Originally Posted by Doc Howl

Our right, as a nation, to trade was cut off by unrestricted submarine warfare, that killed, or threatened to kill, any American sailor on any ocean.

But that's beside the point. The Axis nations each formally declared war on us, before we declared war on them.

Originally Posted by bub

In 1994, when 10 Belgian UN-paracommandos were murdered in Rwanda, public opinion was so shocked that we made every Belgian blue helmet go back home. The other Western countries who were in Rwanda followed us. We'd let a million of African be murdered by other Africans rather than loosing our own soldiers.

The same has happened in Somalia, and also in Darfur.

I'm not sure about US public opinion, but here we are not ready to die for other's problems. That's not very heroic, but at least it's honnest. That's not our problem.

We're OK to send money (we send millions of € every year to Congo, for example, and the purpose of our C-130's is mainly to carry food to Africa I think), medical staffs, doctors, deminers, engineers to build shelters, pits or purify water...or even blue helmets (like in Kosovo, but only after the battle is over)...

...but we're not OK to send soldiers abroad to fight. Public opinion is strongly against it. And that's a diplomatic problem because the USA want us to help them in Afghanistan and Iraq.

So we have 4 F-16 in Afghanistan (but the minister of defense keeps telling us that they always fly high enough to avoid being shot at), we form policemen in Kosovo and in Congo, we have blue helmets in Lebanon, and a guy in Florida.




Maybe if we were attacked it would be different. But I'm from the new generation, I've not known communism, the cold war...I'm in the European Union and a war in Europe seems impossible.

Originally Posted by Awesome!

50-70 million total casualties estimated in WW2 all because we weren't pro-active stopping Germany from rebuilding her military and same with Japan. The rape of nanking should of been enough for us to invade and stop Japan, but it wouldn't of been popular in my opinion. Same as the current situation in Iraq. We tend to wait until it gets out of hand before we do anything it seems. It's easier to measure it that way I guess, but I think our government is doing the best job they can in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Iriemon

How about the 200+ million for WWIII?

Originally Posted by John1234

A real WWIII would be a hell of a lot more than 200 million.
There is not a county on earth with Nuclear weapons that wont use them in the event that their homeland becomes threatened after a military defeat abroad.

200 million might be a good estimate for casualties within America.
We'll take out 10's of billions with our strike alone.

It is naive to think that there could be a WWIII without going full nuclear.
Which country(s) that lose do you think will refrain from launching?

There might be many wars that we call WWIII.
The first one where 2 nuclear powers directly fight, will be the real one.
And probably the last one.

Originally Posted by Awesome!

400,000 U.S. military died in WW2 because our government didn't get it, not understanding Germany and Japan. We even had Hitler as man of the year in 1939.

Originally Posted by Awesome!

In the South Pacific we placed an embargo on Japan which gave the green light for war and millions died.

Originally Posted by Awesome!

We now are being proactive keeping a presence all around the world since then and haven't had the 50-70 million estimated total lives lost in a WWar like we did in WW2 and you just think it's for sport? We have no other reason for doing what we do as a country huh? We just like to bomb people apparently?

Originally Posted by Awesome!

Disagree with our policy and be a smart *** about it if you like, but the carnage is nothing compared to what that generation went through.

Originally Posted by Awesome!

50-70 million total casualties estimated in WW2 all because we weren't pro-active stopping Germany from rebuilding her military and same with Japan. The rape of nanking should of been enough for us to invade and stop Japan, but it wouldn't of been popular in my opinion. Same as the current situation in Iraq. We tend to wait until it gets out of hand before we do anything it seems. It's easier to measure it that way I guess, but I think our government is doing the best job they can in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Awesome!

Why can't we all stay home like you Belgians and then the world might be a better place?

Originally Posted by Iriemon

It's speculative whether war would have been averted by starting it sooner.

How about the 200+ million for WWIII?

Originally Posted by Awesome!

True, but we have some good examples, like when we pushed Saddam out of Kuwait and helped keep Israel out of the conflict avoiding a holy war maybe?

Israel bombing Saddams nuclear facilities was a good move right?

I think that if we didn't take Saddam out of power like we did, after he died his country would of went through a major civil war with his two moron sons in power. You could speculate that Iran would try to take over and control the oil there etc. A host of WHAT IF'S, but I think it's better to deal with it now in my opinion.