Editor's Blog3 mins ago
Should we send a gift to Iran?
30 Answers
How about a cruise missile for each sailor/marine delivered straight to mr im-a-dinnerjacket's chair in the Iranian parliament?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by johnlambert. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
war's not a game you have to be on time for. The limeys started the first world war and screwed up; the yanks very kindly sent their own sons to die in order to help out. They had no great national reason to be involved. They did their best, via lend-lease, to help Britain out in the second war too, before they were attacked themselves. If Britain hadn't lost so much money and so many lives declaring wars in the 20th century, it might still be the great power it thinks it is (when not being humiliated by Iran). But my question to whiffey still stands: if you want to go to war with Iran, why not have the guts to do it yourself rather than wait for someone else to do it for you?
Because jno we are both part of the Western world whose values we wish to preserve. USA is infinitely stronger than UK (thank heavens) because it can see the lie of the land and the way of the world.
I'm not asking USA to do any dirty work for Britain, but for the sake of the Western way of life. And it is not 'dirty' work.
I'm not asking USA to do any dirty work for Britain, but for the sake of the Western way of life. And it is not 'dirty' work.
jno,
all joking aside my friend, I am suprised at your attitude to the British.
I know only too well that war is not a game, I have been involved in 4.
I also have a Masters Degree in Military History and the best essay I ever wrote proved beyond a doubt that the USA entered WW1 for financial reasons, not , I say again, NOT for to "very kindly help out" as you put it.
True the Americans were attacked by the empire of Japan in WW2, however, most historian agree that you would have been forced into the war had the UK lost the Battle of Britain.
Left to your own devices, America find it very hard to win a war,. Vietnam springs to mind, and should I mention the disasterous intervention of Delta Force when American students were captured the the Iranians?
all joking aside my friend, I am suprised at your attitude to the British.
I know only too well that war is not a game, I have been involved in 4.
I also have a Masters Degree in Military History and the best essay I ever wrote proved beyond a doubt that the USA entered WW1 for financial reasons, not , I say again, NOT for to "very kindly help out" as you put it.
True the Americans were attacked by the empire of Japan in WW2, however, most historian agree that you would have been forced into the war had the UK lost the Battle of Britain.
Left to your own devices, America find it very hard to win a war,. Vietnam springs to mind, and should I mention the disasterous intervention of Delta Force when American students were captured the the Iranians?
I bow to your military experience, johnlambert, though I wonder why someone who'd been through four wars should be so keen to start a fifth. As for America's entry into the first world war, my own understanding is that she was doing very well economically by staying out of the fighting and selling arms and food to Europe; entry into the war, which Woodrow Wilson had spent years trying to avoid, was politically driven, when Germany turned to submarine warfare. Nonetheless, if you ever put your essay on the internet, please provide a link; I'd be interested to read it.
America's indifferent record in winning wars alone is well known - why Bush didn't ask around about Vietnam (which he personally had dodged) before invading Iraq is beyond me. So is Britain's. They seem reluctant to learn from their own, or each other's, experiences. Perhaps their reluctance to nuke Tehran is evidence that they are at last starting to do so. If you don't think war is dirty work, whiffey, ask johnlambert his opinion.
America's indifferent record in winning wars alone is well known - why Bush didn't ask around about Vietnam (which he personally had dodged) before invading Iraq is beyond me. So is Britain's. They seem reluctant to learn from their own, or each other's, experiences. Perhaps their reluctance to nuke Tehran is evidence that they are at last starting to do so. If you don't think war is dirty work, whiffey, ask johnlambert his opinion.
I cant show you it all for obvious reasons, (plagiarism is rife on the internet) however I'll cut + past the relevent part.
. Zinn (1980, p352) also proposes that Britain hindered the movement of neutrals on the high seas and maintains that economic factors were a key reason for America joining the conflict.
There was a serious recession in 1914 in America due to high unemployment, low prices for farm products, and poor business at home and abroad which fuelled fears of economic stagnation. The growing belief was that America�s economic salvation lay in the conquest of foreign markets for American exports (Zinn, 1980, p353). In addition to this America was a provider of war loans to both the Allies and the Central Powers. However, it must be said that the majority of business financed by American banks was with the Allies. Schaller et al (1998, p94) describe how this finance increased dramatically between August 1914 and March 1917, which would suggest that America was being drawn closer to the Allied cause. This is reflected by some thinking that the considerable profits to America�s hurting economy made it impossible for America to remain neutral and not engage in World War One
. Zinn (1980, p352) also proposes that Britain hindered the movement of neutrals on the high seas and maintains that economic factors were a key reason for America joining the conflict.
There was a serious recession in 1914 in America due to high unemployment, low prices for farm products, and poor business at home and abroad which fuelled fears of economic stagnation. The growing belief was that America�s economic salvation lay in the conquest of foreign markets for American exports (Zinn, 1980, p353). In addition to this America was a provider of war loans to both the Allies and the Central Powers. However, it must be said that the majority of business financed by American banks was with the Allies. Schaller et al (1998, p94) describe how this finance increased dramatically between August 1914 and March 1917, which would suggest that America was being drawn closer to the Allied cause. This is reflected by some thinking that the considerable profits to America�s hurting economy made it impossible for America to remain neutral and not engage in World War One
Cont...
According to Ferguson (1998, p328) America had lent approximately $35 million to the Central Powers up until America declared war on Germany. This may appear to be a considerable amount, however, when compared to the amount of $10 million per day being spent by the Allies on American war goods (LaFeber, 1994, p293), it becomes clear why some authors such as Zinn (1980, p353) believe that a British victory was in the best interest of the American economy. The official reason given for America�s entry into World War One was the recommencing of unrestricted submarine warfare, yet it has been argued that this was just a way of finding legal reasons to implement policies which were in fact based on power and economic needs (Zinn, 1980, p352). Ferguson (1998, pp327-329) reiterates this belief when he writes of Wilson stating that the Allies would be �financially in our hands� and further to this Wilson describes how he intends to place financial pressure on Britain and France after World War One to �force them to our way of thinking�.
Ryan (2000, p81) also makes the point that World War One was extremely prosperous for America. Not only (as mentioned previously) did exports and financial loans increase, but due to the removed location of America from the physical conflict, there was no risk to American territory. However in March 1917 the American public was made aware of a perceived threat to their territory with the publication of the �Zimmerman Telegram� (Schaller et al, 1998, p98).
According to Ferguson (1998, p328) America had lent approximately $35 million to the Central Powers up until America declared war on Germany. This may appear to be a considerable amount, however, when compared to the amount of $10 million per day being spent by the Allies on American war goods (LaFeber, 1994, p293), it becomes clear why some authors such as Zinn (1980, p353) believe that a British victory was in the best interest of the American economy. The official reason given for America�s entry into World War One was the recommencing of unrestricted submarine warfare, yet it has been argued that this was just a way of finding legal reasons to implement policies which were in fact based on power and economic needs (Zinn, 1980, p352). Ferguson (1998, pp327-329) reiterates this belief when he writes of Wilson stating that the Allies would be �financially in our hands� and further to this Wilson describes how he intends to place financial pressure on Britain and France after World War One to �force them to our way of thinking�.
Ryan (2000, p81) also makes the point that World War One was extremely prosperous for America. Not only (as mentioned previously) did exports and financial loans increase, but due to the removed location of America from the physical conflict, there was no risk to American territory. However in March 1917 the American public was made aware of a perceived threat to their territory with the publication of the �Zimmerman Telegram� (Schaller et al, 1998, p98).
-- answer removed --
And finally..
In conclusion, the massive amount of economic aid America was giving the Allies, compared to the relatively small amount given to the Central Powers appeared to be pulling America slowly but surely into the conflict. With the publication of the Zimmerman telegram the American public was outraged, as it seemed that not only had the Germans denied American citizens safe passage on the high seas by continuing the policy of unrestricted submarine warfare, but they now appeared to be bargaining away parts of America�s sovereign territory to her neighbour Mexico. It could be suggested that these diplomatic blunders on Germany�s part gave Wilson reasons to lead America into war on behalf of the American people for what was right and just. However, it could be said that America actually entered World War One in order to benefit financially and become more powerful.
In conclusion, the massive amount of economic aid America was giving the Allies, compared to the relatively small amount given to the Central Powers appeared to be pulling America slowly but surely into the conflict. With the publication of the Zimmerman telegram the American public was outraged, as it seemed that not only had the Germans denied American citizens safe passage on the high seas by continuing the policy of unrestricted submarine warfare, but they now appeared to be bargaining away parts of America�s sovereign territory to her neighbour Mexico. It could be suggested that these diplomatic blunders on Germany�s part gave Wilson reasons to lead America into war on behalf of the American people for what was right and just. However, it could be said that America actually entered World War One in order to benefit financially and become more powerful.
thanks for that, johnlambert. But I feel it backs up what I said too: America was doing nicely out of the war by not joining it. However, the amount of supplies sent to Europe provoked Germany into submarine activity which, along with the Zimmermann telegram, turned public opinion round and forced Wilson to enter the war. American lives were lost; I'm not sure the country gained anything economically that it wasn't already getting. The decision, in my view, was a political one, prodded by public opinion, rather than a commercial one. (Just the reverse of the Iraq situation, where politicians dragged a reluctant public to war with phoney 'intelligence' about WMDs.)
Infundibulum, if you loathe my American arrogance, try imagining I'm not American and read my posts again, and see if they read the same. My origins shouldn't make any difference to the validity of my argument
Infundibulum, if you loathe my American arrogance, try imagining I'm not American and read my posts again, and see if they read the same. My origins shouldn't make any difference to the validity of my argument
Latest Posts
Arts & Literature6 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles7 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles23 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles29 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles37 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.