Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    as david frum puts it but anyway, let me get this clear, the US was right or wrong to send its young men to european battlefields?
    Not required to. They should have actually avoided doing that. The bombing campaign was helpful, though the Brits helped a lot there too, but all they really needed to do was help Russia by providing experienced trainers. Which the Russians got for themselves in late 1942 and early 1943 from their own troops who were by that time seasoned veterans.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wiwarin_mir)
    Spelling mistake, it should be happy rather than happen.
    spelling mistake? you think that was the only thing wrong with that post?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wiwarin_mir)
    The US actually entering the war as a fighting body occured due to pearl harbour, but true, they were suppying us before hand, I should have made myself more clear.
    or retracted the point?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    or retracted the point?
    No, just rephrased it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wiwarin_mir)
    korea, vietnam, europe (cold war), kosovo
    right on one count there, vietnam, you should of tried chile, that would of been a better example or hondorous
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wiwarin_mir)
    The US actually entering the war as a fighting body occured due to pearl harbour, but true, they were suppying us before hand, I should have made myself more clear.
    But given that they kept the UK in the war, that's a fairly significant contribution surely?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    right on one count there, vietnam, you should of tried chile, that would of been a better example or hondorous
    True, but america still managed to do some rather terrible things in vietnam, like carpet bombing, dropping of napalm and agent orange and killing countless civilians.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by H&E)
    That's a gross historical inaccuracy. They supplied a huge amount of war materials, without which Britain could not have survived, long before Pearl Harbour occured. They also allowed aided their citizens in volunteering to join the RAF.
    Uhmm, Germany had no hope of defeating Britain. The Americans helped greatly, that is true, but Germany had no hope of invading Britain, and the attempt to cut off the supply chain to Britain had no hope because the German Navy built its fleet wrong. Britain was fine, under stress yes, but was never in any real danger.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wiwarin_mir)
    korea, vietnam, europe (cold war),
    do you know why they intervened here?



    kosovo
    im assuming you mean this side of the 50s? in which case it appears the US is guilty for being a part of NATO.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by H&E)
    But given that they kept the UK in the war, that's a fairly significant contribution surely?
    I was referring to when they actually started fighting directly as a country. I really should have phrased myself better.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sire)
    Uhmm, Germany had no hope of defeating Britain. The Americans helped greatly, that is true, but Germany had no hope of invading Britain, and the attempt to cut off the supply chain to Britain had no hope because the German Navy built its fleet wrong. Britain was fine, under stress yes, but was never in any real danger.
    US aid was or was not crucial to the British campaign?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wiwarin_mir)
    True, but america still managed to do some rather terrible things in vietnam...kiss countless civilians.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JUSTaGIRL)
    So were the Bali bombings not a direct threat to the liberty of Australian citizens?
    Of course they weren't. Those terrorists captured made statements that they were trying to kill American tourists. Only upon hearing that it was mostly Australian's who died did they go on to state that Australia was virtually another American state. Which is almost true. Kids here now say 'ass' instead of 'arse' etc, and just try finding a show that isn't American on TV.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JUSTaGIRL)
    So were the Bali bombings not a direct threat to the liberty of Australian citizens?
    no.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    do you know why they intervened here?
    the US are afraid of communism, they always have been, it is that simple, it threatens them to have any other form of government.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    US aid was or was not crucial to the British campaign?
    Simple answer. It was helpful, but had it not been given, then it would not have been helpful. Not really crucial though.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wiwarin_mir)
    I was referring to when they actually started fighting directly as a country. I really should have phrased myself better.
    That's not really relevant. The point is they invested huge resources in order to keep Britain in the war. The political mood of the time meant that FDR couldn't get involved without a good reason (which Pearl Harbor provided), but he did pretty much everything else which he could. It is wrong to dismiss these efforts, not only because they kept Britain in the war but also because they involved the deaths of American sailors.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    it wasnt american policy to kill civilians, it was bad decision by generals and commanders of the troups.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sire)
    Simple answer. It was helpful, but had it not been given, then it would not have been helpful. Not really crucial though.
    Without the Americans, the Battle of Britain would have been lost. Fact. Or was that not crucial, too?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wiwarin_mir)
    True, but america still managed to do some rather terrible things in vietnam, like carpet bombing, dropping of napalm and agent orange and kiss countless civilians.
    yes that is why i agreed with you the rest of your examples tho have various problems mainly that defeating communism and acting against ethnic cleansing are good things
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.