are you saying that the US should have chosen who to support with more care? I would agree, and say also that they should have committed more where they had committed at all.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Exactly what I mean.
That is if I give them the benefit of the doubt. But I ran out of patience. My rule nowadays is three stricks and that politician should be put under extreme scrutiny if not kicked out from his/her post. Simply so, because their mistakes are putting not their lives at risk, but the whole nation's and extend that to the world due to the US position worldwide.
Of course then the US would have supported almost no one and then we'd be blamed for being "isolationist". We'd also have to turn our backs on countries we were committed to. Something Europe finds easy to do. We also would have lost many more millions of people the the Soviets but the US must be do blame for that too.
The Romanians are still pissed off we left them to the Soviets. Sorry Romania.
<strong>Of course then the US would have supported almost no one and then we'd be blamed for being "isolationist". We'd also have to turn our backs on countries we were committed to. Something Europe finds easy to do. We also would have lost many more millions of people the the Soviets but the US must be do blame for that too.
The Romanians are still pissed off we left them to the Soviets. Sorry Romania.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You do have a point.
There is a line that the US must draw in all international relations. Support does not mean over arming and over financing and trusting not so trustworthy individuals.
How about being a more realistic policeman? One solves conflicts by the virtue of power possessed. After all (False && False) != True.
You might say I am an Idealist. But are we all not after that Idealism? A world where we all live our lives peacefully?
China values it's trade relationship with the US too much to do anything stupid like try and invade Japan (?!?) or take sides in any war in the middle east.
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> first but <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> I doubt that the CIA will employ you as an war expert.
Well... The two previous World Wars aren't even can be considered as worldwide wars. World War I only primary involved europeans, while the World War II only primary involved europeans and asians.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
When military forces on four continents are engaged in battle I think that qualifies WWII as a World war.
[quote] When military forces on four continents are engaged in battle I think that qualifies WWII as a World <hr></blockquote>
not just 4 continents, but truly every part of the globe played some form of strategic role to some degree . . . very few countries did not have some Axis or Allied forces in them (maybe yemen... but I bet they did as well) or were themselves working on the periphery: these wars encompased the entire world.
Comments
<strong>
I think I get it?!??!
are you saying that the US should have chosen who to support with more care? I would agree, and say also that they should have committed more where they had committed at all.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Exactly what I mean.
That is if I give them the benefit of the doubt. But I ran out of patience. My rule nowadays is three stricks and that politician should be put under extreme scrutiny if not kicked out from his/her post. Simply so, because their mistakes are putting not their lives at risk, but the whole nation's and extend that to the world due to the US position worldwide.
The Romanians are still pissed off we left them to the Soviets. Sorry Romania.
<strong>Of course then the US would have supported almost no one and then we'd be blamed for being "isolationist". We'd also have to turn our backs on countries we were committed to. Something Europe finds easy to do. We also would have lost many more millions of people the the Soviets but the US must be do blame for that too.
The Romanians are still pissed off we left them to the Soviets. Sorry Romania.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You do have a point.
There is a line that the US must draw in all international relations. Support does not mean over arming and over financing and trusting not so trustworthy individuals.
How about being a more realistic policeman? One solves conflicts by the virtue of power possessed. After all (False && False) != True.
You might say I am an Idealist. But are we all not after that Idealism? A world where we all live our lives peacefully?
I hope I see that day.
US-Israel-Russia-India
vs.
Arab world-Europe
<strong>
US-Israel-Russia-India
vs.
Arab world-Europe</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> first but <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> I doubt that the CIA will employ you as an war expert.
<strong>World War III?
Well... The two previous World Wars aren't even can be considered as worldwide wars. World War I only primary involved europeans, while the World War II only primary involved europeans and asians.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
When military forces on four continents are engaged in battle I think that qualifies WWII as a World war.
not just 4 continents, but truly every part of the globe played some form of strategic role to some degree . . . very few countries did not have some Axis or Allied forces in them (maybe yemen... but I bet they did as well) or were themselves working on the periphery: these wars encompased the entire world.