If there was no Pearl Harbor

blackascoal said:
Americans at the time would not have supported intervention .. and the war machine knew it .. just as they know Americans would not be supporting our mindless 'war on terror' without 9/11.

The formula is simple.
Click to expand...

The US was helping the European countries at war long before PH and in spite of the Neutrality Act and before the Lend Lease Bill was passed....
THAT was intervention....you don't have to send troops to intervene.....
 
Thing1 said:
Well, they were certainly a clear & present danger to our allies. And if alliances mean anything, I suppose that might have been enough.

I was just curious how people came down on the question of when a country is NOT a threat to our security. Are there circumstances where the atrocities being commited by a regime are so evil & widespread that it demands action from countries like the U.S.?
Click to expand...

Obama just killed a load of Libyans for nothing......there wasn't even a remote US security problem. Where were you then ?
 
Thing1 said:
Well, they were certainly a clear & present danger to our allies. And if alliances mean anything, I suppose that might have been enough.

I was just curious how people came down on the question of when a country is NOT a threat to our security. Are there circumstances where the atrocities being commited by a regime are so evil & widespread that it demands action from countries like the U.S.?
Click to expand...

Nope.
 
pisskop said:
I think American.involvement was inevitable in wwii. But it would have been delayed some.

If our carriers had been destroyed in the attack, what would have changed?
Click to expand...

Nothing. We didn't have much in the way of carriers to begin with, and what we did have was obsolete anyways.
 
/k/ said:
Nothing. We didn't have much in the way of carriers to begin with, and what we did have was obsolete anyways.
Click to expand...

obsolete or not, the good timing at Midway sunk a good portion of the Japanese carriers.

Without our carriers, that could not have happened.
 
annata said:
obsolete or not, the good timing at Midway sunk a good portion of the Japanese carriers.

Without our carriers, that could not have happened.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but those were our NEW carriers. The ones we built after PH. Well mostly. The obsolete ones were there too. Carriers won the naval war no question, but if we had lost the ones we had PH it wouldn't have mattered in the end. Wed just build more.
 
Thing1 said:
And we were never attacked in any way in the '40's: would you have supported military intervention in Europe?
Click to expand...
I think we inexorably would have been drawn into it -at least the Pacific, and by extension the Axis powers.

Japan was going to take over Asai, Germany at least mainland Europe, the wild card was Russia.
If Germany still met it's match at Staningrard, perhaps we would have not had to ente Europe.

But the the USSR would be dominate today, it was something that really was our destiney, one way or the other.
 
/k/ said:
Yeah, but those were our NEW carriers. The ones we built after PH. Well mostly. The obsolete ones were there too. Carriers won the naval war no question, but if we had lost the ones we had PH it wouldn't have mattered in the end. Wed just build more.
Click to expand...
There were three American carriers at Midway -- the Yorktown, the Enterprise and the Hornet.

All were of the same class (Yorktown) and all were launched before Pearl Harbor; the Yorktown and Enterprise in 1936, the Hornet in 1940.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yorktown-class_aircraft_carrier#Development
 
/k/ said:
Yeah, but those were our NEW carriers. The ones we built after PH. Well mostly. The obsolete ones were there too. Carriers won the naval war no question, but if we had lost the ones we had PH it wouldn't have mattered in the end. Wed just build more.
Click to expand...
good point, we could out produce the Axis, how we would have eventually won, if not Midway, sooner or later.

( you do know your navy's!!)
 
Darla said:
Oh is Assad the new, new Hitler?

I always fall behind on the new new Hitler updates. Damn my twitter feed.
Click to expand...

94rCc99.png


O_O
 
I have a prime directive approach when it comes to these things. We aren't usually helping the situation by taking sides. We inevitably piss off 50% of the population and have major blowback later on.

National security should be the only reason we ever go to war.

I can see some times assisting a country though where there may not be a direct threat implied to us, though It is still in our best interests. Say for example a rouge group was trying to take over the nuke state of pakistan. That would not be good for us, and that threatens our national security, so I wouldn't mind helping the state in that instance.

Those situations are rare though and usually there is some ulterior motive for those in government, so naturally people are always suspicious of a variety of cover reasons that sound similar to the above.
 
/k/ said:
Do you know how many people would have to be killed? AT LEAST 2x as many as were killed on 9/11.

Now you might be able to say that we deliberately ignored/allowed 9/11 to happen, but to say we caused it...no.
Click to expand...

So you are saying it would it would have required at least 7000 people to secretly wire the world trade center for demolition, even with Vice President Cheney temporarily in charge of NORAD
(the first and only time such a thing has happened and coincidentally, exactly when the attacks occurred)?

I question the validity of your estimate.
 
NOVA said:
The US was helping the European countries at war long before PH and in spite of the Neutrality Act and before the Lend Lease Bill was passed....
THAT was intervention....you don't have to send troops to intervene.....
Click to expand...

If you knew how to read, he said americans, NOT the American Government. There is, unfortunately, a difference, then as now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top