1
Just Chat! / Re: world peace
« on: 25/09/2005 20:17:38 »
Yea I dug up the roots. Edward Sparkman and Joseph Cummings both served in the Continental Army, Joseph from Virginal and Edward from North Carolina.
About 30 to 40 percent of England was sympathetic to the Americans before the war. King George also didn't want to raise a large army to fight the war, so paid mercenaries to do the dirty work. Kept his pole numbers higher. Toward the end of the war, he just couldn't afford to support the armies over there, and his pole numbers were way down. So he cut his looses, and signed the peace treaty.
We see that today in the war in Iraq. Bush spent his popularity capital on the war there. I can agree with the premise that democracies in the Middle East would be concentrating more on the good of their citizens and less on making trouble for the rest of the world. That would be good for Syria, Iraq and Iran. Though this adventure has not been the easy success the Administration dreamed, it might change the future of the Middle East for the better, as more people there want more freedom.
WWII had some real bad decisions with lots of loss of life. The Brits probably have forgotten about Montgomery's stupid plan to parachute behind enemy lines, and the unwillingness of American ships and planes to take risks lead to a very pitched battle at Normandy. (Only one destroyer moved into 1500 yard range to battle the hardend gun emplacements, and only 4 planes dove down to beach level to take on machine gun nests.) Lots of poor planning, but that is the way most wars go. So I am still open to see what happens in Iraq. I notice capitalism is alive and well in Iraq with the money rapidly flowing into the politicians pockets.
Some historians say the Vietnam War prevented a war in Europe. It will take a long time to evaluate the success or failure of this administration.
David
About 30 to 40 percent of England was sympathetic to the Americans before the war. King George also didn't want to raise a large army to fight the war, so paid mercenaries to do the dirty work. Kept his pole numbers higher. Toward the end of the war, he just couldn't afford to support the armies over there, and his pole numbers were way down. So he cut his looses, and signed the peace treaty.
We see that today in the war in Iraq. Bush spent his popularity capital on the war there. I can agree with the premise that democracies in the Middle East would be concentrating more on the good of their citizens and less on making trouble for the rest of the world. That would be good for Syria, Iraq and Iran. Though this adventure has not been the easy success the Administration dreamed, it might change the future of the Middle East for the better, as more people there want more freedom.
WWII had some real bad decisions with lots of loss of life. The Brits probably have forgotten about Montgomery's stupid plan to parachute behind enemy lines, and the unwillingness of American ships and planes to take risks lead to a very pitched battle at Normandy. (Only one destroyer moved into 1500 yard range to battle the hardend gun emplacements, and only 4 planes dove down to beach level to take on machine gun nests.) Lots of poor planning, but that is the way most wars go. So I am still open to see what happens in Iraq. I notice capitalism is alive and well in Iraq with the money rapidly flowing into the politicians pockets.
Some historians say the Vietnam War prevented a war in Europe. It will take a long time to evaluate the success or failure of this administration.
David