[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

The Attack on the USS Liberty (June 8, 1967) - Speech by Survivor Phillip Tourney At the Revisionist History of War Conference (Video)

‘I Smell CIA/Deep State All Over This’ — RFK Jr. VP Nicole Shanahan Blasts Sanctuary Cities,

we see peaceful protests launching in Los Angeles” - Democrat Senator Cory Booke

We have no legal framework for designating domestic terror organizations

Los Angeles Braces For Another Day Of Chaos As Newsom Pits Marxist Color Revolution Against Trump Admin

Methylene Blue Benefits

Another Mossad War Crime

80 served arrest warrants at 'cartel afterparty' in South Carolina

When Ideas Become Too Dangerous To Platform

The silent bloodbath that's tearing through the middle-class

Kiev Postponed Exchange With Russia, Leaves Bodies Of 6,000 Slain Ukrainian Troops In Trucks

Iranian Intelligence Stole Trove Of Sensitive Israeli Nuclear Files

In the USA, the identity of Musk's abuser, who gave him a black eye, was revealed

Return of 6,000 Soldiers' Bodies Will Cost Ukraine Extra $2.1Bln

Palantir's Secret War: Inside the Plot to Cripple WikiLeaks

Digital Prison in the Making?

In France we're horrified by spending money on Ukraine

Russia has patented technology for launching drones from the space station

Kill ICE: Foreign Flags And Fires Sweep LA

6,000-year-old skeletons with never-before-seen DNA rewrites human history

First Close Look at China’s Ultra-Long Range Sixth Generation J-36Jet

I'm Caitlin Clark, and I refuse to return to the WNBA

Border Czar Tom Homan: “We Are Going to Bring National Guard in Tonight” to Los Angeles

These Are The U.S. States With The Most Drug Use

Chabria: ICE arrested a California union leader. Does Trump understand what that means?Anita Chabria

White House Staffer Responsible for ‘Fanning Flames’ Between Trump and Musk ID’d

Texas Yanks Major Perk From Illegal Aliens - After Pioneering It 24 Years Ago

Dozens detained during Los Angeles ICE raids

Russian army suffers massive losses as Kremlin feigns interest in peace talks — ISW

Russia’s Defense Collapse Exposed by Ukraine Strike


History
See other History Articles

Title: There Are Too Many Veterans
Source: Lew Rockwell
URL Source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance126.html
Published: Nov 12, 2007
Author: Laurence Vance
Post Date: 2007-11-12 06:41:23 by Ada
Keywords: None
Views: 2402
Comments: 251

We have too many veterans. We have too many living veterans. We have too many dead veterans. We have too many wounded veterans. We have too many disabled veterans. We have too many veterans who have fought in wars. We have too many veterans who have never fired a shot. Any way you look at it, we have too many veterans.

Veterans Day began as Armistice Day – a day to commemorate the signing of the armistice on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month that ended fighting on the Western Front in World War I, "the war to end all wars." A few years after World War II, the holiday was changed to Veterans Day as a tribute to all soldiers who fought for their country. Veterans Day has now become a day to honor, not just those who have served in the military during wartime, but those who have served during peacetime or are serving now. It has also become a day – even though we have Armed Forces Day – to recognize all things military.

Why?

Why do most Americans hold veterans and current members of the U.S. military in such high esteem? Why is there such a military mindset in the United States?

One reason people feel this way is because they falsely believe that those who serve in the military are somehow defending our freedoms. They are convinced that it is the military that stands between a free society and subjugation by some foreign power. They think that it is because of the military that we still have our First Amendment rights. It is inevitable that whenever I write about the military I receive an e-mail or two from a current or former member of the military who closes his rebuke (which usually argues that I have the freedom to write the "trash" that I write because of the U.S. military) with this simplistic cliché: "If you can read this e-mail, thank a teacher. If you can read it in English, thank a Marine." Has anyone ever thought this through? Are we are supposed to believe that the German army that couldn’t cross the English Channel to invade Great Britain and make its population speak German was going to cross the Atlantic Ocean to invade the United States and make us all speak German if it wasn’t for the Marines? Or was it Japanese that the Marines kept us from speaking? Or perhaps it was Spanish because of the tremendous threat we faced from Spain during the Spanish-American War? Were we in danger of having to speak Russian during the Cold War? Looking at the history of U.S. military interventions, there is one thing we can thank the Marines for: We can thank the Marines for helping to carry out an evil, interventionist U.S. foreign policy. Thanks a lot, jarheads. Semper Fi and all that jazz. Our freedoms, our liberties, and our Constitution that all Marines swear to uphold are under attack by our government. The state is a greater enemy than any foreign country or ruler. If the Marines are to really defend our freedoms, then they should be deployed to Washington D.C. After they oversee the closure of most federal agencies and expel the bureaucrats from the city, they can protect the Constitution (with fixed bayonets) from its daily assault by the members of Congress. In that case I would even say with you: "The few, the proud, the Marines."

Another reason the military is held in such high esteem is that most Americans wrongfully assume that the military is actually engaged in defending the country. They don’t know about the hundreds of U.S. military bases on foreign soil. They don’t realize that there are thousands of U.S. troops stationed abroad to defend other countries. They have no idea that the United States has troops in 150 different regions of the world. Instead, they think that it is because of the military fighting terrorists "over there" that we don’t have to fight them "over here." The threat of a conquest of America by foreign invasion is nonexistent. And if we were attacked with nuclear weapons, even the Marines would be helpless to defend us. Although the purpose of the U.S. military should only be to defend the United States from genuine attacks and credible enemies, it has primarily been used to intervene in the affairs of other countries. When all of the troops come home and start guarding our borders and patrolling our coasts then, and only then, can we say that the military is defending the country. Even the Coast Guard, which actually patrols our coasts, is tainted – thanks to another unconstitutional, unwinnable war that the government is engaged in that is more destructive than the "enemy" we are fighting: the war on drugs.

Still another reason for the military mindset is that members of the military are viewed as "public servants." Members of Congress like to brag about how they have been in public service their whole life. Some policemen and firemen have jumped on the "public service" bandwagon as well. But if you want to be a policeman or a fireman, fine, just don’t expect us get excited about the fact that you have a job. And plenty of jobs are just as dangerous. Veterans are looked upon as special because they "served" in the military. It didn’t take any special education, experience, or accomplishments to land a job in the military – they just signed on the dotted line. We don’t bestow any special honors on bricklayers, mechanics, and accountants; yet, we see plenty of bumper stickers that say things like: "My son is in the Air Force." We never see "My son is a plumber" or "My son is a garbage collector" or "My son is a waiter"? And why not? The people in those occupations don’t drop bombs on anyone. They "serve" some important needs of society. Shouldn’t we honor them as least as much as soldiers?

It is unfortunate that some of the most vocal defenders of today’s military are Christians. It is even worse that churches fawn over current and former members of the military on Veterans Day. In response to my recent article "Should Anyone Join the Military," I was chastised by two detractors.

The first asked if I could read the Old Testament and still say that no one should serve in the military. I was also told that God instructed the Jews and others to destroy people. It is not hard for me to read the Old Testament and still say that no one should serve in the military. America is not Israel, and the U.S. military is not God’s army. And telling me that God instructed the Jews and others to destroy people is like telling George Bush that he is the decider. There is no denying that God instructed the Jews and others to destroy people. But George Bush is not God, America is not the nation of Israel, and God didn’t command the U.S. military to kill anyone.

My other detractor appealed to Alphonsus Liguori and maintained that as the sword maker has no control over the product, so "the soldier does not commit an actual sin unless he chooses to break a moral law while in the military." It is "the leaders or military officers who sin when they issue immoral orders." Military service is "morally neutral." But what kind of morality is this? It certainly isn’t Christian. What kind of morality says that it would be okay to kill someone in an unjust war in his own country who was no threat to you or your country because you are wearing a military uniform? Oh, I forgot: Just don’t break a moral law while you are killing him.

It is high time that Americans stop elevating members of the military to a position of honor. It is long past the time when veterans have done anything honorable. We should abolish Veterans Day. And because of our shameful foreign policy and militarism during the twentieth century, we should abolish any Armistice Day celebration as well.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 47.

#2. To: Ada (#0)

It is high time that Americans stop elevating members of the military to a position of honor. It is long past the time when veterans have done anything honorable. We should abolish Veterans Day. And because of our shameful foreign policy and militarism during the twentieth century, we should abolish any Armistice Day celebration as well.

I'll second that. Nothing is more revolting than the legions of American "Veterans"- most of whom never heard a shot fired in anger- and did little more than jack off for 2 to 4 years on the American tax payer dime - demand that we kiss their ass and "thank them." For what? Eating, drinking? Going to titty bars? Taking drugs? Supporting child prostitute pimps in the Phillipines and a dozen other places aroudn the world? Not a living "veteran" has ever defended this country from a real threat. Not one.

The veteran scam is a drain on this country. They are even more parasitical than the welfare recipients I am sure many of them bitch about. Oh- you sat on your fat ass on Diego Garcia drinking Mai Tai's for two years while you spent 4 hours a day moving shit around and another 4 hours hiding from your CO to avoid another duty? And I am suppossed to pay for you to go to college and pay for your health care the rest of your life? I have support your below market home owner's mortgage rates?

Get lost. My dad is a "Veteran". You know what he did for the 4 years he spent in the great noble US Army? Sat on his ass smoking cigarettes, playing cards and burying excess gasoline and paint and other supplies so it would look like they were doing what they were suppossed to be doing. Not that anyone would have cared one way or the other.

Standing militaries for most countries are a necessary evil. There is NO REASON for this country to have one- at all. There is no peer enemy that could hurt the US in this HEMISPHERE! There is no reason the US should be spending 100 billion on its military much less 1 trillion! Give me a break. SO sick of this shit.

And if I see another banner on an overpass "thanking" some dipshit for his "service" in Iraq I am going to puke. Thanks for what/ Killing some innocnent raghead who just doesn't want you there? For being an idiot and thinking that war has anything to do with "defending" America?

Ughhh.

Burkeman1  posted on  2007-11-12   8:02:47 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: Burkeman1 (#2)

Not a living "veteran" has ever defended this country from a real threat. Not one.

You are wrong. There are many that have defended this country from real threats, regardless of what you think.

The very fact that we have (or had) a strong military is what kept other nations from bullying this country around.

There is something to be said about "Peace through Strength". Just as a school yard bully targets the weaker kids, and leaves the "tough" kids alone, this country has been able to discourage those nations that would have liked to bully us around.

It is those that you disparage as "jack offs" that gave this Nation her strength, and kept the bullies at bay.

In this day and age where China is building up her military by leaps and bounds, has a blue water navy and subs capable of sinking US carrier fleets, has anti-satellite technology that can disable our ICBM's, and ICBM's of their own with sophisticated guidance systems, we should really be concerned about our military strength, and support those that ARE there as a deterent against outright Chinese aggression.

Then again, China could win a war against us without even firing a shot simply by dumping the US dollar and bankrupting this country. We can thank the treasonous dealings of the corporate elite and their puppets in Washington for that.

FormerLurker  posted on  2007-11-12   14:13:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: FormerLurker (#30)

You are wrong. There are many that have defended this country from real threats, regardless of what you think.

OK, in which war?

WW1 - No threat to America.

WW2 - Again, no threat to America. (The bombing of Pearl Harbor was provoked by the blockade, and of course was set up to get us in that war by Roosevelt.

Korea - Still no threat to America.

Vietnam - No threat.

Grenada- No threat.

Panama - No threat. (Jimmy Carter even gave the Panama Canal away, which is now creating a real threat with China taking it over)

Afghanistan - No threat.

Iraq - No threat.

Iran - Of course, no threat.

Bosnia/Serbia - No threat.

The real threats have only been dealt with by non-military members: the border patrol, the coast guard, and occasionally local police departments and the FBI.

RickyJ  posted on  2007-11-12   14:26:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: RickyJ (#33)

OK, in which war?

It's the wars that DIDN'T happen that I was referring to. In other words, I was speaking of the DETERRENCE against wars, rather than actual recent conflicts.

And I would disagree with your assessment of WWII, where Hitler DID want to spread the Third Reich across the entire globe. He may very well have pulled it off if we didn't join the war when we did.

If he had been able to take over all of Europe, Africa, and Russia, and if Japan had been able to take over China and the rest of Asia, building up reinforcements on both fronts, the Axis powers could have launched invasions of South America. From there, they could have pushed northwards up through Mexico, and carried out an invasion of the US from both coasts and from the south.

FormerLurker  posted on  2007-11-12   14:34:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: FormerLurker (#36)

Do you make your own cool-aid or do the send it FedX?

robnoel  posted on  2007-11-12   14:37:59 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: robnoel (#39)

Do you make your own cool-aid or do the send it FedX?

Are you trying to say that Hitler would have left us alone if we had just stayed out of WWII? I'm not the one drinking "cool-aid" pal.

FormerLurker  posted on  2007-11-12   14:39:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: FormerLurker (#42)

Thats a fairy tale I deal in the real world

robnoel  posted on  2007-11-12   14:44:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#45. To: robnoel (#44) (Edited)

Thats a fairy tale I deal in the real world

In the real world, the US fought against the Axis powers in WWII. In your world, we shouldn't have. Looking at the possibilities and probabilities of your world takes more than just a glancing utiopian afterthought, it requires a serious look at various factors.

I doubt you've seriously thought it through.

FormerLurker  posted on  2007-11-12   14:47:38 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#47. To: FormerLurker (#45)

Part Two

President Roosevelt wasn't listening either to the charges of Congressman Martin Dies, Chairman of the House Committee on Un-American Activities. By August of 1941, the Dies committee had assembled a large amount of evidence which more than confirmed the suspicions which we had entertained on the basis of surface appearances: It was clear that the Japanese were preparing to invade Pearl Harbor and that they were in possession of vital military information.

This information was made available to the Roosevelt administration by Congressman Dies personally. But this was the second time that Dies had appealed to Roosevelt about his knowledge of Japan's intention to attack Pearl Harbor. Early in 1941 the Dies Committee came into possession of a strategic map which gave clear proof of the intentions of the Japanese to make an assault on Pearl Harbor. The strategic map was prepared by the Japanese Imperial Military Intelligence Department.

Dies telephoned Secretary of State Cordell Hull who talked to President Roosevelt.

Congressman Dies was told not to release the document to the public, and the Roosevelt administration did nothing. (In April, 1964, when Dies told the American public of these revelations, he added this comment: "If anyone questions the veracity and accuracy of these statements, I will be glad to furnish him with conclusive proof.")

It was also in August, 1941, when the new product of the I.G. Farben cartel was tested on humans for the first time. The product was called Zyklon B and it was to be used on the Jews and others at the concentration camps.

In the Pacific Theater, Japan's war messages, being read in Washington, started asking their spy in Pearl Harbor to report ship movements, and, later, the exact nature and location of the ships in the harbor.

Japan's request for more information on what was happening at Pearl Harbor was followed on October 16, 1941, by the resignation of the Prince's cabinet in Japan. These resignations were followed by the military administration of General Tojo and his cabinet. All of this activity was recognized by the American government as a decided step toward war, but still nothing was done to alert Pearl Harbor.

It was on this day that Henry Stimson, Roosevelt's Secretary of War, wrote the following in his diary: "... and so we face the delicate question of the diplomatic fencing to be done so as to be sure that Japan be put into the wrong and to make the first bad move—overt move."

Stimson was to repeat this concern that faced the Roosevelt administration when he testified before one of the Committees investigating Pearl Harbor. There he was quoted as saying: "The question was how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves."

The Japanese would still not respond with the incident to provoke the United States into retaliating, but America was convinced that it would happen ultimately. For instance, Secretary of State Cordell Hull told Roosevelt on November 7, 1941, that he foresaw "every possibility of an early war with Japan."

Japan continued its efforts towards staying out of a war with the United States and had its Ambassador in Washington continue his efforts towards securing a no-war treaty with the Secretary of State. On November 22, 1941, they wired their Ambassador: "Do your best, spare no efforts and try to bring about the solution we desire."

But even though Japan was attempting to avoid war with the United States, the Japanese were being encouraged by an unlikely source to strike out at the United States. On May 17, 1951, the New York Daily News featured an article by its Washington correspondent, John O'Donnell, concerning various old Far Eastern intelligence reports which were being closely guarded in Washington. Among those documents were the 32,000 word confession of Soviet spy Richard Sorge.

Mr. Sorge was a Russian spy who had infiltrated the German embassy in Japan and worked hard to convince Japanese officials that Japan should not attack Russia, but move south, at the risk of war with the United States.

When Sorge informed the Kremlin [in Russia] in October, 1941, that the Japanese intended to attack Pearl Harbor within 60 days, he received thanks for his report and the notice that Washington — Roosevelt, Marshall, Admiral Stark, et al. — had been advised of the Japanese intentions.

On November 25,1941, the day that the Japanese fleet sailed for Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt convened a meeting of the various Cabinet officers: Secretaries Stimson, Knox, Marshall and Admiral Harold R. Stark, Chief of Naval Operations. According to Stimson's testimony: "The President brought up the event that we were likely to be attacked perhaps [as soon as] next Monday, for the Japanese are notorious for making an attack without warning. In spite of the risk involved, however, in letting the Japanese fire the first shot, we realized that in order to have the full support of the American people, it was desirable to make sure that the Japanese be the ones to do this so that there should remain no doubt in anyone's mind as to who were the aggressors."

On November 26, 1941, the Japanese Embassy in Washington sent the following message to Tokyo: "Hull said... I am sorry to tell you that we cannot agree to it [Japan's treaty Proposal]."

The British Intelligence Service, which had men inside the Japanese diplomatic agencies in the United States, took the November 26th telegram to Tokyo as meaning that the "Japanese negotiations off. Services expect action within two weeks."

And Roosevelt and the Department of the Army also knew this, as "... a very important American Army Intelligence officer, in service in the Far East during 1941... had gained knowledge of the Yamamoto plan to send a task force to attack Pearl Harbor and sent three separate messages to Washington revealing this information, and at least two of these reached the Army files well before the attack on Pearl Harbor."

Finally, in desperation, the Japanese government sent a message to their Washington embassy on December 6, 1941, in essence breaking off all negotiations with the American government After the message was intercepted by the American government, de-coded and given to Roosevelt, he is quoted as saying: "This means war."

Roosevelt now knew that Japan planned on attacking the United States, but still he did nothing about warning the American forces at Pearl Harbor.

And on December 7,1941, Japan launched a "surprise attack."

The American forces were not prepared for the attack. And the attacking Japanese forces had orders from Japan to return to Japan should they detect any evidence that the Americans had been alerted.

As their air force attacked Pearl Harbor, they reported that the American planes were having difficulty in getting off the ground.

This was because the American planes had been grouped in circles, with their propellers all facing inward as the result of an order by President Roosevelt. It was reported that Roosevelt had ordered the planes grouped in this fashion because he feared "acts of sabotage" against the planes and he was acting to protect them.

Since airplanes do not have a "reverse gear" the grouping of the planes in this manner made it extremely difficult for them to rapidly get out of the circle and into the air. One critic of the circling of these airplanes, Harry Elmer Barnes, has written: "Bunching the planes in a circle, wing to wing, would [make them] helpless in the event of a surprise air attack."

Another strange circumstance was the make-up of the fleet anchored at Pearl Harbor at the time of the attack. The Pacific Fleet consisted of nine battleships and three aircraft carriers along with a host of smaller ships.

During the attack, the Japanese sank or seriously damaged eight battleships but no aircraft carriers.

The American government had reasoned that the aircraft carriers would have an extremely important role to play in the type of war they felt would be waged in the Pacific theater. So all of the aircraft carriers were moved out of Pearl Harbor and all of the less valuable battleships were left behind. The battleships were expendable because most of them had been constructed prior to or during World War I, which meant that they were old and obsolete.

Along with the aircraft carriers, Roosevelt's government also withdrew the smaller, more mobile ships that they knew could be more efficiently utilized in a sea war. On November 28th, Admiral William F. Halsey was sent to Wake Island with the carrier Enterprise, three heavy destroyers and nine destroyers. On December 5th, Admiral John E. Newton was sent to Midway with the carrier Lexington, three heavy cruisers and five destroyers. The carrier Saratoga had been sent to the Pacific Coast.

Admiral Husband Kimmel, the commander of the naval forces at Pearl Harbor, clearly places the blame for Pearl Harbor's unpreparedness on President Roosevelt. He has written: "We were unready at Pearl Harbor because President Roosevelt's plans required that no word be sent to alert the fleet in Hawaii."

The Rt Hon. Oliver Lyttleton, a member of Churchill's war cabinet, declared in an address to the American Chamber of Commerce in London on June 24, 1944: "America provoked [the Japanese] to such an extent that the Japanese were forced to attack Pearl Harbor. It is a travesty of history to say that America was forced into the war."

The Council on Foreign Relations published an article in its publication called Foreign Affairs in January, 1974, that agreed with Lyttleton. The article stated that "Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor actually thrust the United States into World War II, but the Roosevelt administration decided a year and a half earlier to risk war in order to prevent the totalitarian domination of all Europe."

So on December 8, 1941, President Roosevelt asked the Congress to declare war on Japan, stating that December 7, 1941 would go down in history as a "day of infamy."

So when Roosevelt addressed the nation through his speech in Congress, he lied when he said: "We don't like it — and we didn't want to get in it — but we are in it and we're going to fight it with everything we've got."

So Roosevelt asked for, and received, a Declaration of War against Japan. Germany followed on December 11th with a Declaration of War against the United States. This action was in accordance with the terms of the Tripartite Treaty signed earlier by Germany, Italy and Japan.

Roosevelt's activities in the planning of Pearl Harbor had a costly price. The final toll was 2,341 U.S. servicemen dead and 1,143 wounded; eighteen ships including the eight battleships were sunk or heavily damaged; more than two hundred Army Air Corps and Navy planes were destroyed or unusable; and sixty-eight civilians were killed.

For his supposed unpreparedness at Pearl Harbor, Admiral Kimmel was relieved of his command, and he retired on January 7, 1942.

After the war was over. Congress looked into the reasons for the lack of preparation at Pearl Harbor. Their conclusions are most revealing:

1.

The attack was unprovoked by America; 2.

There was no evidence that the President, Secretary of State, Secretary of War, Secretary of Navy, provoked the attack; 3.

The American government made every effort to avoid the war with Japan; 4.

The attack was caused by the Army's and Navy's failure to detect hostile forces; and 5.

The errors made were errors of judgment and not derelictions of duty.

The last conclusion was apparently intended to relieve the commanders of the armed forces from responsibility so that they could not be court-martialed. Admiral Kimmel and General Walter C. Short, the commander of the armed forces at Pearl Harbor, continuously pleaded for a court martial to clear their reputations, but they were never granted.

Admiral Robert Theobold, the Commander of all destroyers at Pearl Harbor, wrote a book entitled The Final Secret of Pearl Harbor, in which he detailed his conclusions about the "surprise attack." He wrote:

1.

President Roosevelt forced Japan to war and enticed them to initiate hostilities by holding the Pacific fleet in Hawaiian waters as an invitation to that attack; 2.

The plans to use Pearl Harbor as the bait started in June, 1940; 3.

War with Japan meant war with Germany; and 4.

Roosevelt, Marshall and Stark knew about Pearl Harbor 21 hours before the attack.

But in spite of all of this evidence that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was known by Roosevelt and his top advisors well in advance of that actual event, there are those who still hold to the position that the government, and Roosevelt specifically, knew nothing about it.

So America now had a two-front war against Japan in the Pacific and against Germany in Europe.

Just as planned!

robnoel  posted on  2007-11-12   14:56:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 47.

#49. To: robnoel (#47)

I'm fully aware of what led up to Pearl Harbor and do not disagree with anything you wrote concerning that.

But that is simply a red herring that avoids the real question of what would have happened if we DIDN'T enter WWII when we did.

FormerLurker  posted on  2007-11-12 15:09:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 47.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]