Veteran's Day

Camaro · Post by **Camaro** » Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:02 am

Well technically the US of A has not been engaged in ANY war since WW2. And by war i mean that congress has declared war - the only constitutional way to actually go to war.

Post by **zombywoof** » Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:10 am

_SRM_Nuke wrote:QUOTE (_SRM_Nuke @ Nov 14 2009, 03:44 PM) How so? We ended up at war with two major European powers less than a generation after Washington left office. I don't think DC being burned to the ground in 1814 was a sign of non-interventionist foreign policy working. Nor were the Barbary Wars.

That is a major non-sequiter and I can't correct you without defining the term non-interventionist.

Non-interventionist means "non intervening" and the war of 1812 was all about the US intervening in European affairs... such as wanting to annex Canada. So what are you trying to prove?

HSharp · Post by **HSharp** » Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:11 am

Maybe split the topic? I'm all for discussing wars and countries and policies and politics but this is a thread for the veterans not the wars they fought in and very much like Gandalf said, love the sinner hate the sin.

_SRM_Nuke · Post by **_SRM_Nuke** » Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:23 am

phoenix1 wrote:QUOTE (phoenix1 @ Nov 14 2009, 10:10 PM) Non-interventionist means "non intervening" and the war of 1812 was all about the US intervening in European affairs... such as wanting to annex Canada. So what are you trying to prove?

And why did the U.S. declare war? Because a non-interventionist foreign policy was not working and American commercial shipping interests were continuing to be harmed, even with various laws being passed declaring our neutrality.

PS, +1 to splitting this and moving it to off topic.

Post by **zombywoof** » Sun Nov 15, 2009 5:12 am

HSharp wrote:QUOTE (HSharp @ Nov 14 2009, 07:11 PM) Maybe split the topic? I'm all for discussing wars and countries and policies and politics but this is a thread for the veterans not the wars they fought in and very much like Gandalf said, love the sinner hate the sin.

+1

Grimmwolf_GB · Post by **Grimmwolf_GB** » Sun Nov 15, 2009 7:23 am

Gandalf2 wrote:QUOTE (Gandalf2 @ Nov 15 2009, 12:24 AM) The Swiss public in WW2 were very anti-Nazi and initially welcoming to people escaping the fighting and persecution (until their country got full). They had a pretty large army during WW2 as well. Although they didn't intervene in a direct sense, they were on the allies' side to a point.

One must not forget, that the swiss banks were quite eager to earn money and one can earn better if one serves both sides: Accept jewish gold out of nazi and jewish hands. That's what switzerland did and they earned their share while the rest of the world got blown to bits. Morally it is at best ambiguous, logically it was brilliant.
Since the swiss people had no territorial interest in the war, it would have been difficult for the government to motivate them to join on any side. Germany certainly did not want to lose its connection to the world of international finance by pissing of switzerland.

HSharp wrote:QUOTE (HSharp @ Nov 15 2009, 04:11 AM) Maybe split the topic? I'm all for discussing wars and countries and policies and politics but this is a thread for the veterans not the wars they fought in and very much like Gandalf said, love the sinner hate the sin.

I agree.