
While I can't say that our occupation is warranted, I do believe our time there is up as they have already asked us to leave (that and the war seems to be a huge failure). Anyway, just my two cents.
How much oil have we gotten from Iraq since we "invaded?"
#6
Alex
-
-
- 6640 posts
Posted 20 July 2007 - 09:05 PM
My feelings are that WWII was fought for a much different cause, and a much more valuable cause, and hence is of no comparison to today's war and its coverage, regardless of what one thinks of the Iraq war. On top of that we were attacked in Pearl Harbor, and the Japanese were allies of the Germans were they not?
Edited by Alex, 20 July 2007 - 09:07 PM.
#7
Frizzle
-
-
- 16889 posts
M'lord
Posted 21 July 2007 - 03:04 AM
QUOTE(Master Control Program @ Jul 20 2007, 08:39 PM)
I assume you (the topic starter) are on the right, correct?
Uh, I would have to disagree with you for one main reason: our motives for our involvement in each respective war are completely different. Primarily, in WWII our objective was to prevent Germany from gaining control of Europe in addition to stopping their torture of the Jews. However, the primary reason for our involvement in the 'War on Terrorism' is oil. So, during WWII they were fighting not only for our protection, but also to free the Jewish captives. Isn't that a just reason? Their 'beef' with our current situation is that we are fighting for something that isn't worthwhile (essentially wasting our troop's lives).
Uh, I would have to disagree with you for one main reason: our motives for our involvement in each respective war are completely different. Primarily, in WWII our objective was to prevent Germany from gaining control of Europe in addition to stopping their torture of the Jews. However, the primary reason for our involvement in the 'War on Terrorism' is oil. So, during WWII they were fighting not only for our protection, but also to free the Jewish captives. Isn't that a just reason? Their 'beef' with our current situation is that we are fighting for something that isn't worthwhile (essentially wasting our troop's lives).
Acutally there was no prior knowledge to the Holocaust during the war, it was only found out after the war had ended and the extermination camps had been rescued. Do you even know why we went to war?
The British went to war because we had to, we had signed a treaty with the Polish to protect them from invasion, so when on Sept 1st they were invaded, we declared war on Germany on Sept 3rd.
The Americans however, didn't join til 1944, and one of the main reasons was because it's civillian ship was sunk (a good excuse in my opinion seeing as it was filled with explosives and ammountion).
I acutally doubt the real reason for the war in Iraq is oil, that's what we have the Arab states for, to trade with.
#8
Master Control Program
-
-
- 6 posts
Posted 21 July 2007 - 09:29 AM
QUOTE(Cript @ Jul 20 2007, 09:23 PM)
How much oil have we gotten from Iraq since we "invaded?"
Please see:
http://www.huffingto...oi_b_56662.html
and
http://www.iraqoillaw.com/
Oh, and sorry if my previous post seemed a little harsh.
Edited by Master Control Program, 21 July 2007 - 09:30 AM.
#10
Oaken
-
-
- 7298 posts
Posted 21 July 2007 - 10:18 AM
The difference is people were fighting for something thought was right in WWII. The war in Iraq started with Weapons of Mass Destruction didn't it? That was the initial reason for going in there. Then it turned into a 'War on Terror'....yet all the terrorists seem to be attacking us on home soil....not out there in the Middle East. I don't remember oil having anything to do with....that doesn't mean it isn't about that now though.
#11
Alex
-
-
- 6640 posts
Posted 21 July 2007 - 10:46 AM
QUOTE(Chris @ Jul 21 2007, 10:53 AM)
Too many liberal controlled media networks.
Yea maybe if we went to war with Germany only to find out that Hitler didnt exist
Edited by Alex, 21 July 2007 - 11:04 AM.
#12
Ives
-
-
- 4320 posts
Posted 21 July 2007 - 08:15 PM
There would have been more critics, more Orwells and less Henry Millers. Orwells influence wouldn't be nearly as profound. The speech is what interests me though. As for the war, the average person then was far more conservative and even with the cynical reality show called news today, they would still probably obey mr. government, maybe smaller enlistment.
It's difficult to compare the two because World War II was a defense and an alturist duty, and seeing as Rand wasn't that profound yet, most people would have been more understanding of the effort.
It's difficult to compare the two because World War II was a defense and an alturist duty, and seeing as Rand wasn't that profound yet, most people would have been more understanding of the effort.
#13
astrologically
-
-
- 54 posts
Posted 04 August 2007 - 06:07 PM
after 9/11 I was all for it, but now it's like, there's no reason for us to be over there.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
