Harleyman Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 The Americans are the only ones who do well out of wars. We had to pay for their help in WW2. We borrowed from them and then spent it in their arms factories and on our own war effort. It's only 2006 we finished paying it off. We paid back nearly 3 times what we borrowed. Germany may still be paying. In Iraq they mopped up all the oil companies and gave the reconstruction projects to themselves and charged Iraq for the privilege. No doubt Afghanistan will get the bill for their current troubles. Once the mineral wealth is unlocked they'll be able to pay back the US. As far as Europe is concerned I am In - Economically Out - Politically Tell me again who does well out of wars? Iraq: Cost to the US taxpayer 832.2 billion dollars Dead: 4,480 Wounded: 34,000 plus Post traumatic stress disorder of varying degrees: 130,000 Homeless (Iraq Vets only): 20,000 Broken homes: Thousands Unemployed: Thousands WW2: Who paid for the rebuilding of Germany? The US under the Marshall Plan (read taxpayers) Who desperately needed arms in 1940 and had to get them from the US because they could not be produced in enough quantity domestically Winston Churchill Which country had the industrial capacity to supply not only their own forces both in the European and the Pacific wars and also those of Britain, Canada and shipped thousands of military trucks to Russia as well as other vital war materials? The United States You really ought to post using facts instead of out of pure emotion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 I suppose they were in the USA because they turned up late again and were free to sell arms to who they wanted from 1939 to the end of 1941. The US army in 1939 had a force of 140,000 troops and most of the equipment was outdated and obsolete and the troops ineperienced and often poorly trained. The US army was in poorer condition than that of some Third World countries. The US Congress was mostly in favour of staying out of the war because after WW1 the national sentiment was not to get involved in yet another messy, wasteful and bloody war which had solved nothing and cost millions of casualties. The British left just about all of their equipment behind in France after retreating from Dunkirk and Churchill was in a desperate situation. He couldn't hope to fight a war without the planes, tanks and artillery needed and apart from a few squadrons of Spitfires and Hurricanes (although he had a pretty strong navy) he had nothing which to defend the country with if and when the Germans invaded and had to fight a war on land President Roosevelt risked getting impeached and removed from office by sending arms to a country which was at war and in violation of international neutrality laws. As for 'selling arms to who they wanted" as far as I'm aware they shipped them to Britain and not to Germany or Japan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Whilst I am very much in favour of Europe I am increasingly of the opinion that we should depart if only to try and embarrass the wretched bureauprats into sorting themselves out and getting a grip on economic reality. Europe has become like a party where the hosts and some of the guests have got so drunk and out of control we should just tip toe away and leave them to it. Then what afterwards? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Where is the third option? "In, out, in, out, you shake it all about, you do the hokey cokey and you print some pounds, that's what it's all about." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crayfish Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Then what afterwards? Hangovers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Hangovers. Some hangover ! Britain isn't a small country like Norway or Switzerland with small populations either. The Uk cant afford to be isolated. It has 70 million people and still relies on exports in a highly competetive export market. Could Britain still negotiate the same kind of trade deals that it currently enjoys through the EU? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crayfish Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Yes, probably. We're already half in and half out of the EU. A gradual move to an 80/20 situation shouldn't be too hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emily Moore Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Some hangover ! Britain isn't a small country like Norway or Switzerland with small populations either. The Uk cant afford to be isolated. It has 70 million people and still relies on exports in a highly competetive export market. Could Britain still negotiate the same kind of trade deals that it currently enjoys through the EU? It isn't exactly rocket science. If the Eurozone or even the EU want to impose a tax or a tarrif on UK made goods, the UK would have every right to impose the same tarrif on Volkswagens and BMWs. We export just about the same amount of our goods to Europe as they export to us. If there is a problem we will just have to do without drinking Becks and drink Pale Rider instead. I do believe we even make our own pizzas over here. It will be tough but we will just have to learn to do without sauerkraut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 It isn't exactly rocket science. If the Eurozone or even the EU want to impose a tax or a tarrif on UK made goods, the UK would have every right to impose the same tarrif on Volkswagens and BMWs. We export just about the same amount of our goods to Europe as they export to us. If there is a problem we will just have to do without drinking Becks and drink Pale Rider instead. I do believe we even make our own pizzas over here. It will be tough but we will just have to learn to do without sauerkraut. There's more to it than motorcars, pizzas and beer. Could Britain compete with the EU on exports to emerging super economies such as India, China, Africa and Brazil ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emily Moore Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 The US army in 1939 had a force of 140,000 troops and most of the equipment was outdated and obsolete and the troops ineperienced and often poorly trained. The US army was in poorer condition than that of some Third World countries. The US Congress was mostly in favour of staying out of the war because after WW1 the national sentiment was not to get involved in yet another messy, wasteful and bloody war which had solved nothing and cost millions of casualties. The British left just about all of their equipment behind in France after retreating from Dunkirk and Churchill was in a desperate situation. He couldn't hope to fight a war without the planes, tanks and artillery needed and apart from a few squadrons of Spitfires and Hurricanes (although he had a pretty strong navy) he had nothing which to defend the country with if and when the Germans invaded and had to fight a war on land President Roosevelt risked getting impeached and removed from office by sending arms to a country which was at war and in violation of international neutrality laws. As for 'selling arms to who they wanted" as far as I'm aware they shipped them to Britain and not to Germany or Japan In that case it is just as well that Britain held Germany off until December 1941, and when Japan and Germany declared war on the USA we came to your aid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.