We can't treat these incidents as individual crimes, instead of orchestrated attacks from an outside aggressor. Eventually, we have to go after the source. The Taliban are not the only terrorist organizations with us in their sights. Some of the Middle East nations are run by people with the same beliefs as the terrorists. What is the answer to the Muslim extremist problem? If all you do is play defense, the other team is going to score eventually.

 

I wasn't aware the US helped save Russia in WWII. Is that revisionist history?

Just because someone doesn't share your opinion doesn't make them less educated or give them less understanding. It means they're view is different from yours.

 

Not revisionist history, the US sent thousands of plane, tanks, vehicles, and ships, and lots of food to the USSR. Otherwise there would have been no need for tha convoys to Murmansk that were heavily attacked by German U-boats. With many US lives lost.
My cousin flew planes to Alaska where they were picked up by Russian pilots and flown into Russia.
These are well known facts about WWII.

 

I know we gave aid to Russia, the question was did we save them?

Seems to me what saved Russia from Germany was the determination to win and a good ol Russian winter more than anything.

I could make the argument that France saved the US in the Revolution, would you accept that?

 

I think timing and the sheer size of Russia gave the an advantage against Germany. Timing more than anything.

If Hitler had invaded Russia in spring, it may have been a different story. Russia had the capacity to crank out oodles of tanks; but that ability would have been for nothing, because a blitzkreig style attack would have overrun Moscow before they had a chance to organize. At the time, the Russian Army wasn't nearly as large as it got, so they would have been particulary vulnerable to a fast attack.

This "blitzkreig" style of fighting is so hard to stop, it was assumed that is how he Warsaw Pact Nations would swoop into NATO if the cold war had ever popped off. The Fulda Gap into West Germany, and doing an end-run around Switzerland to take France. (Perhaps even into Switzerland, but I hear that's one tough little nation.)

Because of the low post WWI numbers, it has been thoerized that if Japan had invaded the USA directly rather than simply attack Pearl Harbor, they would have made it into Nebraska before we'd have been able to field a trained force capable of stopping them. Scary thought... But, the USA is vast... Tiny compared to Russia, but larger than just about everyone else. Because of that; it makes us damn-near impossible to successfully invade, especially when you're being shot back at. And, you have to cross oceans (Unless you invade Mexico and Canada first) to get to us.

 

In many ways, yes I would, as without the attention of Europe on Englands mind, they would have been able to pay more attention to us.

As for did we save the Russians, maybe, maybe not, but without what we sent them, there is a good chance they would not have made it.

Some reading for you.

http://www.theeasternfront.co.uk/lendlease.htm

 

That would seem a reasonable conclusion. Having two WWII vets in our family, I certainly don't belittle the US contribution, but my grandfathers both would get a bit annoyed when people tried to make it sound like we were the calvary who rode into Europe and single handedly whipped up on Hitler when others made as great or greater sacrifices.

Personally I never even considered any other countries role in WWII other than maybe England, then my grandfather asked me to go see "Enemy At The Gate" with him.

Pretty much ice water in the face.

 

Were we the cavalry, yes and no. Without the US focusing more on Europe first the war could have gone on a lot longer there than it did. Don't underestimate what the invasion of Europe on D-Day did to help the Russian fight on the eastern front. Even the threat of the invasion forced the Germans to position troops in France when they could have been very useful in Russia.
As far as the Pacific, there pretty much wasn't anyone there except the US, with the exception of the China/Burma theatre, and the Japanese were still expanding their territory there at war's end.

 

Sorry, I didn't mean to include the war with Japan as part of that statement. I pretty much consider the two seperate conflicts really, because they pretty much were.

With that I really have to get out of this discussion, it's an area where opinions turn into dogma and dogma turns into fights, and fights ain't what I'm looking for.

Besides that, that big yellow dog in my sig is looking at me as if to ask "you're really not going to waste time on that box when it 78 outside are you?", if he drops his frisbee on my foot one more time I'll have a bruise.

 

I couldn't have said it better myself.

 

You don't see many republicans complaining either way.

It appears to me to be a double standard.

I get the feeling that at this point, the democrats aren't as interested in saving the country as they are in saving face.

I think it's amazing. The left is calling all who don't agree with them idiots. The ones I see an hear appear extremely arrogant. They are so convinced they have the answers and that there is no way republicans can do anything for this country. I think that the democrats are dead wrong on a majority of issues. The old "give a man a fish"/"teach a man to fish" saying comes to mind when I hear the democrats. I know how to "fish". Every one should.

National secrurity is what our government is for.