Obama Reality - A Pretty good assessment

[Emma two]

And just in case anyone is convinced that the legality (or otherwise) of the war in Iraq is a black and white, cut and dried issue:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War

 

Come on Davy, you seem a sensible fellow who produces some thoughtful posts and arguments, so you must know that wikipedia entries while often useful as a starting point for further reading cannot be presented as evidence, anyone can post on it. I updated a couple on the fish ands wildlife of on local waters, and could have put 'great white sharks abound, and often fall to waggler tactics', and it would still be in there. All that stuff 'may' be true but you need a proper source to reference.

 

The following may be equally invalid, and it is journalistic, but provides an opposing argument..

 

Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.

In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."

 

Burkeman, O. & Borger, J. (2003) US hawk admits invasion was illegal. Washington guardian

[DavyR]

Emma, do you really think I need to produce a reference to an academic paper in order to conclude that opinion is divided on the legality of the war? That sounds like "Specialist subject the bleeding obvious" (to quote one of my favourite sources).

 

Are any of us sufficiently well-versed in international law to know the correct interpretation in this particular case?

 

I thnk the war in Iraq (not the global War on Terror as such) is pretty pointless, as I've already implied in a previous post, but I wouldn't care to adjudicate on its legality.

 

p.s. Yes, I know that Wikipedia can be unreliable for all the reasons you mention, but it's no different from any other information resource - you have to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff and there's plenty of good stuff on there.

[severus]

In the case of WWI, the US entry was so late as to have no impact upon the final outcome.

Wow, where did you get that piece of pseudo-history? And do you really believe it?

 

No, the US did not single handedly win WWI. That would be a slap in the face of all the British and French war dead and wounded, not to mention all the soldiers who were forced to live like wild animals for four years in the muddy trenches. But your assertion that US involvement had no bearing on the final outcome is absurd and completely without basis in fact.

 

The fact is, the Germans launched their 1918 spring offensives as a last-ditch gamble to end the war because time was on the side of the Allies. Food stocks were running out thanks to the Royal Naval blockade, plus the fact that German nitrate supplies went into munitions instead of crops. Ludendorff understood that the eventual weight of a million fresh US soldiers would turn the tide against him. So he rolled the dice and lost. Deteriorating conditions in Germany caused riots and mutinies which eroded authority and collapsed the will of the High Command to fight on. So they quit. Don't take my word on any of this, either - it's in every history book I've ever read, and you can find it there.

 

You seem to have a good grasp of history according to what you've written earlier in this thread, but your above statement is way, way off the mark. You fault Americans for slanting history, yet you offer this??

[Emma two]

Wow, where did you get that piece of pseudo-history? And do you really believe it?

 

Totally. And so does almost every other serious historian of the conflict.

[DavyR]

Totally. And so does almost every other serious historian of the conflict.

 

This is beginning to sound as though anybody with a differing opinion is going to be categorised as "unserious"...

[chesters1]

hmmm in ww2 the usa had more military deaths than the uk .

its difficult to sort them out as the usa had a far larger role against japan than we did but in the european war only after D day (excluding volunteers who joined in very early in the war on our side) and north africa

 

the surprising thing is though china (who rarely get a mention) lost 3,800,000

even more surprising is france who were part time germans for most of the war lost anyone

 

in total deaths the usa isnt far behind britain which is surprising as only token "bombings" of the usa ever took place whereas we had the blitz.

 

had not churchill decided to deliberately sacrifice civilians we probably would be speaking german

 

its also glossed over that america didnt "help" us with supplies it sold us supplies which we only stopped paying for a few years ago on 29 December 2006 we paid our final installment

Edited November 12, 2008 by chesters1

[Huge_Vitae]

This is beginning to sound as though anybody with a differing opinion is going to be categorised as "unserious"...

Be serious Davy.........

 

The US would have entered the war at some point (even without a Pearl Harbor or equivalent) in order to prevent Japan (which was expanding its empire rapidly and was already the subject of severe US economic sanctions) becoming too dominant in the Pacific.

And, I am not one who gets upset abouit editing another's post, but, I think in this instance you change the point I was making.

 

I certainly know the facts you report, and it was well known to the Japanese leadership, which is why, against the wishes of Osami Nagano and others, Pearl Harbor took place, after of course they got the idea from The Royal Navy!

[chesters1]

Be serious Davy.........

 

 

And, I am not one who gets upset abouit editing another's post, but, I think in this instance you change the point I was making.

 

I certainly know the facts you report, and it was well known to the Japanese leadership, which is why, against the wishes of Osami Nagano and others, Pearl Harbor took place, after of course they got the idea from The Royal Navy!

who never took the hint for many years that ships were vulnerable to aircraft ,now ofcourse missiles are the key which would be useless against ww2 and before armoured ships ,how things twist and turn

Edited November 12, 2008 by chesters1

[Emma two]

hmmm in ww2 the usa had more military deaths than the uk .

 

Soviet Union* 8,668,000

Great Britain 326,000

USA 295,000

 

(rounded to the nearest 1000)

[Huge_Vitae]

hmmm in ww2 the usa had more military deaths than the uk .

You are correct Chesters, According to which source you reference, estimated military deaths in WW2 range from 292,000 to 408,300 for the USA against 244,000 to 357,116 dependant on where you source the info, some statistics do not include, for instance "Missing in Action", one presumes if they haven't turned up by now they are dead though. (except for the Japanese that is who are experts at hiding!)

 

It is possible for you to take part of one set of published figures from one historian and compare them to the other half from another to give the answer you want.

 

As a one off comparison, John Keegan, (Sir John Desmond Patrick Keegan OBE.) Author, The Second World War (1989) (who also edited several other books and is recognised as one of the most accomplished historians of modern times but probably doesn't take the subject seriously,) gives the total MILITARY losses in WW2 as 292,000 to the USA against 244,000 to the UK.

 

However if you add the casualty figures for Merchant Seamen (Merchant Marine US) you have to add 30,248 for the UK against the USA loss of 9,300 lost at sea or died from wounds. but this still leaves the USA loss of life hgher.

 

keegan lists 60,000 civilian deaths but does not estimate civilian losses to the USA, Brittanica estimates this to be 6,000 for the USA. adding this to the total losses will show that the UK lost more than the USA.

 

Statistics are a great tool, so easily manipulated when you want to prove a point.

Edited November 12, 2008 by Huge_Vitae