Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (111731)	8/16/2003 8:40:42 AM
From: Noel de Leon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I don't know from where you get your facts. Over 1000 allied ships were lost in 1941. "Sinking of the SS Lehigh, October 19, 1941 by Sam Hakam, Radio Operator The torpedo struck without warning. There was a loud explosion followed by a towering plume of smoke and debris. My first reaction was "This is just like you see it in the movies." But this was not the movies, This was for real. Utter astonishment and disbelief followed. Jimmy, the fireman on the 4 to 8 watch, stood on deck shouting "They can't do this to us," over and over again. He had reason to shout. It was October 19, 1941. We were not in the war yet...." usmm.org

To: Neocon who wrote (111731)	8/16/2003 4:23:55 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Neocon; Re: "When we supported Britain through Lend Lease, there were zero casualties too." It's already been noted that your "zero casualties" is not accurate in that 250 US merchant mariners were KIA before any declaration of war. Not only are our "allies", other than Britain (and I forgot to include Australia at all) suffering no casualties, not only are they sending almost no troops, not only are they giving us no money, not only are they supplying us with no significant arms, but they are requiring us to pay for their expenses. Other differences are that if the fighting really does get bad in Iraq, our "allies" will pull their soldiers out and leave us to carry the whole thing, *just like they did in Vietnam, or did you forget that that fiasco began with a bunch of "allies" giving us piddling assistance.* No, these are not "allies", they are "fair weather friends", or more accurately, bought and paid for pretend soldiers. No fighting. No money. No weapons. No assistance. Don't ever fool yourself. Britain and Australia are our friends. Poland doesn't give a shit about us. Canada tried to keep us out of this mess. Spain doesn't care. If you're going to be picking friends and enemies, the "old Europe" is where you want your buddies. It's France and Germany that have a history of projecting force to the far corners of this planet, not Slovakia or Ukraine, LOL. Christ on a crutch, how the Hell can you compare "Lend Lease" to the piddling assistance we're getting from Lithuania? Our assistance to Britain made a difference in 1941. The only reason for having Romania signed up to fight in Iraq is so that we can make it appear to be more of an international expedition. These little countries are only on the lists to make it look like less of an Anglo American Fiasco. We saved Britain's chestnuts during WW2. Bulgaria is not saving our butt in Iraq. Not even close. The US, as an ally sending you weapons and lending you money, is important. The Czechs sending 500 guys are not. Hell there are probably more Czech tourists in Egypt right now. -- Carl