Interview with WWII reconaissance pilot

[Sven]

interesting how a reconnaissance pilot triggered a WW3 scenario.

I really like reading about personal war experiences, it gives a good image how life was at the front and the actual aerial combat. Too bad all that info will slowly disappear as less people care about WW2 and the stories will no longer be told by the ones who were there.

Sven

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by Triggaaar

Well let's ignore those who'd actually like a war of any sort anywhere for a second, and stick to the point. Firstly, an enemy doesn't need to want to hold US territory in order for it to be a target. And if the US invaded Russia or China, attacks on US soil are a given, not an impossibility.

I couched my comments with the caveat of the US fighting a "defensive" war. Driving out aggressors is always easier than taking and holding territory. Just ask the Germans and Russians of WWII .

As you said, it's not like the US has cause to invade China, Russia, or even North Korea. In the case of China and NK, the much more likely scenario would be countering an invasion of one of their neighbors. It is not even a given that the US would bomb targets in either of those countries.

Attacks on US soil would have to be either clandestine or with ICBM's (or subs). I don't see how any other country even contemplate occupying US soil....if we had too much trouble driving them out we could always (and would) nuke them into oblivion. Even getting enough troops across intervening oceans would be impossible. Such an invasion is just not a winning scenario for an adversary.

China could do damage with their ICBMs, but they would cease to exist in return and I don't think they are crazy (plus they are outgunned on the nuclear front for the time being). Little Kim in NK doesn't have the delivery means to do much damage even though he is crazy enough to do it.

The larger threat to the West is WMD's showing up in an urban area. Cargo containers at a dock, sneaked over the border (Mexico/US) in a backpack or tractor trailer, or on board an airliner and airburst. These kinds of threats usually do not come form other nations but rather factions secretly supported by nations.

War has changed in the years since WWII. People generally wore uniforms then and fought battles. Small nations were prey to large nations in many instances who were looking for colonies. Wars were usually wars of conquest. Civilian casualties were accepted on all sides. Men like the Russian fighter pilot that started this wayward thread were fighting for the very survival of their nation, not a fanatical idea.

Yes, he strafed retreating enemy troops, but they were soldiers just like him. As we become more civilized perhaps we become less civilized?

Splitter

[Triggaaar]

Originally Posted by Splitter

I couched my comments with the caveat of the US fighting a "defensive" war.

You didn't make that caveat when you made the statement that "NO single entity...no two countries even....are going to beat us militarily", and that is what I was disagreeing with.

As you said, it's not like the US has cause to invade China, Russia, or even North Korea. In the case of China and NK, the much more likely scenario would be countering an invasion of one of their neighbors. It is not even a given that the US would bomb targets in either of those countries.

I don't see how any other country even contemplate occupying US soil....if we had too much trouble driving them out we could always (and would) nuke them into oblivion.

Who is talking about occupying US soil? You said that no two country alliance could beat the US militarily, and I'm simply saying that if the US provoked Russia or China (eg, attacked their homeland), they could also attack US soil. I'm not suggesting for a minute they'd want to occupy. You can't assume that if such a terrible set of circumstances ever (which is a mighty long time) did occur, the US would simply nuke the enemy into oblivion, because the enemy could do the same to the US.

Many in the US likes to think that it is kindly policing the world, but we all know it's not as simple as that. If Iraq did not have oil, the gulf wars wouldn't have happened. There are other countries where atrocities occur, and war is not waged, either because there is not the finacial incentive, or because the US doesn't have the military capability.

[Splitter]

....or is it because US interests are not threatened?

Sure we could be attacked but in a conventional war with another major power, we would not lose. The good news is that nuclear weapons possessed by the the major powers actually keep them from trying to invade one another.

As to the continual "war for oil" comments by some (not you necessarily)....let's face it, if we went to war to prevent an atrocity we would be accused of colonialism. If we went to war to kill an enemy before he attacked us, we would be accused of aggression. If we went to war to protect the world's oil supply we would be accused of profiteering. If we went to war to protect an ally we would be accused of interventionism. So.....tell me why we should care about world opinion? Because, let's face again, someone is always going to criticize the US to further their own agenda. There are many who think the US military should just be a puppet of the UN.

Always there when they need us .

[Theshark888]

Originally Posted by Triggaaar

If Iraq did not have oil, the gulf wars wouldn't have happened.

Of course. Should we have just let our Western-way of civilization collapse or held hostage by some third world despot gaining control of over half the oil reserves in the world?? It is very easy to sit in your apartment in Bern or The Hague and complain how the evil Americans are starting illegal wars. We are not happy about policing the world but this goes back to getting dragged into two world wars and not letting that happen again

Iraq was not some "innocent" country that the USA invaded to take over their oil reserves

If we were as terrible as many in the Euro-left believe, we would have taken over Iraq oil and not paid them a cent for it...we didn't even get a discount on it

[Splitter]

"Iraq was not some "innocent" country that the USA invaded to take over their oil reserves"

Well, maybe next time 'cause I paid $2.75 a gallon today and I don't understand why it has gone back up. I think that as long as we are accused of such things in any case we should at some point prove them right .

Splitter

[Theshark888]

Originally Posted by Splitter

....or is it because US interests are not threatened?

Sure we could be attacked but in a conventional war with another major power, we would not lose. The good news is that nuclear weapons possessed by the the major powers actually keep them from trying to invade one another.

As to the continual "war for oil" comments by some (not you necessarily)....let's face it, if we went to war to prevent an atrocity we would be accused of colonialism. If we went to war to kill an enemy before he attacked us, we would be accused of aggression. If we went to war to protect the world's oil supply we would be accused of profiteering. If we went to war to protect an ally we would be accused of interventionism. So.....tell me why we should care about world opinion? Because, let's face again, someone is always going to criticize the US to further their own agenda. There are many who think the US military should just be a puppet of the UN.

Always there when they need us .

Nicely said. It is about time that the European Union started to do some heavy lifting and protect themselves and their interests militarily. When the oilfields in the Middle East are lost, the Euros will be in much worse shape than North America. Stop knocking your Ally and start worrying about the real threats to European civilization. Someday we will not be there to get your chestnuts out of the fire

[Theshark888]

Originally Posted by Splitter

"Iraq was not some "innocent" country that the USA invaded to take over their oil reserves"

Well, maybe next time 'cause I paid $2.75 a gallon today and I don't understand why it has gone back up. I think that as long as we are accused of such things in any case we should at some point prove them right .

Splitter

We should have taken over Iraqi oil until the cost of the war was paid. That's my opinion

[K_Freddie]

Originally Posted by Theshark888

We should have taken over Iraqi oil until the cost of the war was paid. That's my opinion

Do you know Saudi paid for that invasion..aka.. the Bin Ladens

[K_Freddie]

Originally Posted by Theshark888

Someday we will not be there to get your chestnuts out of the fire

Not a moment to soon..........................................as we wave you goodbye... tralala