Quote:
Originally posted by baddog
man, I am glad I opened this thread.
Dude, are you suggesting that the US should have gotten involved in WWII earlier than we did, that it would have possibly shortened the war? I think you did.
So, now if we get involved before it becomes WWIII, it is a problem? Damned if we do, damned if we don't.
Remember, Saddam has already proven he can't play nice. He attacked and took over a small country because he figured it was really part of Iraq. Kind of like what Hitler did with Austria.
Now, imagine if we did not get involved the first time (Desert Storm). Saudi was concerned about being next. Do you think Israel would have stood still if this went down?
So, we can get in early, like you said we should have in 1939, or wait until the entire Middle East is caught up in a firefight. Which way should we go?
|
Do the words: western countries, mean USA to you?
England and France probably could have ended the war in 1939 by helping Poland during the first month or so. Germany wasn't strong enough at that time to manage to fight with the rest of the "western" world.
USA was probably the only country that gained on the war (arming other countries), but they also ended it which everyone should be gratefull for.
Every country has some history they aren't proud of, but there is no point in discussing that now...