The debate for dummies
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 93,305
Likes: 820
From: Nowhere
Originally Posted by jedwards,Oct 6 2004, 04:41 PM
It does. I didn't see you headed that way but it does make sense.
Oh and... you came to join the fight of the Germans and Italy to help UK, France, Russia, and countless other nations. The distinction is fine but no less important. The war started in '39 not '42.
Oh and... you came to join the fight of the Germans and Italy to help UK, France, Russia, and countless other nations. The distinction is fine but no less important. The war started in '39 not '42.
Valid point - though the war really started in 1919 with the treaty of Versailles. It failed to contain the German empire and allowed Hitler's massive buildup in the 1930s with no recourse.
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 28,318
Likes: 9
From: This is not my house!
I know you agree there was not a war between 1919 and 1939. I've never bought into the failure of the treaty as the cause of the war.
In fact there was a good deal to contain the empire (prohibitions on weapons specifically) but the German's chose to ignore it or work around it. There may be some validity to the idea that the war started in 1936 in Spain where Germany underwrote the insurrection and essentially used Spain as a testing ground for their (illegal) war machine.
If we point to the treaty of V as the start, shouldn't we point to the war that led to the treaty as the start? That war started in '14 (not '17
)
In fact there was a good deal to contain the empire (prohibitions on weapons specifically) but the German's chose to ignore it or work around it. There may be some validity to the idea that the war started in 1936 in Spain where Germany underwrote the insurrection and essentially used Spain as a testing ground for their (illegal) war machine.
If we point to the treaty of V as the start, shouldn't we point to the war that led to the treaty as the start? That war started in '14 (not '17
)
Former Moderator
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 52,827
Likes: 17
From: State of Confusion
Originally Posted by RichUK,Oct 6 2004, 01:09 PM
It used to be that nothing would unite a country more than war. The sceptic in me thinks that has changed now, or is it just that our wars are no longer for the right reasons?
Former Moderator
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 45,694
Likes: 1
From: Oxfordshire
Originally Posted by brantshali,Oct 7 2004, 07:44 AM
I think nothing unifies like a just war. Such was the case in Afghanistan. There was massive support for Afghanistan both within our borders and around the world.
The Gulf war, yes because Saddam had invaded Kuwait.
The latest gulf war? I think the jury is out, both in the US, the UK and the world.
The problem with a war against a 'face less' enemy that has integrated into one or more countries, is that you cannot bomb them out of existence. For every insurgent that you kill, ten more will raise in their place.
When you have two groups of people, the western world and militant islamic extremists, you have two groups of people with views so diametrically opposed to each other, that a solution borders on impossible. Look at the Arab - Israeli conflict as the underlying example.
Former Moderator
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 52,827
Likes: 17
From: State of Confusion
It also gets blurred because rules of engagement and such things as the Geneva Convention were in many cases defined with the idea of the militaries from two or more nations facing each other...not one nation against a "nationless" enemy.