English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Remember, that was five days prior to the invasion of Europe, and the Nazis still controlled the whole of Western Europe.

My point is that that's not the proper way to fight a war. Wars have their own timetables, not the artificial ones cooked up in some committee room in Washington.

2007-04-25 13:12:48 · 13 answers · asked by Rick N 5 in Politics & Government Politics

Unfrozen: By all means, tell me how so?

2007-04-25 13:16:45 · update #1

right you are ken: 1944 was before ICBMs and cruise missiles. We were separated from the Nazis by a wide ocean. We could have left Europe to the Europeans to worry about, but we didn't, because we weren't infested with seditious, defeatist vermin back then.

2007-04-25 13:18:31 · update #2

neddie: Thanks for proving my point. Republicans in the '40's understood the concept of loyal opposition. Too bad today's Dems can't say the same.

2007-04-25 13:19:56 · update #3

13 answers

This is exactly the situation we're in today.

Had the US pulled out, the US would have survived, and Europe would have been speaking German and goosestepping at high school graduations.

If the US pulls out today, the Middle East will burn to the ground, and Europe will be the first to come under Muslim threat.

America can defend itself.

2007-04-25 13:17:08 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Several posters claim that the conflict is different, but I suggest that we WON WWII, and according to Harry Reid, we have already lost Iraq. There for Iraq must be a much more difficult war than WWII.
Another poster allowed as how ALL of America fell in behind FDR. I beg to differ. While American Soldiers and Marines were dying on Guadacanal, Africa, and in Europe, Democrat Unions were striking for more money.
Europe would be a German empire, while Asia would be a Japanese one. Japan invaded China back in the early 30s. It is not unreasonable to assume that Germany and Japanese Spheres of influence would have converged around the middle east somewhere. Canada and the US would have been isolated. Then the Germans would have started in South America and worked their way up. Right now Harry Reid would be talking about getting along with Germany. In fact, we probably would have had to allie with Germany to keep Japan from invading us.

2007-04-25 20:31:50 · answer #2 · answered by plezurgui 6 · 0 1

Well, the Nazi's weren't as close to getting a nuke as was feared, so, possibly, after winning the war in the pacific, the US could just waltz up to Nazi-controlled Europe, and nazi-occupied England, and say, "hey, bug out back to Germany or we'll vaporize your Aryan Fatherland." If the Nazis had by then managed to defeat the Soviets in a one-front war, there'd have been no Cold War and no commie spies peeping into the Manhattan Project, and, if the Halocaust had wrapped up undisturbed, there'd be no Israel, so much less fuel for terrorism in the middle east.

Just speculating, you never know how an alternate history might turn out. Kinda like the future. There's not telling how extreme the consequences of pulling out or staying in Iraq might be.

2007-04-25 20:25:15 · answer #3 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 1 2

Our world would be Nazi dominated

...or at least Europe would have been for a while longer. The Nazi's had so many plans that never came to fruitition because they were defeated as quickly as they were. Hitler wanted to take over the entire globe, including America. They would have seriously threatened the democratic world, but I can't say what would have happened over 60 years.

2007-04-25 20:15:09 · answer #4 · answered by peckled pippers 1 · 2 0

But, the war fought in response to 9/11 was Afghanistan, I didn't hear anyone clamoring to get us out of there, then nor now.

In addition, Japan attacked the US directly and then declared war. Germany also declared war on the US, not to mention that it was fighting our Allies.

The US was not attacked by a delineated country, it was attacked by a fluidic group with no boundaries. With WWII, one could pick up a map, and point out 'Germany,' and 'Japan,' and the map would agree. In today's War on Terror, one cannot point at a map and say, 'Terrorist,' and have the maps agree. Then again, people'll say that maps have a liberal bias.

2007-04-25 20:26:54 · answer #5 · answered by K 5 · 1 1

I had a look at some of your questions and answers, and love how hard you try to be half-intelligent.
How does the US 'win' another country's civil war?
America achieved what was needed with the arrest of Saddam. Period.
What happened after that has created many thousands more 'terrorists'.

2007-04-25 22:14:47 · answer #6 · answered by Tokoloshimani 5 · 0 0

Your analogy is illogical. The United States was attacked by the Japanese during WWII and the Germans subsequently declared war on us. Iraq did not attack the US and did not declare war on us. Claims of an imminent threat have seen been proved a hoax.

2007-04-25 20:18:05 · answer #7 · answered by jhartmann21 4 · 0 2

America overwhelmingly supported FDR during WW ll, they do not support GWB now, that is a fact.

2007-04-25 20:17:19 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

the WWII analogy doesn't work...mainly because if bush was president when the japanes attacked pearl harbor, he'd have invaded bolivia and screwed that up...

2007-04-25 20:19:23 · answer #9 · answered by spike missing debra m 7 · 0 1

Back then there were no communists in congress as there are today, so we do not know what would have happened. Wouldn;t it be nice if we did not know that today.

2007-04-25 20:53:01 · answer #10 · answered by rmagedon 6 · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers