I wonder where we'd be if an Amish had been in the White House on 9/11...

[GoingUp]

I misread the title as "I wonder where we'd be if Ameesh had been in the White House on 9/11..."

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: 43st

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Where the hell do you live, to have been taught such a twisted view of WW2?

What are you talking about? Russia turned the tide of East Front in 1942, D-day was in mid 44. Russia was plowing through Poland at that point. Also keep in mind that 80% of WW2 was on the Eastern Front.

The Allies, all sides, defeated the Germans. To say the US is responsible for winning WW2 is simply ignorance. And to say we'd all be speaking German if the US wasn't involved in WW2 is just more of the same ignorance. If anything it was US manufacturing and Russian blood that won the war for the Allies.

Back on topic... if the Amish controlled the US we'd have a much different foreign policy, probably very hands off militarily and very hands on with humanitarian efforts. It could probably be argued that the US would not be the victim of much ME terrorism if such a government was in power.

Yup I learned this as well.

Part of the reason that we don't know this very much, is that the Soviet Government really cut back on what they would let others know about the war. Stalin was a secrecy whore as we knew it. They didn't want that information to get out in true KGB fashion. Only the past few years with the declassifacation of many documents are we finding out what was going on...including the deadly blunders that a few of their generals made that resulted in the loss of men, but were hidden to maintain the "honor" and image of them.

But about 75% of that war WAS fought on the eastern front, and we came in with troops as Russia was turning that tide militarily.

So while I won't discount the US's role at all, clearly the US's role was just a part of a pie where Russia took a massive chunk because it provided so much of that raw human power [and took MASSIVE losses as well...].

 

[Fern]

I wonder where we'd be if an Amish had been in the White House on 9/11...

False question. The Amish don't allow airplanes.......and not possible to highjack a horse & buggy and fly into a building. OK, maybe the horse would have received a bloody nose, but still no damage to a building

 

[ProfJohn]

On the WW 2 thing. If we had stayed out of the war Germany would have been spared a two front war and would have been able to press on Russia with all its might. (Without US shipping there could be no D-day)

Additionally, it is hard to tell if Germany would have ever been forced out of Africa without the involvement of US troops.

It is possible that Russia would have won on its own, but it certainly would have taken a lot more time and deaths.

And in the East, Japan would have been left to run wild, Without the US island hopping Japan could have turned its forces on India and would have really put England in a bind forcing it to either defend the jewel of its Empire or press against Germany in N Africa, unlikely they could have done both.

Forcing England to fight Japan alone and Russia to fight Germany alone would be very different than both of them fighting along side the US with its superior production power.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Fern

I wonder where we'd be if an Amish had been in the White House on 9/11...

False question. The Amish don't allow airplanes.......and not possible to highjack a horse & buggy and fly into a building. OK, maybe the horse would have received a bloody nose, but still no damage to a building

We are having to much fun with this thread.

 

[phantom309]

Originally posted by: Snooper
Actually we DID have an "Amish"esk President leading up to 9/11.

I give you Bill Clinton.

Terrorists attacked the World Trade Center (anyone here actually remember what happened in 1993?).

Bill did nothing.

Terrorists attacked the USS Cole.

Bill did nothing.

Terrorists attacked a US embasy.

Again, Bill did nothing.

Heck, even Al-Qaeda leadership acknoledges that because Bill did nothing, they knew they could force the US out of the fight with a sharp punch to the nose.

Unfortunately for the terrorists, Bill wasn't President when that managed to bring down the WTC. GWB was. And he at least did something. Only history will be able to tell if it was the right thing long after we are gone from this world.

And for all the folks that want to preach pacifisim (and base it on the bible), I have to ask this question: Why is it that not only were the apostles armed with swords, but they knew how to use them and DID use them when the soldiers approached to arrest Jesus?

I give you George W. Bush.
Terrorists attack the World Trade Center.
Bush invades the wrong country, conveniently enriching a few of his strongest supporters but wasting an enormous amount of America's wealth and prestige, causing the deaths of thousands of American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, without ever punishing the people responsible for the original attacks.
The truth is we'd be better off now if he'd just shrugged his shoulders and gone back to "My Little Pony" or whatever kiddie book he was immersed in that morning.
The Amish at least would've tried to solve the problem, instead of trying to turn a complex, difficult situation into some dumb redneck shoving match.

 

[glugglug]

Originally posted by: Snooper
Actually we DID have an "Amish"esk President leading up to 9/11.

I give you Bill Clinton.

Terrorists attacked the World Trade Center (anyone here actually remember what happened in 1993?).

Bill did nothing.

Terrorists attacked the USS Cole.

Bill did nothing.

Terrorists attacked a US embasy.

Again, Bill did nothing.

Heck, even Al-Qaeda leadership acknoledges that because Bill did nothing, they knew they could force the US out of the fight with a sharp punch to the nose.

Unfortunately for the terrorists, Bill wasn't President when that managed to bring down the WTC. GWB was. And he at least did something. Only history will be able to tell if it was the right thing long after we are gone from this world.

And for all the folks that want to preach pacifisim (and base it on the bible), I have to ask this question: Why is it that not only were the apostles armed with swords, but they knew how to use them and DID use them when the soldiers approached to arrest Jesus?

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.htm

 

[TravisT]

Appeasement was one of the biggest things that surged World War II into a few nations of conflict into a World War. Appeasement doesn't work in resolving conflict such as this.

Also, the difference between the Amish situation, and our situation, is that we knew that there were still others out there that hated us. They had plans, desire, and would bite at the chance to kill a few more Americans and would take their own lives for it.

I don't think the Amish would respond the same way if there were others who wanted to repeat the same massacre on more of their children.

 

[AnitaPeterson]

Originally posted by: Snooper
Actually we DID have an "Amish"esk President leading up to 9/11.

I give you Bill Clinton.

Terrorists attacked the World Trade Center (anyone here actually remember what happened in 1993?).

Bill did nothing.

Terrorists attacked the USS Cole.

Bill did nothing.

Terrorists attacked a US embasy.

Again, Bill did nothing.

Heck, even Al-Qaeda leadership acknoledges that because Bill did nothing, they knew they could force the US out of the fight with a sharp punch to the nose.

I know a few million Serbs who would strongly disagree with you, with very good reason.

Why is it that people have such a propensity for conveniently forgetting or twisting historical facts for the sake of their silly, pollitically-laden arguments???

 

[mchammer]

I believe that no president had seriously confronted the problem of Islamic terrorism. That includes Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and BushII (untill the attacks-and his responses may not be correct, we will see). Meanwhile the problem grew worse and worse and is now harder to deal with. Remember the bombing of the Marine baracks in the 80's, Reagan did nothing. Over time they were testing out their tactics against us, I think.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: mchammer
I believe that no president had seriously confronted the problem of Islamic terrorism. That includes Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and BushII (untill the attacks-and his responses may not be correct, we will see). Meanwhile the problem grew worse and worse and is now harder to deal with. Remember the bombing of the Marine baracks in the 80's, Reagan did nothing. Over time they were testing out their tactics against us, I think.

I agree. Bush is the first President to actually take real and effective action. He may have made a mistake in Iraq. But the fact remains that prior to 9-11 we were being attacked about once every 2 1/2 years and since 9-11 not one attack on any US interested out side of the two war zones.