For those who "Support our Troops," but oppose the War in Iraq

[dangerclose]

by Dr. Rand Pellegrino, D.C.

I am a Purple Heart Viet Nam Veteran. I am here to speak the truth. I request you listen and I challenge you to to come up with a better solution. I love America, and I believe most of you do, too. Ironically, it is your speech and actions in your demonstration of this love which is contributing to the deaths and injuries to our brave men and women in uniform and the lengthening of the time our troops have to stay in Iraq.

Our global enemies routinely refer to our involvement in Viet Nam as an example of our military's ability and resolve. Judging by their actions, there is a belief among terrorist organizations that if they simply mirror the strategies of the North Viet Namese Army and the Viet Cong, victory can be theirs as it was for them. Although this is a very different war, fought for entirely different reasons, the strategies used against us are the same.

In a interview in 1985 (ten years after the war had ended), the leader of the North Vietnamese Army (NVA), General Giap, said there were two times he was ready to surrender to the United States. In February, 1968 the NVA, along with the Viet Cong, launched the TET Offensive. Seventy- five percent of the NVA was either killed or wounded. It was a resounding U.S. victory. General Giap realized he could not win the war and was prepared to surrender...




However, he read U.S. newspaper reports and editorials which claimed TET was a communist victory rather than an American one. General Giap read in these same U.S. newspapers about our campus protests and anti-war activities. He came to realize that the American military did not have the support of the citizens. He changed his strategy from aggression to attrition. He believed he did not have to defeat America to win. He saw that America would defeat itself. He simply needed to hang on. Consequently, General Giap did not surrender. He simply hung on.

In 1971 and 1972, the United States military launched a relentless bombing campaign against North Viet Nam. Most major factories were destroyed. The morale of the people and the NVA was broken. As he stated in this same interview, General Giap was about to surrender a second time. Again he read the news accounts of public protests, university campuses in shambles and marches in the streets in opposition to the war. The unrest in America gave him the resolve to stick to his strategy....just hold on. America will defeat herself. Again, he did not surrender, but simply hung on.

Although he made several profound statements, General Giap shared how important the American media was to his cause. He called our newspapers and university campuses his "Fifth Column" and said they accomplished more than his own army. In fact, as early as 1966 the (North) Viet Namese News Agency wrote "We praise the American peace champions. The movement of the American people to protest against the war of aggression has really become the second front against U.S. imperialists."

If our "news" agencies were correct about Viet Nam, that the "reunification" of Viet Nam would "produce greater welfare and security for its people," why did over 2 million Viet Namese risk their lives (and over 100,000 die) in leaky boats to escape Viet Nam after the 1975 "reunification?" Our "news" agencies, then and now, paint rosy pictures of our enemies, at the same time exaggerating and demonizing any short comings of our military and its leaders.

The fall of Saigon and the rest of South Viet Nam demonstrated the wisdom of General Giap and the power of our own press and our own people who "just want peace" to defeat us. I fear that history is indeed repeating itself with Iraq.

Although we enjoy freedom of speech in our country (I risked my life and gave my blood so all Americans could have it), certain speech can be damaging. There are passionate arguments on both sides of Iraq. And, understand that your fervor in denigrating our president and, by extension, our men and women in uniform, you are indeed aiding our enemies in their brutal campaigns against us. If it were not for the twisting of the truth by the "news" agencies and the protests on the campuses and in the streets, the Viet Nam war would have ended February, 1968 and over two hundred thousand U.S. men and boys (I was 19 when I was there) would not have been wounded or killed. If you truly support our troops and want the war to end as quickly as possible, with the least amount of U.S. causalities, show the world a unified America and encourage our "news" agencies to do the same. And the news agencies need to report on good side of our troops and what they are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. In private or when all our troops are home, then you can say whatever you want, but until then, you must support our troops and our government. You do not have to agree with them, and as far as the rest of the world is concerned, the U.S. is united and resolved to win. Do you think we would have won WW II if we had the same "news" and divisiveness as we are showing now? In WW II there were many who did not agree with the president and they still backed him 100% in public and so did all the news agencies.

Beside what it did to the soul of our country, the outcome of the Viet Nam war did not have a real impact on life in the U.S. as we knew it. The war in Iraq is the pivotal war on terrorism, if we do not win, life in the U.S. will never be the same.

"We must learn from history. If we don't, we are condemned to repeat it." The words of President John F. Kennedy are as relevant today as they were then.

[00]

This is true...

[tsuri]

in private or when all our troops are home, then you can say whatever you want, but until then, you must support our troops and our government. You do not have to agree with them, and as far as the rest of the world is concerned, the U.S. is united and resolved to win. Do you think we would have won WW II if we had the same "news" and divisiveness as we are showing now?
We lost World War two with this great strategy. What does that tell us?

Bull****. Democracy needs communication and if a large part of the population are against a war then it should not be waged in their name.

[Jaeger07]

I'm not an American, so i can only express my view as an european on this matter.

I think most of Europe supports the article in the idea of "when we first have started this, we must finish it". To pull out of a war-torn and unstable Iraq will be much more damageing than the war itself.

Norway did not support America's reson for going to war, but once they were in, we aided them with rebuilding and securing. This is a view i completely agree with.

However, the article seems to attack the media and the news-agencies. If the idea is to restrict media cower, or sensorship on the news, I am totaly agianst it. If you take away freedom of speech and a free media, you have lost a very significant part of being a democracy.

The task now seems IMO clear: secure a stable and strong Iraq, and then go home.

[dangerclose]

We lost World War two with this great strategy. What does that tell us?

Bull****. Democracy needs communication and if a large part of the population are against a war then it should not be waged in their name.

No you lost two world wars because the United States kicked your @ss.

[WarriorMonk]

I'm not an American, so i can only express my view as an european on this matter.

I think most of Europe supports the article in the idea of "when we first have started this, we must finish it". To pull out of a war-torn and unstable Iraq will be much more damageing than the war itself.

Norway did not support America's reson for going to war, but once they were in, we aided them with rebuilding and securing. This is a view i completely agree with.

However, the article seems to attack the media and the news-agencies. If the idea is to restrict media cower, or sensorship on the news, I am totaly agianst it. If you take away freedom of speech and a free media, you have lost a very significant part of being a democracy.

The task now seems IMO clear: secure a stable and strong Iraq, and then go home.


having too much of a free media leaves it open for any one person to hijack it for their own agendas - the media is very much the sole source of information for everyone - and telling everyone what to believe via the media, well, you can literally wrest control of a nation from its government by one man.

Have you seen the "One Marine's Words" thread yet?

If you've ever heard of it, look for Thomas Jefferson's "artillery of the press" quote. Think about it, coming from some guy who wanted to downsize the American government.

"In giving these outlines I do not mean, fellow-citizens, to arrogate to myself the merit of the measures. That is due, in the first place, to the reflecting character of our citizens at large, who, by the weight of public opinion, influence and strengthen the public measures. It is due to the sound discretion with which they select from among themselves those to whom they confide the legislative duties. It is due to the zeal and wisdom of the characters thus selected, who lay the foundations of public happiness in wholesome laws, the execution of which alone remains for others, and it is due to the able and faithful auxiliaries, whose patriotism has associated them with me in the executive functions.
During this course of administration, and in order to disturb it, the artillery of the press has been leveled against us, charged with whatsoever its licentiousness could devise or dare. These abuses of an institution so important to freedom and science are deeply to be regretted, inasmuch as they tend to lessen its usefulness and to sap its safety. They might, indeed, have been corrected by the wholesome punishments reserved to and provided by the laws of the several States against falsehood and defamation, but public duties more urgent press on the time of public servants, and the offenders have therefore been left to find their punishment in the public indignation."

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Who kicked who's ass?

America done bugger all in WW1

And by the time it's forces were in strength in Europe Russia and the UK had basically defeated Germany anyway.

EDIT:
If there is one pet hate of mine and that's American's "Claiming Victory" over something that took an Allied force to do. Especially in WW1 when the military contribution was neglible.

Anyway. Even in WW1 and WW2 the UK, Australia and France had a large anti-war movement. Especially at the start. All democracies have them. And it's a fact. It's the fundemental principle of democracy. Freedome to express your views.

[JoaMei]

Who kicked who's ass?

America done bugger all in WW1

And by the time it's forces were in strength in Europe Russia and the UK had basically defeated Germany anyway.

EDIT:
If there is one pet hate of mine and that's American's "Claiming Victory" over something that took an Allied force to do. Especially in WW1 when the military contribution was neglible.

Anyway. Even in WW1 and WW2 the UK, Australia and France had a large anti-war movement. Especially at the start. All democracies have them. And it's a fact. It's the fundemental principle of democracy. Freedome to express your views.

WTF???

Seems you have to look into some history books about the russian revolution and Lenin. Seriously.

IN FACT the russian troops stopped fighting long before the end of WW1 and they signed a Peace contract.

It was the american supplys and fresh troops that made the difference.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Who kicked who's ass?

America done bugger all in WW1

And by the time it's forces were in strength in Europe Russia and the UK had basically defeated Germany anyway.

EDIT:
If there is one pet hate of mine and that's American's "Claiming Victory" over something that took an Allied force to do. Especially in WW1 when the military contribution was neglible.

Anyway. Even in WW1 and WW2 the UK, Australia and France had a large anti-war movement. Especially at the start. All democracies have them. And it's a fact. It's the fundemental principle of democracy. Freedome to express your views.

The Russians made their peace with the Germans well before the end of WW1 so they cant claim the credit.
No disrespect intended here but the Americans were not in WW1 long enough in large enough numbers to have had a decisive effect.
The Germans were ground down by continued British naval blockade and by better British and French tactics on the Western Front especially in the coordination of artillery with combined infantry/armoured attacks (particularly at night). It was the British Empire forces which made the critical breakthrough of the Hindenburg line. The Americans did take heavy casualties though because they repeated all the mistakes in trench warfare that the British Empire/French forces had made in the previous 3-4 years. The Americans weren't involved at all in the campaign in the Middle East against the Ottoman Empire. If WW1 had dragged on for longer they would definitely have had a major/decisive impact though.

[WarriorMonk]

Who kicked who's ass?

America done bugger all in WW1

And by the time it's forces were in strength in Europe Russia and the UK had basically defeated Germany anyway.

EDIT:
If there is one pet hate of mine and that's American's "Claiming Victory" over something that took an Allied force to do. Especially in WW1 when the military contribution was neglible.

Anyway. Even in WW1 and WW2 the UK, Australia and France had a large anti-war movement. Especially at the start. All democracies have them. And it's a fact. It's the fundemental principle of democracy. Freedome to express your views.

Didn't American involvement break the stalemate of WWI? Not necessarily claiming victory but certainly providing leverage.

And I wonder if those anti-war movements helped at all during those times...

[Beppo]

having too much of a free media leaves it open for any one person to hijack it for their own agendas - the media is very much the sole source of information for everyone - and telling everyone what to believe via the media, well, you can literally wrest control of a nation from its government by one man.Yeah, because all media comes from only one source and there's no such thing as a left- or right-leaning media.

[tsuri]

No you lost two world wars because the United States kicked your @ss.

Sad. Are you so brainwashed that all you can respond is this?

My daddy has a bigger car than your daddy blah blah blah..

Go ahead. Give up freedom of speech for fake support for the troops. But it is not the war of the troops or the government, it is the war of the people.
If the people stop supporting the war, nobody can continue it. Pretending to support it for the sake of unity will not change anything.

[Olybrius]

No you lost two world wars because the United States kicked your @ss.

Stupid blinded nationalism at its best

they lost 2 WORLD wars because they faced superior forces.
Btw , US didn't play the major role, it was France (WW1) and USSR (WW2) and without the (ex) British empire on their side , i don't think all these nations would have won any world war.

[vryhpyammoadded]

We lost World War two with this great strategy. What does that tell us?


Bull****. Democracy needs communication and if a large part of the population are against a war then it should not be waged in their name.


And that is exactly how it works in a democratically elected republic such as the US. The population of voting citizens has every right to elect any faction they desire. If they want peace, they elect a faction promising peace. If they want war, they elect or maintain the faction fighting said conflict.
An elected representative can do what ever he pleases, within the law. He is not required to kowtow to the whims of the constituents, unless he truly desires reelection.
America is communicating, more so than usual and, we will see soon if enough voters desire not to have a war waged in there name.

What I find even more interesting is the growing number of average US citizens finding out how little there representatives even listen to them. I feel the public won’t truly be represented again until they suffer a few more shocks like war, incompetent security, financial insecurity and more major governmental and judicial scandal. I say keep making noise and give them time. More people will wake up and retake the two parties or make a new one soon enough.

The core gripes I find with my anti war friends are that they say the war is founded upon deceit, lies and corruption. They don’t even go into the details of the current situation and pretty much say that we should cut and run because a war founded on these principals can never be won. In other words, they have no trust in our government or the military to fight a just war of liberation to rebuild Iraq into a better nation.
I say, even if there accusations are true, we must stay and that leaving Iraq before a self supporting government is in place would be a far worse crime. I, on the other hand, trust the military to do its job rebuilding Iraq and am willing to wait it out until the jobs finished or it’s obvious we are causing more harm than good staying there. I don’t see it as being that bad yet.
It is a shame though that the people can’t seem to unite under what I feel is the right thing to do and so many succumb to defeatists, apologists and the corrupt.
2008 will be a fun year!

[vryhpyammoadded]

However, the article seems to attack the media and the news-agencies. If the idea is to restrict media cower, or sensorship on the news, I am totaly agianst it. If you take away freedom of speech and a free media, you have lost a very significant part of being a democracy.


The task now seems IMO clear: secure a stable and strong Iraq, and then go home.

I feel there is strong evidence supporting the need for attacks on the media’s lack of credibility and growing power as the political “fourth estate” or was that fifth? Anyway, If the media wants to play the politics game, it should be moderated with checks and balances like any other branch of government but I agree with you that censorship is not the way to go.
Propaganda is an extremely powerful and dangerous tool in modern society; Stalin, Hitler and a host of other despots have demonstrated this fact.
I believe an open and uncontrolled Internet will be the key to balance it.

[WarriorMonk]

First off, I'm thinking this article is not aimed at press or anything, but for people who openly desire peace at any cost when actual world peace is impossible to obtain...

[Omaha]

Stupid blinded nationalism at its best

they lost 2 WORLD wars because they faced superior forces.
Btw , US didn't play the major role, it was France (WW1) and USSR (WW2) and without the (ex) British empire on their side , i don't think all these nations would have won any world war.


Wow....I can't believe you would say something like that. To imagine someone would actually accept what you have written, is...is..beyond me.

WW1

The Europeans couldn't beat Germany with TWO fronts the east and western. Once the russians left, Germany could step up and dismiss the eastern front, and focus on the west. You couldn't beat them back when they were fighting a two front, they would have marched all over you after the Russians left.

But America arrived, and put the Germans to bed. Don't bull****, history is on my side.



Lets move to WW2

The Russians were getting their asses handed to them. The Germans were moving at will. The winter came, and yes it did hurt, a lot. But the Russians were never going to push the Germans back, not for a second. After D-day. An AMERICAN operation. The Germans had to bring troops from the east, to defend France, not to mention it tied up armor and aircraft that was needed in the east. Which allowed the Russians to inch Germany back.

Both cases American involvement was invaluable. Besides, we single handedly took out Japan, so I don't want to hear any crap about who was top dog in WW2.

Take your bull**** and go home, punk.





Now, about the article, the TOPIC at hand.

I believe when you say "I am for the troops, but against the war" you are against the troops. To say, well we love the people that are fighting dying, defending us, but we hate the actual reason they are fighting, dying, defend us for. Which, is like spitting in their face.

“I support you...but nothing that you have dedicated your life to.” I see that as the worse thing anyone can say to a service member. It is one thing to attack the Army/Marines etc. but to attack what they are ACTUALLY fighting and dying for, is beyond insult. And that little "We are for the troops" only makes it worse.

Actually that little line is more than likely added in there to make it seem as if the insult wasn't that bad.

[DE_Six]

Support the troops, yes.
They haven't chosen to be over there, but they make the sacrifice nonetheless and that deserves gratitude and respect.

Support the struggle to try and make Iraq a better place, if only to make the war worth it, yes.
The plan was flawed in some respects but backing out entirely wouldn't do anyone good, except the violent radicals in the Middle East.

Blindly support the government, wherever in the world, no. Politicians are fallible and it is the citizen's duty to remind them of it.

[Fenna]

Wow....I can't believe you would say something like that. To imagine someone would actually accept what you have written, is...is..beyond me.

WW1

The Europeans couldn't beat Germany with TWO fronts the east and western. Once the russians left, Germany could step up and dismiss the eastern front, and focus on the west. You couldn't beat them back when they were fighting a two front, they would have marched all over you after the Russians left.

But America arrived, and put the Germans to bed. Don't bull****, history is on my side.



Lets move to WW2

The Russians were getting their asses handed to them. The Germans were moving at will. The winter came, and yes it did hurt, a lot. But the Russians were never going to push the Germans back, not for a second. After D-day. An AMERICAN operation. The Germans had to bring troops from the east, to defend France, not to mention it tied up armor and aircraft that was needed in the east. Which allowed the Russians to inch Germany back.

Both cases American involvement was invaluable. Besides, we single handedly took out Japan, so I don't want to hear any crap about who was top dog in WW2.

Take your bull**** and go home, punk.



If you think history is on your side, you must have learnt a different version to everybody else. You clearly have a very limited knowledge of World War 2.

D-Day was not just an American operation, in fact there were more British and Canadian troops on D-Day than American. You seem to imply that Germany only gave up ground to after D-Day? The Soviets were already in Poland within a few days of the start of 1944.

Oh by the way, the US didn't single handedly "take out" Japan

[Olybrius]

Wow....I can't believe you would say something like that. To imagine someone would actually accept what you have written, is...is..beyond me.

WW1

The Europeans couldn't beat Germany with TWO fronts the east and western. Once the russians left, Germany could step up and dismiss the eastern front, and focus on the west. You couldn't beat them back when they were fighting a two front, they would have marched all over you after the Russians left.

But America arrived, and put the Germans to bed. Don't bull****, history is on my side.



Lets move to WW2

The Russians were getting their asses handed to them. The Germans were moving at will. The winter came, and yes it did hurt, a lot. But the Russians were never going to push the Germans back, not for a second. After D-day. An AMERICAN operation. The Germans had to bring troops from the east, to defend France, not to mention it tied up armor and aircraft that was needed in the east. Which allowed the Russians to inch Germany back.

Both cases American involvement was invaluable. Besides, we single handedly took out Japan, so I don't want to hear any crap about who was top dog in WW2.

Take your bull**** and go home, punk.





Now, about the article, the TOPIC at hand.

I believe when you say "I am for the troops, but against the war" you are against the troops. To say, well we love the people that are fighting dying, defending us, but we hate the actual reason they are fighting, dying, defend us for. Which, is like spitting in their face.

“I support you...but nothing that you have dedicated your life to.” I see that as the worse thing anyone can say to a service member. It is one thing to attack the Army/Marines etc. but to attack what they are ACTUALLY fighting and dying for, is beyond insult. And that little "We are for the troops" only makes it worse.

Actually that little line is more than likely added in there to make it seem as if the insult wasn't that bad.

Typical stupid blinded nationalism ... part II
You're totally unable to understand that there is another history than the one which is only speaking of United States of America ;)

In ww1 when the germans launched their offensives the overwhelming majority of US troops in Europe was under training (and ...mostly by french ..and to use french artillery , tanks , planes ... ;)) . The battles in which US troops were involved (Belleau wood...), even heroic, were small battle at the scale of the front (only a wood ...). You can affirm that the incoming of US troop shortened the war but from 1914 to 1918 France played the major role. period...and don't forget the british , canadians , kiwis , australians , belgians ...

In ww2 after D_Day, an ALLIED operation (americans ,british, canadians...), as Fenna previously said, a minimum of 70% of the German army always faced the Red Army ...

[Omaha]

God damn, you people are out there...

I know there were more than American troops on D-day, I was saying the Gen. Eisenhower developed the plan, and Americans took on more of the grunt than any other country there. (Except the Germans of coarse.)



Soviets were already in Poland within a few days of the start of 1944

Sorry buddy...

http://astro.temple.edu/~barbday/Europe66/resources/images/alliedattack1944.jpg

[pathfinder82]

I completley reject the idea that you cant support our troops and criticize our leaders decisions regarding the war at the same time. Thats just moronic.

What good does it do to sit back and watch a poorly executed strategy and say nothing. Thats just blind patriotism, which is abundant in this country. The US is quite capable of making mistakes and what makes this country great is we dont hide behind something when it goes wrong for the most part, we have an open disscusion. An open disscussion that the administration at the time and its supporters never seem to like very much, which is understandable.

[Omaha]

I completley reject the idea that you cant support our troops and criticize our leaders decisions regarding the war at the same time. Thats just moronic.

What good does it do to sit back and watch a poorly executed strategy and say nothing. Thats just blind patriotism, which is abundant in this country. The US is quite capable of making mistakes and what makes this country great is we dont hide behind something when it goes wrong for the most part, we have an open disscusion. An open disscussion that the administration at the time and its supporters never seem to like very much, which is understandable.


That is true, but the thing is, once we are there, squabbling and fighting about the reason to go in, is silly. And above all unnecessary.

Once we are there, you have to support staying in, there isn't any other logical option.


If you were a soldier, you fought, bled, and watched your friends die for what ever war/conflict etc., and someone came along and said, "Well I support you...but not what ever it is you are doing here." Wouldn't you take an offense to that? I sure as hell would. And that is what the problem is. You can't support the troops, then say their actions are nothing but a mistake and it was all in vain.

Don't even bring the troops into it. Criticize the politicians ways and means, not the end. Because the end is solely dealt with by the troops. The two can't be separated.

At the least in my opinion.

[ElHombre]

good lord, how many times does this quotation have to be used before it starts to sink into some people's heads:


To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

the real reason american support for the war in iraq is fading is because the administration from the POTUS on down absolutiely refuses to publicly acknowledge reality to the american public or to share in their concerns. lack of troops? don't need them, it'll be 'shock and awe'. not enough armor? you go to war with the army you have. insurgency breaking out? it's just a few 'dead-enders'. what about the cost? it'll be cheap and we're gonna give more tax cuts to our rich friends. the list goes on and on and every once and a while we get a plea like this one, don't question the president because you'll 'harm the troops'. which causes more harm then? the POTUS not giving a rat's ass about the effects his decisions are having on the troops or people having to point out for years that his decisions are harming ther troops?

[pathfinder82]

That is true, but the thing is, once we are there, squabbling and fighting about the reason to go in, is silly. And above all unnecessary.

Once we are there, you have to support staying in, there isn't any other logical option.


If you were a soldier, you fought, bled, and watched your friends die for what ever war/conflict etc., and someone came along and said, "Well I support you...but not what ever it is you are doing here." Wouldn't you take an offense to that? I sure as hell would. And that is what the problem is. You can't support the troops, then say their actions are nothing but a mistake and it was all in vain.

Don't even bring the troops into it. Criticize the politicians ways and means, not the end. Because the end is solely dealt with by the troops. The two can't be separated.

At the least in my opinion.


Why would I take offense to that, its an opinion, thats all. That is essentially what people who dont support the war are saying, I dont see a problem with as someone who fought in Afghanistan. My mother doesnt agree with the war or me going into the army at the time, so what, shes entiltled to her opinion.

People need to grow thicker shells and realize there is no definitive right or wrong, just opinions. The troops dont care as much about this as the people at home who support the war, its that simple. The guys I corespond with dont care at all if theres a debate, they have questions and doubts too. Its just like vietnam, its over hyped political bs coming from the extreme right. Soldiers in Vietnam didnt care as they were portrayed to have in movies.

There is so much on these guys plates the last thing they care about is if Bob from Kansas agrees with the war or not.

[AFJROTC55]

Sad. Are you so brainwashed that all you can respond is this?

My daddy has a bigger car than your daddy blah blah blah..

Go ahead. Give up freedom of speech for fake support for the troops. But it is not the war of the troops or the government, it is the war of the people.
If the people stop supporting the war, nobody can continue it. Pretending to support it for the sake of unity will not change anything.
well, in response to the whole "my daddy's car" thing, i will say this, im not brainwashed, yes america has made mistakes and some big screw ups but the fact of the matter is that, i am "daddy" and yes, my car is bigger than your car, deal braw. and its not like it was handed to us, we EARNED it, America is the BEST country in the world because it was forged that way, forged in blood and sweat. you're from Germany so how do you have any right to criticize America, oh, wait, you dont.

[mi35d]

Ahhhhhh, we're back on the "US didn't do nothin' for us in WW1 & 2" thread.

It's always humorous to see the historical amnesia that occurs and the whining.

Check a history book or two and learn a few things:

WW1 Before the US entry to the warfront: Europe - the US fed your people and armed your soldiers.

After US entered: Germany was invigorated after the Russian pull out from the war. It was the US involvement that turned the tide. To believe otherwise is assinine. (Consider that the Allied forces were unable to defeat Germany with her forces split on TWO fronts.)

WW2: Same situation. Remember Lend Lease anyone? And a certain sticking point for personnel who have served with the "Big Red One" - the US (and Britain) invaded the European mainland well before "D-Day". Small minor thing called the Sicily (and then Italian) invasions.

Give it a break people - it was a group effort.

As for the Pacfic, it WAS pretty much a US effort. Sorry. Its just the facts of history. Yes, there was British and Aus/NZ support but it was minimal in comparison to the US effort. Or maybe I didn't read about the thousand British bombers attacking the Japanese mainland...

[Omaha]

. Its just like vietnam, its over hyped political bs coming from the extreme right. Soldiers in Vietnam didnt care as they were portrayed to have in movies.




I guess they didn't care when they came home and were spit on, and soldiers too afraid to wear their uniforms off base for fear of being attacked.

Of corse they care. They are human beings, they are effected just like anyone else. It is easy to dismiss a few crazy liberals, but when those liberals have polls and stupid op ed pieces saying we should pull out, it is the same as Vietnam, you are damn right they care. And anyone that is human, will begin to question themselves, and their mission to some degree.

[sir-chimp]

Pathfinder are you claiming to speak for all Vietnam vets? The vets I have spoken to in person, and many of the books I have read by Vietnam vets would suggest other wise. Many did and do care about how they are portrayed. The same applies for the vets I know of the current war.

[ArmedPacifist]

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will
deserve neither and lose both."
-Benjamin Franklin

[EsoognomEhT]

No you lost two world wars because the United States kicked your @ss.



I cant believe you show such blatent disrespect for all the allied soldiers that died while your country was sitting around with its thumb up its arse for far too long.

[Omaha]

Neither were our wars. What do you want from us? We had absolutely nothing to do with WW1, and it wasn't for Germany's desire to hit luxury liners, we would have never even been there.

Like it was stated before, if that would have happened, there wouldn't have been a reason for round 2...

[Johnny_H02]

Didn't American involvement break the stalemate of WWI? Not necessarily claiming victory but certainly providing leverage.

And I wonder if those anti-war movements helped at all during those times...


Not exactly, I will NOT belittle the american efforts in WWI but the Hunn were on the outs, the British, French, Canadians and Australians were defeating them. The Canadians delivered the first major allied victory in 2years at Vimy ridge, where they took a peice of ground that cost the brits and french tens of thousends in previous attempts. ( this was not a major claim it was only part of the Arras offensive in 1917 the rest of which failed )



America entered the war in 1917 but they didnt actually have troops on the ground untill 1918, by this time the german army was already starving to death.And the Americans did distinguish themselves on many occasions in the First world war ... that being said but that "America won Both World Wars all by her lonely " statement really rubs people the wrong way.


He made a very good point about Germany, about peoples lack of a voice or outcry

The Following are quotes from Herr Johann Voss a veteran of the 6th SS Nord Division 11 Gerbigsjager regiment.


One Lesson is clear: Never again must there be any public authority without active popular control....


The Core of individual freedom must be preserved under all circumstances, even in war. There must be no such thing as unconditional commitment! I think that is perhaps the lesson we learned from our experiance.

With those two quotes in mind I will use the very same quote he used for his example.


"We must learn from history. If we don't, we are condemned to repeat it." The words of President John F. Kennedy are as relevant today as they were then.

[tsuri]

well, in response to the whole "my daddy's car" thing, i will say this, im not brainwashed, yes america has made mistakes and some big screw ups but the fact of the matter is that, i am "daddy" and yes, my car is bigger than your car, deal braw. and its not like it was handed to us, we EARNED it, America is the BEST country in the world because it was forged that way, forged in blood and sweat. you're from Germany so how do you have any right to criticize America, oh, wait, you dont.

You have just won the second seat on my Ignore list. It is sad that you are indoctrinated that way. One day you will wake up from the propaganda and realize that it is this attitude,carried out by certain individuals, that makes your country unpopular.



America is the BEST country in the world
Best at what?
You do not have the lowest crime rate, not the lowest child mortality, not the lowest unemployment rate and your GDP is not the higest either.

We Europeans are grateful that America did not reinvent slavery to build it´s economy, that it stopped World War 1 in 1914 and directly intervened in 39,winning both wars without the other Allies.
It was a good choice not to support pro American Dictators in 3rd World Countries that were not liked by the people, It was good of you not to support Saddam and a really good idea not to give the Taliban foreign aid.

You are a brainwashed tool. I feel sorry for you.

[roland]

Olybrius is right:
- In WWI the Yanks saved the German's ass NOT the allied's @ss when they accepted this sh:tty armistice and imposed it to the Brits.
- In WWII they're a major contribution but the Brits, Russians and others did a damned good job too and lets not forget that the US fought there first German in Europe only .. in July 10, 1943 .. in Sicily. And in 1944-45 75% of Germans troops were on the Eastern front.

Don't take it bad guys that's just the truth and in both case we were damned glad to see them coming though :)

[sp2c]

As for the Pacfic, it WAS pretty much a US effort. Sorry. Its just the facts of history. Yes, there was British and Aus/NZ support but it was minimal in comparison to the US effort. Or maybe I didn't read about the thousand British bombers attacking the Japanese mainland...

well actually, the Dutch Netherlands Indies air and naval forces fought to itself to a virtual extinction to hold up the japanese advance through the pacific for as long as possible, so that the Americans could rebuild their strenght in the region severly weekening the defences of our own territories
the commander of armed forces in the east said 'the situation in the indies would be looking a lot better if we didn't have such powerfull allies'

ww2 was an allied effort

[sickofpretenders]

well actually, the Dutch Netherlands Indies air and naval forces fought to itself to a virtual extinction to hold up the japanese advance through the pacific for as long as possible, so that the Americans could rebuild their strenght in the region severly weekening the defences of our own territories
the commander of armed forces in the east said 'the situation in the indies would be looking a lot better if we didn't have such powerfull allies'

ww2 was an allied effort

Very true. Good post

[Secret Squirrel]

Don't even bring the troops into it. Criticize the politicians ways and means, not the end. Because the end is solely dealt with by the troops. The two can't be separated.

At the least in my opinion.


Ok so dont bring the troops into it, critize the politicians and the two cant be seperated? Do you always contradict yourself? And most people realize, at least those out of high school, that the end is "dealt with" by politicians. The beginning is decided by politicians, the middle is fought by the military, the end is again solely in the realm of politics. You dont actually think that the end simply means the end combat do you? That everyone goes home happy and that's that?

[toad]

I cant believe you show such blatent disrespect for all the allied soldiers that died while your country was sitting around with its thumb up its arse for far too long.

whining that the US takes too long to get involved. More whining that the US is too quick to get involved in conflicts. Classic internet.

[hell]

Do you think we would have won WW II if we had the same "news" and divisiveness as we are showing now? In WW II there were many who did not agree with the president and they still backed him 100% in public and so did all the news agencies.


Quite the contrary, Pres. Roosevelt had many detractors, both from politicians and the news agencies. There were reporters screaming conspiracy on Dec. 8, 1941.




Beside what it did to the soul of our country, the outcome of the Viet Nam war did not have a real impact on life in the U.S. as we knew it.


I'll tell that to my father the next time he wakes up screaming, 38 years after his experiences. Might as well let my grandmother know her other son that went to Vietnam but didn't come back wouldn't have made any real contribution to society either. What a load of crap. I'm not denying my generation doesn't know enough about Vietnam, but to say it didn't change things is idiotic.




The war in Iraq is the pivotal war on terrorism, if we do not win, life in the U.S. will never be the same.


It is now, but wasn't before we went in. After 1991, we'd basically strangled Iraq's ability to wage war by using economic and military sanctions. Sure, they could have had terrorist training camps like A-stan, but N. Korea was and probably still is a much more logical threat. Sure, terrorist attacks can be costly, but a suicide bomber still won't have the wholesale destructive capability as a tacticle nuclear warhead.

I'm against the war, like some, but I also believe we shouldn't forsake our troops who are over there. I do believe some of the comparisons of this war with the one in Iraq are true; soldiers ordered to go do their jobs, and they do them damn well, and then come home to have people protest against them, call them baby-killers, and spit on them. Now that's disgusting. Treat someone like that, when they were just doing their job. Several of my friends are soldiers, and alot of them don't agree with the war, but they do their jobs just the same. Don't ignore their sacrifice just because you don't wholy agree with the cause.

Not the typical Liberal tirade, but there's mine

[dangerclose]

I cant believe you show such blatent disrespect for all the allied soldiers that died while your country was sitting around with its thumb up its arse for far too long.


do me a favor .. shut up

[Artie Bucco]

Ahhhhhh, we're back on the "US didn't do nothin' for us in WW1 & 2" thread.

It's always humorous to see the historical amnesia that occurs and the whining.

Check a history book or two and learn a few things:

WW1 Before the US entry to the warfront: Europe - the US fed your people and armed your soldiers.

After US entered: Germany was invigorated after the Russian pull out from the war. It was the US involvement that turned the tide. To believe otherwise is assinine. (Consider that the Allied forces were unable to defeat Germany with her forces split on TWO fronts.)




If the USA didn't enter WW1, it wouldn't affect the outcome at all as US military involvement was at best slight.

However the US involvement made it crystal clear that the war couldn't be won.

Had the US pulled out then the March 1918 offensive would still have failed and along with it, Germany's last decent troops...Haig's army would take the offensive as they did historically and plough on until Germany broke.

Perhaps Germany might not see the light until deep into the 1918-19 winter or even the Spring of 1919 itself, but defeat was inevitable.

France wouldn't sue for peace while its territory was occupied (including Alsasce-Lorraine) so ultimately any German request for peace must signal a defeat.

In mid-1918, Germany had played its last card whilst Britain still held a strong hand.

[roland]

France wouldn't sue for peace while its territory was occupied (including Alsasce-Lorraine) so ultimately any German request for peace must signal a defeat.


WHAT ??????

I can't speak to you and stay polite currently.
Have a look there and come back and say sorry you ...
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=38315

[Belrick]

Haigs boys prevented a german victory in WW1, no doubt. But what i seriously doubt is that Haigs army could of defeated the German army, especially in the area of moral.

But at the end of the day, how much longer could Germany have hung on for due to the blockade by the RN?

[Belrick]

Oh and forgot to mention, this article is lame.

A: WTF has defending a soveriegns nations right to exist got to do with taking away a sovereign nations right to choose how it exists?

B: How the fuk is the war in Iraq seen as a war on terrorism?

[Omaha]

Ok so dont bring the troops into it, critize the politicians and the two cant be seperated? Do you always contradict yourself? And most people realize, at least those out of high school, that the end is "dealt with" by politicians. The beginning is decided by politicians, the middle is fought by the military, the end is again solely in the realm of politics. You dont actually think that the end simply means the end combat do you? That everyone goes home happy and that's that?


I thought I typed it in English, but I guess not.

"Don't even bring the troops into it. Criticize the politicians ways and means, not the end. Because the end is solely dealt with by the troops. The two can't be separated. "


We were talking about operations in Iraq now . Not 10 years down the road after operations cease.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Neither were our wars. What do you want from us? We had absolutely nothing to do with WW1, and it wasn't for Germany's desire to hit luxury liners, we would have never even been there.

Like it was stated before, if that would have happened, there wouldn't have been a reason for round 2...

Actually the Lusitania was carrying 150 tons of contraband cargo as outlined in conventions of the time.

Americans were warned not to travel to England on British ships.

The Lusitania was breaking international by flying the American flag

[Secret Squirrel]

I thought I typed it in English, but I guess not.

"Don't even bring the troops into it. Criticize the politicians ways and means, not the end. Because the end is solely dealt with by the troops. The two can't be separated. "


We were talking about operations in Iraq now . Not 10 years down the road after operations cease.

I thought I typed it in English also, but I guess I was mistaken. Again, the beginning is decided by politicians, the middle is fought by the military, the end is again solely in the realm of politics.

[ABNINF]

Good article dangerclose

[Omaha]

Actually the Lusitania was carrying 150 tons of contraband cargo as outlined in conventions of the time.

Americans were warned not to travel to England on British ships.

The Lusitania was breaking international by flying the American flag

The Germans didn't know this. They were sinking ships.

What does that matter? You still don't sink ships that are not military ships.

If anything...that would have protected it. America was NOT in the war at the time... I don't know where you were going with that.





I thought I typed it in English also, but I guess I was mistaken. Again, the beginning is decided by politicians, the middle is fought by the military, the end is again solely in the realm of politics.

I was talking about; The politicians say war, the soldiers go out and fight the war. If you want to make that middle then fine, change end with middle. My point still stands.

Besides, we AREN'T at the end. So to say there is an end yet is baseless.

[caridon]

ok lets deal with the distractions first.

WWI was won by the introduction of tanks that removed the stalemate of trenchfighting. This was pioneered by the british (with the french as second best) Germany and the USA were WAY behind on this.

So you could argue that bruttan won the war.

WWII The war was son by manufacturing and more soldiers. if you look at the numbers the german army killed about 5 of everything for one of theirs (men,planes,tanks ect) however the alies managed to produce 10 times as much of everything.
remove any of USA,Brittan or Russia and germany would have had a chance of victory (fairly even ods) so any we came and saved your ass is just posturing and idiocy, it was a teamefort and you know it.


Criticism of war.
The next person tat claims that you cant critizise your leadership during war should get himself a "i want to be governd by a dictator" hat and wear it proudly.

[Ratman]

I cant believe you show such blatent disrespect for all the allied soldiers that died while your country was sitting around with its thumb up its arse for far too long.

I thought it was YOUR country sitting around for far too long that started the whole f'in thing. It isn't and wasn't our back yard.

On thread: I support the sentiments of the thread title.

[Major Maxillary]

We lost World War two with this great strategy. What does that tell us?

Bull****. Democracy needs communication and if a large part of the population are against a war then it should not be waged in their name.

No, you lost the war because a) you decided to rally behind a facsist party that steadily decended into madness over the course of the war, 2) you chose to go to war with insufficient naval power and an inability to replace pilots in sufficient numbers, and w) attacked russia who's leader was fully crapping his pants at the thought of the German army.

and now you're a bunch of stuck up socialists who can't even find compfort with your role in the most magnificent national ass-whooping in recent history.

in short, Germany sucks, and you're not exactly in any position to talk about troop morale. what with every german youth i've spoken to hating your own military and all. I mean, christ! your military is designed for defense fo **** sake! do you realize how pointless that is!?



I cant believe you show such blatent disrespect for all the allied soldiers that died while your country was sitting around with its thumb up its arse for far too long.

Does "Peace in our time" ring a bell? Yeah, you guys really had it coming with your appeasement. We were in a depression, our military was using wooden guns, and there was about fifteen countries and the entire atlantic ocean between us and Germany. what was your country's reason for not enforcing the [/URL][url=http://history.acusd.edu/gen/text/versaillestreaty/vercontents.html]Versailles Treaty (http://history.acusd.edu/gen/text/versaillestreaty/vercontents.html) and taking down Hitler when he was still building up his forces?


people refuse to fight when they have the luxury to choose. because otherwise they'd be dead.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Any nation in Englands and France's shoes would of done the same thing. They were completly caught off guard. They knew what Hitler was up to but needed to buy some time before hostilities to commence.

You never go to war unprepared.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Does "Peace in our time" ring a bell? Yeah, you guys really had it coming with your appeasement. We were in a depression, our military was using wooden guns, and there was about fifteen countries and the entire atlantic ocean between us and Germany. what was your country's reason for not enforcing the Versailles Treaty (http://history.acusd.edu/gen/text/versaillestreaty/vercontents.html) and taking down Hitler when he was still building up his forces?


That's one of the dumbest interpretations of history I've ever seen.
Neville Chamberlain didn't send Britain off to war with Nazi Germany in 1938 after the Munich meeting for the simple reason that he knew we would have lost and that the consequences of that would have been Nazi domination of Europe probably for ever. Chamberlain was a very clever guy he knew he had to buy time so that Britain could introduce conscription, build Spitfires (and train fighter pilots), construct the world's first radar-based integrated air defence system and complete the reforms of Britain's agricultural system that had been started in the early 1930s. Sure his decision was disastrous for the Czech's in particular but that's the tough old world of realpolitick where people have to make difficult and ruthless decisions. It's a good job we didn't have someone like you as Prime Minister in 1938 or we'd all be goose stepping now.

[Olybrius]

WWI was won by the introduction of tanks that removed the stalemate of trenchfighting. This was pioneered by the british (with the french as second best) Germany and the USA were WAY behind on this.

So you could argue that bruttan won the war.


the Entente won the war , not the british;)

BTW here is the WW1 tanks production:
France : 4146
Britain : 2497
Germany: 20 (!)
US: 0 (used french tanks)

http://www.wio.ru/tank/ww1tank.htm

[EsoognomEhT]

do me a favor .. shut up


Do me a favour, **** off. Something in my post strike a chord did it?

[Major Maxillary]

Any nation in Englands and France's shoes would of done the same thing. They were completly caught off guard. They knew what Hitler was up to but needed to buy some time before hostilities to commence.

You never go to war unprepared.
and yet, the allies did. hell, everyone was unprepared for WWII. even the bastards who started the damn thing!




That's one of the dumbest interpretations of history I've ever seen.
Exactly.

it's stupid to try and blame people for the past. what's happened has happened, what's now is now, and far more important than the past.

[roland]

the Entente won the war , not the british;)

BTW here is the WW1 tanks production:
France : 4146
Britain : 2497
Germany: 20 (!)
US: 0 (used french tanks)

http://www.wio.ru/tank/ww1tank.htm

yes and Front Line Combat Aircraft, 1918:

France: 4500
GB: 3300
USA: 740
Germany: 2390

sources http://www.theaerodrome.com/aircraft/statistics.html

[dangerclose]

Do me a favour, **** off. Something in my post strike a chord did it?

lol don't flatter yourself.

[Secret Squirrel]

I was talking about; The politicians say war, the soldiers go out and fight the war. If you want to make that middle then fine, change end with middle. My point still stands.

Besides, we AREN'T at the end. So to say there is an end yet is baseless.

What exactly was your point? And politics still is a factor and plays a role during the middle as well. And what exactly was the point of saying "there is an end yet is baseless"? There will be an end, one way or another, it's inevitable. And yes it will be political in nature whether it's a good end, or a bad one. But there will be an end.