goaliedude66630
Active member
i think that the newest war with iraq because we should have finished them off the first time
Pointless Wars
- Status
airmanpatroler
Active member
The most pointless war would be the Falkland Islands. :biggun:
Gunner13
Active member
If you mean the Argentinians attacking and thinking they could get away with it and the potential gains versus the risks they ran, then I would agree. If you mean the British reaction and decision to protect their citizens in the Falklands, then I would strongly disagree.
Sending in the cavalry to throw out the local bandits (well, the Agrentinians acted like bandits) and allow the locals to live in peace is the whole point of a government - to protect its citizens.
Sending in the cavalry to throw out the local bandits (well, the Agrentinians acted like bandits) and allow the locals to live in peace is the whole point of a government - to protect its citizens.
airmanpatroler
Active member
What right do the British have even being on the Falklands? :biggun:
silent driller
Active member
As far as I'm concerned, no war is smart unless US interests are at stake.
:?: What do you mean?silent driller said:
Do you mean that the US shouldn't interfere to help oppressed people in other countries?
That the US should retire from the UN and just let the world burn if there's no money or security to be gained by the US?
That would be a nice point of view.
It would mean that a lot of people died in vain, because Vietnam, Bosnia, Korea, the first Gulf war, and the invasion of Normandy were "not smart". It would mean that I was never born, or if was, that I would speak German.
No, you couldn't possibly have meant that, I must have interpreted your post wrong.
1217, I think you DID interpret it wrong. US interest does not just mean money. We have an interest in world stability. We have an interest in foreign trade. We have an interest, in short, in a lot of other things besides money. However, we also have an interest in staying in good standing among the world community. To turn things around, do you think all of our wars should cause harm to the US without visible gain?
The Malvinas/Falkland war was due to the fact that the Argentinian regimen needed a patriotic victory to hide the overall problems in the country.
Talking about that, though, I've heard histories -from a First Sergeant in the Academy- about Argentinian centinels hurting themselves at night because the rumor that Brit's Ghurkas (sp?) were about to attack spreaded among them. Too much time alone with their own mind, I suppose.
Talking about that, though, I've heard histories -from a First Sergeant in the Academy- about Argentinian centinels hurting themselves at night because the rumor that Brit's Ghurkas (sp?) were about to attack spreaded among them. Too much time alone with their own mind, I suppose.
I.Y.A.A.Y.A.S
Active member
Re: none
i would have to say i agree with no mercy. Everything that happens is definately for a purpose. every war had a cause because one group had reason and disagreed with other groups.
No MERCY said:
i would have to say i agree with no mercy. Everything that happens is definately for a purpose. every war had a cause because one group had reason and disagreed with other groups.
silent driller
Active member
1217 said:
We jumped into Korea and Vietnam because US INTERESTS were being threatened by COMMUNISM. We went into the Gulf War the first time because the president claimed a US warship was ATTACKED. We went in the second time because Saddam Hussein (had, anyway) biological weapons which President Bush believed THREATANED the US. We went into Bosnia to strike military targets in retaliation for violations to UN sanctions and attacking NATO aircraft.
silent driller
Active member
And I forgot about Normandy! German U boats were on our coast and out at sea attacking our ships. As they were also an ally of Imperial Japan, who had deliberately ATTACKED OUR NAVY at Pearl Harbor, we invaded Normandy, France to put an end to the European war. Feel free to put up some more wars and battles that didn't threaten US interests.
airmanpatroler
Active member
Great Britan is'nt the great empire it used to be. So Argentina did need to get out of Falklands but the British need to just let it be a protectorate like Malta. :avi:
silent driller said:
The WW2 was a WAR before the US ever got around to going to Europe. Germany was the agressor, and attacked several countries, including my own.
If you claim that the US had something to gain by D-Day, and that was the reason for it all, I think that's an insult to all the US, Canadian and other soldiers who died on those beaches. I don't think it would be wise to tell their relatives that: "they died for US interests" I'd keep it at something like: "They died for freedom"
BTW, why 'US interests'? Why not 'UK interests' Gulf war 1 wasn't started out of US interests, but out of Iraqi interests. They wanted the oil from Kuweit.
Starting a war is never pointless to the ones that start it, as long as they win.
The ones that join in are usually trying to end the war, wich is the best reason for going to war in the first place.
One more thing, there were wars before the US ever existed. They couldn't have been about US interests, now could they? Does that mean that they were all pointless?
RnderSafe
Active member
Is freedom not an interest to the US? I am sorry to tell you, but the US did not enter into WWII just because she felt sorry for Europe and wanted to secure "freedom" in the region. Both Japan and Germany declared war on the US first, remember?
The United States is not altruistic, they do not go into any war without getting something (see Jamoni's post, that you so quickly dismissed before). The US and her citizens come first, and that means looking out for her best interests before anyone elses. That is how countries survive.
And you think the US skipped on over there because they felt sorry for Kuwait?
He explained what he meant, and if you would slow down, you could see he is talking about why the US should or should not go to war. It is from an American perspective. There is no need to be so dramatic.
goaliedude66630
Active member
I kind of guessed that, but I wanted him to realise what he said. He came across like the US is the only country that matters, and US interests are the only excuse for starting a war.RnderSafe said:
I'm trying to point out here, that every country is allowed to defend itself if necessary, and no country should start a war for other reasons then defending themselves or others.
If he meant: 'The US should only go to war when US interests are at stake', then he should have said so.
I did not 'dismiss' that post, I answered very clearly that I wanted to know what Silent Driller meant. I did not mean to say that I didn't value Jamoni's opinion and I did say that I knew that there were several ways to interpret Silent Drillers post.RnderSafe said:
No, I just said that the US didn't start that war. So the US joint in out of US interests, the war wasn't started out of US interests.RnderSafe said:
I never claimed the US to be a charity organisation, that's what you made out of it.
Mark Conley
Active member
for those that like to know the whole chronology of WW II..up to 1944 that is...
http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/events/index.html
By the way, you wouldnt believe the cast of nations that declared war on Japan... :shock:
http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/events/index.html
By the way, you wouldnt believe the cast of nations that declared war on Japan... :shock:
- Status