The future of Europe and the USA

originally posted by: camain
a reply to: Jonjonj

Your quote shows nothing of the actual historical events that occurred during the time frame in which you speak. First. It was the sinking of the Lusitania by Germany that brought the USA into ww1. Do you understand why they sunk her? she was carrying weapons and supplies to England and france. Actually we were doing that for quite some time before we entered the war, never mind the fact that americans volunteered into the british as well as French armies to fight for you Europeans. That's beside the point.

Next, You ever wonder why the Japanese attacked pearl Harbor? well I'll tell you, because the French, English, Dutch, and Danish Pacific Fleets had a blockade on mainland japan, hurting there war effort in China and mainland Asia. Those fleets fought against an enemy conquering there colonies, even though there homelands had already been defeated. Do you know where they were based out of? Ya, Pearl Harbor, The Japanese attacked to not only cripple the USA and knock us quickly out of WW2, but to destroy the base of operations to the ships blockading them, which allowed natural resources to surge into the country and spur the war effort on. Unfortunately the Japanese lost too many air craft carriers and after that was forced to a defensive war, which ultimately they knew they couldn't maintain, as there generals knew that the longer the USA was in the war, the harder it would be for them to win. Thing is, you again forget, there was American airmen in Europe fighting with the Brits, and French, there was American Naval men putting there life on the line to resupply war ships that were fighting on, and it was 3000 americans that died at Pearl Harbor because while we were sick and tired of war, it was our factories spurning out planes, tanks, and guns, that kept hitler out of Moscow, as well as kept Japan out of Australia. Further, after pearl harbor, we mobilized and fought hard to defend a free Europe.

This is why NATO was formed, This is why you have American soldiers in just about every NATO country, albeit a small contingent in some, but in all of them. This is why the U.S.A. has 30,000 men stationed on the border with North Korea, even though there life expectancy is literally 30 seconds if North Korea ever decided to use its 1.5 million artillery pieces it has aimed at them and seoul. You think America is just going to watch American soldiers die and withdraw before we even got into a fight? Then you sir, are a %*&^ing idiot. We might think the brits are uppity, and the French idiots, but you know what, your OUR UPPITY COUSINS, and IDIOT uncles. Put simply your family, yes we might be cowboys with a hero complex, arrogant, egotistically, unclean, unshaven brutes with no sophistication, but it wont stop us from putting our beer down, and whooping anyones ass the messes with our family.

Will things change in the future? Absolutely, but nothing will ever change the core alliance that the U.S. has with Japan, South Korea, and all our NATO allies. PS, don't forget you Aussies and NZ either. Your one of us.

Cheers,

Camain
Proud American

I stopped at line two. The Lusitania was a british ship, she was carrying munitions, but she wasn't American.

a reply to: Jonjonj

Also, the entire world learned the danger of a conquered Europe with WWII. I seriously doubt America would make the same mistake twice. But, the additional question which begs to be answered is this:
Will there BE a UK to save if WW3 breaks out in full? The 5 permanent members of the Security Council are all Nuclear Nations, and only one of us isn't in Europe or Asia. The world knows Isreal is a Nuclear state, and that it maintains the Sampson Option as military doctrine. If they truly felt that their absolute destruction was imminent, the would nuke anyone and everyone they thought they needed to in order to attempt to survive. But, do you think France or the UK would act with any less of a response in those circumstances? Nuclear weapons were not a factor for almost the entirety of WW2. But they very much are now.
So, would Russia, knowing this is the possible response of any Nuclear Nation, still attempt any prolonged conventional campaign against them? Or would they look at the overall strategic value of conquering them vs. eliminating them, and launch?
We all want to think nobody would fire first, and I honestly and sincerely hope that it's true. But Russia is famous for a much less human view of war.
This being said, if cooler heads prevail and it is a normal invasion, I will do my absolute all to fight elbow to elbow with you.

originally posted by: pavmas
a reply to: pfishy

lol, people in the UK stand at a bus top and ignore a girl screaming getting raped, they ignore a young girl getting attacked on a train, they let their disabled be treat the same as the nazis treated their disabled, they turn a blind eye and let children be molested in their thousands, they refuse to defend children going hungry and pensioners dying of cold in an oil producing nation, but if anyone dares attack this they will defend it with their last breath, rubbish' Maggie T said their was no such thing as society and boy was she right, everyone in the UK is out for there selves. Put it this way I would not fight because I could not trust others in the UK to watch my back, the invaders would be more trustworthy.

I agree with all this hate speech. I absolutely agree. And there really is nothing that can be said to justify it because it is basically unjustifiable. The question is not about that however. Your conclusion just reinforces my belief, extending it to the UK. Let's just stop patrolling the N sea completely.

originally posted by: pavmas
a reply to: pfishy

lol, people in the UK stand at a bus top and ignore a girl screaming getting raped, they ignore a young girl getting attacked on a train, they let their disabled be treat the same as the nazis treated their disabled, they turn a blind eye and let children be molested in their thousands, they refuse to defend children going hungry and pensioners dying of cold in an oil producing nation, but if anyone dares attack this they will defend it with their last breath, rubbish' Maggie T said their was no such thing as society and boy was she right, everyone in the UK is out for there selves. Put it this way I would not fight because I could not trust others in the UK to watch my back, the invaders would be more trustworthy.

Which.is why I can say I don't know if anyone else here would attempt to join the fight over there. But yeah, you can certainly trust the invaders. To kill you.
And I think you'd be surprised what you find in your fellow citizens if Russia were invading. There's a lot more fight in you Brits than most realize, my friend.

a reply to: pfishy

Thanks man for understanding the dichotomy of the situation. I too truly wish that people like you would be in our corner once the chips are down. Count on me also.

a reply to: Jonjonj

LOL, your right, she was a british ship, loaded with American Guns and supplies bound for where exactly? Further, Margaret Thatcher never asked America for help, she said she could "Bloody well deal with it ourselves" LOL. Come on, The Brits Stomped Argentina HARD, your crying because they wanted to do it on their own, so there army could get practice? If they wanted help, we would have given it, they didn't ask. As far Having the Brits back, The U.S. will ALWAYS have Britians back. Further, I don't think Russia is the issue in Europe, I think Immigrants and social policy is, put simply I think your losing your identity, but whatever. The U.S. wont turn our back on britian, or france.

Camain

a reply to: camain

Yes, I realised immediately after posting that that the Lusitania was a weak argument. But my question was pretty simple really, wasn't it?

Will the US have our back once the cannons start to sing. I am not sure she will. I am NOT SURE! Do you get my point? And that is a huge point I think, a policy making point.

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: pfishy

Thanks man for understanding the dichotomy of the situation. I too truly wish that people like you would be in our corner once the chips are down. Count on me also.

We're all lucky in that Putin is not Kim. Our Kooky Korean friend likely would launch without hesitation if he were in control of Russia's arsenal. Probably would have already. But I do believe that Mr. Putin is well aware of the consequences of a nuclear first strike. Both on a NATO Nation, and on America's greatest ally. It would be an apocalypse for everyone. I just wanted to toss the thought out there for consideration because, while exceedingly remote, the possibility is still there.
Who knows. Maybe the two of us can discuss the finer points of a good lager by the light of a burning Russian tank someday. Although I truly hope the circumstances would be better...

a reply to: pfishy

I would rather spend a day drinking beers by the light of the moon mate. Truly.

a reply to: Jonjonj

As I said, better circumstances.

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: camain

Yes, I realised immediately after posting that that the Lusitania was a weak argument. But my question was pretty simple really, wasn't it?

Will the US have our back once the cannons start to sing. I am not sure she will. I am NOT SURE! Do you get my point? And that is a huge point I think, a policy making point.

America will have Britons back for at least another 50 years. After that, well white anglosaxon will no longer be a majority in the u.s. And things could be different. Still, the usa will be their in the next war bleeding with britian

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: Jonjonj

I think the proper question is not would we but should we. It is my firm opinion that you guys never learn. We have events again playing out very similar to World War II. And what does Europe do ? Once again they practice appeasement.

I'm going to have to agree here, though I'm not so sure its appeasement as it is denial of whats happening.

originally posted by: camain

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: camain

Yes, I realised immediately after posting that that the Lusitania was a weak argument. But my question was pretty simple really, wasn't it?

Will the US have our back once the cannons start to sing. I am not sure she will. I am NOT SURE! Do you get my point? And that is a huge point I think, a policy making point.

America will have Britons back for at least another 50 years. After that, well white anglosaxon will no longer be a majority in the u.s. And things could be different. Still, the usa will be their in the next war bleeding with britian

Hypothetically, how would the US react if a Russian bomber were to be shot down over the UK, armed with nuclear weapons. Do you think they would send a lot of soldiers? or a lot of scientists.

originally posted by: camain

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: camain

Yes, I realised immediately after posting that that the Lusitania was a weak argument. But my question was pretty simple really, wasn't it?

Will the US have our back once the cannons start to sing. I am not sure she will. I am NOT SURE! Do you get my point? And that is a huge point I think, a policy making point.

America will have Britons back for at least another 50 years. After that, well white anglosaxon will no longer be a majority in the u.s. And things could be different. Still, the usa will be their in the next war bleeding with britian

I'm not even sure that the Anglo majority disappearing will have too much of an effect. As long as the old money families still exist in Europe, we'll still fight for them. And sadly, I think the politics of it boil down to just that.

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: camain

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: camain

Yes, I realised immediately after posting that that the Lusitania was a weak argument. But my question was pretty simple really, wasn't it?

Will the US have our back once the cannons start to sing. I am not sure she will. I am NOT SURE! Do you get my point? And that is a huge point I think, a policy making point.

America will have Britons back for at least another 50 years. After that, well white anglosaxon will no longer be a majority in the u.s. And things could be different. Still, the usa will be their in the next war bleeding with britian

Hypothetically, how would the US react if a Russian bomber were to be shot down over the UK, armed with nuclear weapons. Do you think they would send a lot of soldiers? or a lot of scientists.

Well, was the bomber on an obvious combat mission to deploy those weapons against the UK?
Also, are there already conventional hostilities ongoing? Britain has the capacity to clean up the radioactive mess on Her own. But if Russia had made an obvious choice to use Nuclear weapons against the UK, I'm not sure we'd send soldiers at that point. It would likely be a response in kind to the failed Russian attempt.
Again, I highly doubt that a Nuclear attack would be a Russian choice unless the war were already raging across Europe. I could really see this being more likely to occur during high tensions and posturing, with the flyover just being a show of force. Although downing the plane would likely results in tensions becoming open hostilities.

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: Jonjonj

I think the proper question is not would we but should we. It is my firm opinion that you guys never learn. We have events again playing out very similar to World War II. And what does Europe do ? Once again they practice appeasement.

I think the proper question is this. What does the US do in times of war? Sit off and wait to see which side gets the upper hand, or are you trying to say that you were against appeasement in WW2?

a reply to: pfishy

In the 70s we were in a pub and someone said those pensioners fought for you, I said no they never they fought for themselves and their families, I was not even born so they never fought for me.
And said
If we were invaded our family would fight along side other families fighting for themselves and familes, but I am under no illusions that their are a lot of cowards in the UK I could not trust and cowards trying to look after their own interests would be the death of us all.

But I guarantee you one thing that future generations would not be on my mind because if we lost and died there would be none from us, thats why saying they fought for future generations is crap they fought for the immediate threat to them.

For the record, the world is very likely to be a much better place seeing as how I will never be the commander in chief of a superpower military. I make it a point to consider every side of the issue when making major decisions in just my own life and for my family. But I rapidly loose patience for any one threatening them or our goals. I probably wouldn't start a war, but I would fight one however it needed to be fought to win it. Absolutely.

originally posted by: pavmas
a reply to: pfishy

In the 70s we were in a pub and someone said those pensioners fought for you, I said no they never they fought for themselves and their families, I was not even born so they never fought for me.
And said
If we were invaded our family would fight along side other families fighting for themselves and familes, but I am under no illusions that their are a lot of cowards in the UK I could not trust and cowards trying to look after their own interests would be the death of us all.

But I guarantee you one thing that future generations would not be on my mind because if we lost and died there would be none from us, thats why saying they fought for future generations is crap they fought for the immediate threat to them.

I am sorry my family died for your family, you make me sick.

a reply to: pavmas

Everyone fights for the right now, and those they love. War is romanticized after the fact.
Yes, the politicians think of the future, but the soldiers fight to live.