The Pledge of Allegiance

[ozzy72]

I'd disagree with you on that one H, whilst the Japanese would undoubtably have taken parts of the Empire we had held out against the Germans and started striking back long before the US got into the war.
I still find it amazing that all those Commonwealth soldiers came and fought for "their" imperialist dictator (e.g. the British) and did so with great distinction and very little recognition.
I sent this link to Doug yesterday, a rather interesting article regarding the "wonderful" British government and one noble and brave man http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4554870.stm

[H]

The U.K. had no choice but to strike back just to "fend off." However, to properly contend my statement means that, in the entire course of the war, there could be no U.S. supplies (purchased or otherwise) nor assistance (including embargoes) of any sort. There would eventually have had to be a capitulation and concessions of some sort. Questionably, there may have been more favorable terms with Germany than with Japan but, in the long run, the U.K. would likely have been less than it even is today. Stranger things have happened, though.
As to your link, that seemed to be the standard historical motis operendi for the homeland government as well as their representatives in the field. That the joining U.S. citizenry were sometimes looked on as 'inferior' troups (WW1, particularly) is one thing. A number of recorded statements and complaints relate that it was the typical attitude toward its [U.K.] own members (Canadians, Australians, Indians, etc.)

[Hagar]

That the joining U.S. citizenry were sometimes looked on as 'inferior' troups (WW1, particularly) is one thing. A number of recorded statements and complaints relate that it was the typical attitude toward its [U.K.] own members (Canadians, Australians, Indians, etc.)

That is indeed true & shows the other side of the patriotic  'Empire mentality' that Andrew seems to admire so much. The attitude was 'British is best' & the others are all 'Johnny Foreigners'. This attitude still exists today to a certain extent although it's nothing like as bad as it used to be. It's difficult to change the way you were brought up & let go of the past which I have discovered myself many times over the years. When I was at school half the globe seemed to be part of the Empire & most people were deeply patriotic although they might not have admitted it.

Since the collapse of the British Empire following the end of WWII the USA has taken over the reponsibility of the Western imperialist along with all the disadvantages. It's not an easy job by any means & we had centuries of practice.

[Woodlouse2002]

The U.K. had no choice but to strike back just to "fend off."  

This may have been the case in the first couple of years of the war even so there were still a series of Commando attacks in Norway and by 1943 we had the German army on the run in Africa.

That the joining U.S. citizenry were sometimes looked on as 'inferior' troups (WW1, particularly) is one thing.

In WWI the U.S. troops were seen as inferior because they didn't have the three years of trench fighting under their belts that the British and French had by 1917. Some of the american attacks in 1917 were exactly the same as the British attacks in 1914 and 15 and just as disasterous. That is why the American troops were mostly used to fill the gaps in the front line while the British and French forces prepared their final offensives in 1918.

[Hagar]

This may have been the case in the first couple of years of the war even so there were still a series of Commando attacks in Norway and by 1943 we had the German army on the run in Africa.

I think H is referring to the war in the Pacific against Japan. Australia was under a real threat of invasion in 1942-43. http://www.users.bigpond.com/battleforaustralia/Austunderthreat.html
I think that for the most part they were on their own & don't know what Britain or the US could have done to help.

[bbstackerf]

I'm afraid that for most of my years I probably would have to fall in the "Right or Wrong" American category jordonj mentioned earlier. When Ron Kovic's story came out "Born on the 4th of July" I despised him. Mostly because I was angry for him disrespecting servicemen. And I guess a little bit was that I was a 4th of July baby as well. Viet Nam veterans got a raw deal when they returned. I've always had a deep resentment of anyone who was a war protester. They seem to lose sight of the culprit (The Government) and through stupidity or ignorance take it out on troops who more than likely were draftees during the war. To me draft dogers were no less than cowards who hid behind proclaimed "idealism". War sucks. Plain and simple. But when you are called upon to serve and you deliberately refuse or evade your duty as a citizen "right or wrong" it's just that, cowardice.

Todays military, and when I joined in '78 is a personal decision. Thats a right.

[H]

I think H is referring to the war in the Pacific against Japan. Australia was under a real threat of invasion in 1942-43. http://www.users.bigpond.com/battleforaustralia/Austunderthreat.html
I think that for the most part they were on their own & don't know what Britain or the US could have done to help.

Thanks, Hagar. Grief! Make a statement directly referenced to Australia and we wind up in Norway and Africa.
Nevertheless, the U.K. wasn't alone in the final push that ejected Rommel from Africa. In 1942, November 8 (she wasn't born yet, but my sister's birthdate; I did have at least 2 relatives amongst the troups, though), U.S. forces landed in Africa to assist. Now, before we wind up with some retort that I said that the African campaign wasn't going well for the U.K. (as if anything is actually "well" with war) until the U.S. wandered in, I'm certainly not. When both ends are under attack, however, it is more expedient to defend the head than the tail; the tail may get lopped off in the process but that 's usually preferable to decapitation.

In WWI the U.S. troops were seen as inferior because they didn't have the three years of trench fighting under their belts that the British and French had by 1917.

The point was that the Australians, New Zealanders, etc., did have the experience -- essentially, they were there from the start -- and still were wont for accredited merit.

Some of the american attacks in 1917 were exactly the same as the British attacks in 1914 and 15 and just as disasterous.

Some of the British and French attacks in 1917 were just as ineffectual; that's why they were still stuck in the muck in the stench of the trench! Again, I'm not not vying that U.S. troups had the experience but, rather, that other members of the Empire did but were not equally acknowledged.

[Katahu]

I hate that so much young life has been lost and continues to be lost on an almost daily basis trying to protect a people who hate us.

My dad once told me that he met a soilder who was on leave after returning from Iraq. The soilder told my dad that everyone in that country hates him simply for being an American. He asked my dad if he knows how it feels to be hated upon by the very people you are trying to protect.

My dad then relayed the question to me [he couldn't find the answer]. This was my reply. And it didn't take long to figure it out:

"Dad, that question is for Jesus to answer. And may I need to remind to remind you that he continued to forgive everybody to this very day, even after being crusified by man's biggest sins".

Now, if there's anybody here who can come up with a better answer than that, please speak now or forever hold your peace.

This post is not meant to incite a flame war. Remember that.

EDIT:

Did any of you notice that this topic has slowly changed from the Pledge all the way to the wars? I get the feeling that we're starting to tred on thin ice here.

[beefhole]

"Dad, that question is for Jesus to answer. And may I need to remind to remind you that he continued to forgive everybody to this very day, even after being crusified by man's biggest sins".

Unfortunately Katahu, by many people that is considered a lame out.  To the people who pose it as an asnwer, it is a universal truth-to others, it is nothing more than avoiding the real problem at hand.

Many would say that doesn't really apply here, that it's irrelevent- (I'm biased of course, many would say Jesus applies everywhere and I am not one to say they are wrong) there are young people dying protecting a people who hate them, what is to be done?

Many would say referencing Jesus isn't going to fix the Middle East.  They would say that it hasn't in the past, it isn't currently, it won't in the future.  The answer to that question lies in putting yourself in their shoes.

[Katahu]

That's why I asked if anyone had a better answer.

EDIT: As I said, I get the feeling we might be treding on this ice with this topic. Or maybe it's just me [Politics = Headache].

*Katahu goes to his medicine cabinet and grabs a tablet of Aspirin*

[Hagar]

At the risk of breaking through the ice I agree with Beefy on this. Not quite the same situation but I was reminded of the Christmas truce in 1914 when ordinary soldiers from the opposing armies met in no-man's land to bury their dead before exchanging gifts, playing football & singing Christmas carols together. They both believed in the same god but the next day they would be doing their best to kill each other, each obviously believing that they were right & their god was on their side.

I'm sure it's not a new thing for soldiers to be hated by the very people they're trying to protect. It's not the soldiers these people hate but what they represent. Being British I'm used to that & can accept it. What I can't accept is when their own countrymen turn against them for doing their job in the most terrible conditions.

[Marlin]

This is a very interesting thread going on here. I'm just a little slow beings today is the first time that I have read it. Besides it going off track somewhat, it

[Hagar]

[quote]The way that I understand that, in today

[Katahu]

You know, I'll be the better man and just simply walk from this conversation before the ice gets too thin.

[beefhole]

As far as the atheist goes: For them to believe that there is no God, it takes FAITH to really believe that. JUST as it takes FAITH on my part to believe that there is a God.

There were no references to athiesm in any posts here.  I showed the two sides-those who turn to religion for answers and those who try to act to get solutions.  I did not imply I held one above the other, nor did I say which side I belong to.

And by the way, Doug is correct.  Communism=athiesm, from what I understand.  There is no state church.