North Korea

[Lithium]

North Korea. What sets it apart from Iraq and Iran? Why did the United States not liberate this pitiful country, led by their "Dear Leader" Also known as Kim Jong Il? They have no Internet, no communications with the outside world. They still dwell within the primitive life of the eighteenth century. Why did their "Dear Leader" decide to isolate his once-prosperous country from the rest of the world? What I don't understand is why the United States doesn't interfere and liberate this pitiful country. The Answer: Not interested. Helping these communists would give the US nothing in return.

What most of us don't understand is that throughout it's history, the United States has helped many countries. France, Great Britain and Philippines, to name a few. But why not help other countries that need aid, North Korea, for example?

Let's think of it this way. During the time of WWII, Great Britain was one of the largest superpowers in the world. America helped them out, and who came out on top? America, of course. Same thing with every other country the US of A has helped out. Is this a good thing? Of course, but now I think our national government should see beyond the matters of their own country.

Afraid of nukes? I doubt it.

[SuiCidAl-KiSmEt]

Well, for one thing. When we came in Iraq and Iran, the army thought they would be welcomed as liberators. Which they did for the first few weeks, until the people their knew we were going to occupy their country. A reason why we went is because someone attacked us from their. The war we fought in their, against the terrorist, is over, we defeated a leader, we tor down his statue, we won it, although many people won't accept that. But, North Korea hasn't done anything to us haven't they?

Plus, with the recent war, a lot of people want to bring our soldiers back and want to remain neutral. We have no encouragement or will to even want to start an affair with another country. And another plus, their leader taught their people to be ignorant. A lot of people their hate the United States. I mean, according to what I saw to the History channel, kids were being taught in schools, that South Korea's children were being killed under President Bush and America wanted to take over S. And N. Korea. Their leader, spread hate and evil propaganda. If we do enter N. Korea, it'll be like Japan in WW2, everyone their will want to kill us. Every aware American know how much N. Korea hates us. Why help a country that hates us so?

And what are we going do? Assassinate their leader and give free laptops to everyone?

[Prozerran]

Well, for one thing. When we came in Iraq and Iran, the army thought they would be welcomed as liberators. Which they did for the first few weeks, until the people their knew we were going to occupy their country. A reason why we went is because someone attacked us from their. The war we fought in their, against the terrorist, is over, we defeated a leader, we tor down his statue, we won it, although many people won't accept that. But, North Korea hasn't done anything to us haven't they?

You have missed a great deal of information out there. Iraq's leader (Saddam Hussein) never sanctioned an attack on U.S. soil. The main reasons we were told that we should attack Iraq was because they were 1) harboring terrorists, 2) they were developing nuclear technology, and 3) they were preparing an attack on the United States with its current arsenal of WMDs. Now, we invaded and found no arsenal of WMDs. We found no evidence of nuclear technology being developed for purposes of creating a nuclear arsenal. And as evidence has shown, they weren't harboring any terrorists. If anything, the terrorist factions in Iraq were imbedded so deeply in Iraq's infrastructure, Hussein showed no ability to remove them from his nation. In short, the whole idea, the pitch Bush and his administration made to the nation via the international media, was either a gross misunderstanding of the situation or a purposeful manipulation of a very fearful time in American history. Either way, I don't think you fully understand what has really developed here over time.

Plus, with the recent war, a lot of people want to bring our soldiers back and want to remain neutral. We have no encouragement or will to even want to start an affair with another country. And another plus, their leader taught their people to be ignorant. A lot of people their hate the United States. I mean, according to what I saw to the History channel, kids were being taught in schools, that South Korea's children were being killed under President Bush and America wanted to take over S. And N. Korea. Their leader, spread hate and evil propaganda. If we do enter N. Korea, it'll be like Japan in WW2, everyone their will want to kill us. Every aware American know how much N. Korea hates us. Why help a country that hates us so?

And what are we going do? Assassinate their leader and give free laptops to everyone?

Bush is an idiot. Cheney is a crook. Bush belongs in TX where he can't make any more stupid decisions that cost American lives, and Cheney belongs in prison for his attempts at usurping the Judicial and Legislative powers of government and threatening the constitution (our freedoms) in the United States. I know these are pretty bold statements, but after reviewing a number of documentaries and reading internet articles relating to the goings-on in the White House, I'm sick to think that if Giulianni actually becomes President how empirical our nation will become.

As it stands now, our legislative body has no power. Our judicial body is directly appointed by our executive body, and the concept of our government is quickly becoming tyrannical in the blink of an eye as long as we remain in a wartime state of affairs. I'm not shocked or surprised that the world at large fears and hates us so much. Little do they know how dumbed down the public here is, how much we're misled and guided on a course of action through propaganda and fear, and how hopeless those of us that actually care feel that we have almost no recourse but to wait out the bloodshed and hope for the best with our next leader. Our government has failed us in so many ways, I only hope that new leadership takes office that can put us back on the right path.

[Icarus]

Afraid of nukes? I doubt it.

why?

As far as I have seen, any country that successfully harbors nuclear power has sort of an invisible political shield around it. These things have been used before, and they may be used again.

As for the whole "oil" thing, i've heard credible arguments on both sides. I read in a middle eastern online paper that all oil assets will be barred from US oil companies once they are "divvied" up, but I've also heard of companies smuggling oil from iraq to america, so I'm not so sure on that.

[Faiien]

Bush is an idiot. Cheney is a crook. Bush belongs in TX where he can't make any more stupid decisions that cost American lives, and Cheney belongs in prison for his attempts at usurping the Judicial and Legislative powers of government and threatening the constitution (our freedoms) in the United States. I know these are pretty bold statements, but after reviewing a number of documentaries and reading internet articles relating to the goings-on in the White House, I'm sick to think that if Giulianni actually becomes President how empirical our nation will become.

As it stands now, our legislative body has no power. Our judicial body is directly appointed by our executive body, and the concept of our government is quickly becoming tyrannical in the blink of an eye as long as we remain in a wartime state of affairs. I'm not shocked or surprised that the world at large fears and hates us so much. Little do they know how dumbed down the public here is, how much we're misled and guided on a course of action through propaganda and fear, and how hopeless those of us that actually care feel that we have almost no recourse but to wait out the bloodshed and hope for the best with our next leader. Our government has failed us in so many ways, I only hope that new leadership takes office that can put us back on the right path.
I'am not gonna lie, i have lost faith in our current political government. It seems like every politician is a lier and i dont know who to trust anymore.The U.S dollar's value is so low that people in Europe could actually afford to buy a pool of U.S dollars to swim in. Everyday we waste more and more of our resources on this "war" and it sucks that we have to wait till the next elections to change our current status -_-. Iam not even sure if we can still fix our errors.
As for the issue on N.K. i believe that the U.S will dip their hands in it sooner or later -_-.

[masterofhobbiton]

The US is not and should not be some sort of global police force. They have no right to consider their own laws and morals worth more than any other country's or worth anything in that country. The US is a capitalistic republic that does not help other nations out of some sort of moral obligation, but to spread a pro-democracy message and for economic or military advantages or for its own security. You'll notice in WWII we specifically stood idly by and abstained from all european fighting until finally Japan attacked hawaii, no? Saying that the US has the right to "liberate pitiful countries" is incredibly biased. Imagine if China suddenly bombed and invaded the US, imposed their laws (censorship, only 1 child, etc), their form of government (communist succsessorship ?) and executed or tried our leaders for war crimes. Maybe the last part wouldn't be so bad, but the US would be outraged. What gives us the right to do the same to any country, whatever form of government they have?

[Lithium]

The US is not and should not be some sort of global police force. They have no right to consider their own laws and morals worth more than any other country's or worth anything in that country. The US is a capitalistic republic that does not help other nations out of some sort of moral obligation, but to spread a pro-democracy message and for economic or military advantages or for its own security. You'll notice in WWII we specifically stood idly by and abstained from all european fighting until finally Japan attacked hawaii, no? Saying that the US has the right to "liberate pitiful countries" is incredibly biased. Imagine if China suddenly bombed and invaded the US, imposed their laws (censorship, only 1 child, etc), their form of government (communist succsessorship ?) and executed or tried our leaders for war crimes. Maybe the last part wouldn't be so bad, but the US would be outraged. What gives us the right to do the same to any country, whatever form of government they have?

Very good point, Hobbito. I hadn't viewed it from your point. I had always thought that the USA ascended into Global Police force status after Vietnam. What did they have to gain in Vietnam? Nothing, yet they still helped. What I was trying to point out was that we're spending billions of dollars in helping other countries, yet not one cent (aside from security/satellite espionage) on North Korea.

[masterofhobbiton]

I can see your point of view too, that intervention in light of the sucessful and tried and generally supported western democatic ways is good, but I just don't think that what we do should be considered help. We went to vietnam, took sides in a civil war, bombed and napalmed and screwed up the country, caused a bunch of casualties, and lost, leaving our enemy to take over our ally (north vietnam over south vietnam). I don't really see this as being help. I don't really see doing this same thing with north and south korea being helpful.

Sorry if it sort of seems like I'm flaming a bit, I didn't mean it that way.

[mranderson]

You guys make it sound as if the U.S. does nothing the whole time before WW two and other events. We gave the brits military hardware, not to mention entire ships. Don't forget afghanistan when the russians invaded, and we supplied them with weapons, and the russians eventually gave up.

Everything doesn't have to involve boots on the ground to get a job done. Although another interesting point. If the U.S. were getting oil, and helping Iraqi citizens would it be a bad thing?

[uberfoop]

What most of us don't understand is that throughout it's history, the United States has helped many countries. France, Great Britain and Philippines, to name a few. But why not help other countries that need aid, North Korea, for example?
What most of us don't understand is that in all the cases you mentioned, it hardly qualifies as 'help'.

France? I'll admit we worked with them, but their goals for our alliance hardly ever worked out for them in the long run.

Great Britain? That was pure sales; where there's a market, there's manufacturers.

Phillipines? Right. Stabbing Aguinaldo in the back by aquiring the Phillipines by cutting a secret deal with Spain which then resulted in a campaign against the Phillipines which due to cut off food and supplies (which contributed to a cholera epidemic) and direct killings (Yes, the US generals gave direct orders to butcher large populations. It's documented.) resulting in a total of up to 1,000,000 deaths sure helped them a LOT. That's not aid, that's bloody genocidal imperialism.
We didn't let the country become independant until the 40's either.



And we sure as hell didn't do much to help the Soviet Union beat down Hitler. Sure, we sent a huge load of men in, but we didn't do anything useful with them; the most prominent things they did were Normandy and the Bulge, both of which were tiny skirmishes in comparision with Stalingrad, the Dnieper campaign, or Kursk.


America helped them out, and who came out on top? America, of course.
Thus showing your error in logic. See? AMERICA came out on top. Not the country they helped. Now, of course, in terms of WWII GB, it DID help them out too, but this is simply not true in many cases. Phillipines? Vietnam? It can even be extended to organizations like the pre-war Iraqi government who we helped at one point in the past (to the point where they were free to launch chemical attacks on Iranians when they felt like it, resulting in massive civilian casualties. Go USA!), but we recently attacked them without giving any valid reasons to do so, overthrew them, and killed their leader.




It's getting pretty easy to say these days that being America's friend is more dangerous than being it's enemy.

[GenocideAlive]

We don't attack North Korea because it would piss off China. We'd also attract the ire of pretty much every other country in the UN, since we're running around jacking countries we don't like. A lot of governments would dislike this trend, and our own government would invariably suffer from extended warfare with overseas opponents for no gain. Not to mention the domestic strife. We can't attack a country harboring terrorists that bombed our own people without people going gonzo and claiming that we're killing babies and children.
And as evidence has shown, no terrorists
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/08/AR2006060800114.html

[SolidSamurai]

Liberation would've probably extended the war back in the 50s to ALOT longer. Possibly stretching into the 60s, or even the 70s. On the other hand, there'd be no vietnam, but Kennedy would still get elected and possibly still establish the lunar landing. Though who knows whether or not he'd get assassinated. Probably would.

Nevertheless, the war was a massive stalemate when China got involved, so really the US felt like giving up. If they kept THAT war going, there might've been alot of anger, both domestically AND internationally. It could've been chaos. And then Vietnam was chaos, but nonetheless nobody can predict the future, so you can't completely blame them.

[uberfoop]

We can't attack a country harboring terrorists that bombed our own people without people going gonzo and claiming that we're killing babies and children.

Mainly because:
-It's extremely rare for people to directly bomb us, and 9/11 (I think you were referencing that) is completely loaded with controversy (most of it is obvious bs, but there are definently things that are about as unsuspicious as a Tu-95 flying straight at manhattan with an RDS-220 underneath it's weapons bay)
-The 'terrorist organizations' (lol) that those nations support are usually far more awesome institutions than we claim (It's mainly the US and close allies that label Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. Most people would consider it a legitimate resistance movement, but of COURSE anyone who doesn't like Israel is a terrorist, it's not like Israel forced loads of muslims out of settled lands and bombards areas full of civilians with full knowledge that the (also legitimate resistance) people who fired the rockets are long gone)
-We do in fact indirectly kill many babies and children. The total estimated count by sources that don't have epic conflicts of interest (eg the ORB study) put the total number of excess civilian deaths due to situations caused by our invasion to be around 1,000,000.


Did Iraq harbour terrorists and bomb us? At the time, pretty much no to both.
Does Iran harbour terrorists and did they bomb us? Yes, if a few loose propoganda pictures created by America constitutes bombing and if George Bush is an honest, devoted individual hardcore about beating terrorism, then yeah, sure. Lawl. But hey, most Americans have been wtfbbqlullz'd into getting retarted ideas about the nation such as AHMADINEJAD WILL LASH OUT AT US. This is probably the funniest and yet saddest thing ever, since Ahmadinejad has neither command of the military nor power to declare war (Supreme Leader, anyone?)

[Prozerran]

We can't attack a country harboring terrorists that bombed our own people without people going gonzo and claiming that we're killing babies and children.

(GA then misquotes me. Here is the quote in its entirety:)

And as evidence has shown, they [Iraqis] weren't harboring any terrorists. If anything, the terrorist factions in Iraq were imbedded so deeply in Iraq's infrastructure, Hussein showed no ability to remove them from his nation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/08/AR2006060800114.html

The pre-emptive occupation of Iraq is agreed to be the point at which terrorist cells and leadership began to expand in or flock to Iraq. I can't count the number of reports I've heard of suspected terrorists that are said to have come into Iraq from countries like Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanon after the U.S. engaged Iraq. While you may find credence in Al-Zarqawi's existence in Iraq as evidence of Hussein's effort to harbor terrorists, I find the report lacking in proof. Call this negation if you want, GA, but Bush has notoriously led this conflict on the basis of information we now know to be grossly inaccurate or flat out false.

-We do in fact indirectly kill many babies and children. The total estimated count by sources that don't have epic conflicts of interest (eg the ORB study) put the total number of excess civilian deaths due to situations caused by our invasion to be around 1,000,000.

Note in the article on page 2, the two bombs that were dropped on Al-Zarqawi killed 4 others, including an unidentified woman and child. Chances are, they were aiding Zarqawi and it was their home in which he was hiding. Do I think it wrong that we bombed him in the home? Not really. He's responsible for many deaths including those of my countrymen, and I don't have much sympathy for a woman who's stupid enough to aid the most wanted man in Iraq at the time. But also like you said, these "terrorists" are viewed differently over there, as a "resistance movement" to rise up against perceived "oppression" of the Western culture that currently occupies their country.

Sorry this swayed off-topic a bit, but lets make sure we're all clear on the information we do have.

[Ubergopher]

uberfoop, you are a fucking retard.


-It's extremely rare for people to directly bomb us, and 9/11 (I think you were referencing that) is completely loaded with controversy (most of it is obvious bs, but there are definently things that are about as unsuspicious as a Tu-95 flying straight at manhattan with an RDS-220 underneath it's weapons bay)
Uhm what? Your constant use of parenthesis destroyed any point you would of made, but off the top of my head I can think of other terrorists attacks preformed against Americans.
1. WTC '93.
2. The USS Cole
3. Beruit Embassy
4. The US Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar
5. Khubar Towers
Most people would consider it a legitimate resistance movement, but of COURSE anyone who doesn't like Israel is a terrorist
No. Anyone who directly attacks civilians is a terrorist. If Hezbollah is as awesome as an organization as you claim then they would target the military ONLY. Not buses, schools, pizza places or churches.

-We do in fact indirectly kill many babies and children. The total estimated count by sources that don't have epic conflicts of interest (eg the ORB study) put the total number of excess civilian deaths due to situations caused by our invasion to be around 1,000,000.
How many of those have been directly caused by American or coalition actions, and how many have been murdered by hadji who lacks the competence to kill soldiers without blowing themselves up in the process? I'm pretty sure hadji has killed more. Also, I missed the part where we can tell the terrorists from civilians, since they don't wear a uniform and usually hide behind women and children (who sometimes support them.)

[Anoiktos]

Also, I missed the part where we can tell the terrorists from civilians, since they don't wear a uniform and usually hide behind women and children
If you're going to define terrorism as 'specifically targeting civilians' while defending our slaughter of civilians as excusable due to the difficulty in telling the difference, I would like to remind you that the vietnam definition of 'enemy combatant' has been proven to be both wrong and dishonorable, as My Lai showed quite emphatically.

The concept of 'civilian' and 'enemy combatant' is laughable in guerilla warfare, and thus the U.S.'s current definition, according to you, of 'civilian' is laughable.

[uberfoop]

No. Anyone who directly attacks civilians is a terrorist. If Hezbollah is as awesome as an organization as you claim then they would target the military ONLY. Not buses, schools, pizza places or churches.

I didn't say they are perfect. What I'm saying is, for the US GOVERNMENT to condem people for being terrorists for things that they themselves do (a lot) is kind of...umm..yea...


Would you deny that by our own standards, our own leaders should be sentenced to death? Starting unneccesary wars resulting in millions of deaths and displacements and yet more contribution to the wreckage of the home currency stability seems like a pretty legit crime to try someone for.

[singo]

Starting unneccesary wars possibly (most wars are "unneccesary" if you think about it).

But you have to consider that, at the time, the war you are presumeably referring too was both justifiable on the evidence of intelligence (the intelligence has since proved to be not so strong as was thought but AT THE TIME it was judged to be strong) reports and was popular with the general public.

And, applying common sense (I know, applying common sense to international relations is daft) no-one really misses Saddam, even taking into account the cock-up that has been made of the occupation since

And also may have contributed to Iran stopping its nuclear weapons project (anyone else see that report that says they probably halted it in 2003? Now what could have made them do that? It sure as hell wasnt sanctions).

And you cant hang governments because the international economy is taking a slight downturn. Studying 19th and 20th century history, especially political and economic history, will show that economically sucessfull governments are ones during whose leadership, the international economy is doing well. Those who do badly do badly as a result of the international economy doing badly, not through any fault of their own.

And we sure as hell didn't do much to help the Soviet Union beat down Hitler The US provided MASSIVE amounts of military supplies to the USSR during the second world war.

If they had not then Stalin would not have been pissed off so much every time a convoy was decimated on its way to the Soviet ports.

And on the topic of the original question, North Korea have nuclear weapons and a not inconsiderable army AND proved 50 years ago that they can be tenacious buggers when it comes to warfare.

Also, the Middle East is a more important question vis a vis world stability. The US needs to pick its fights. Two or more fronts is a damn silly idea, best equipped military in the world or not.

[uberfoop]

The US provided MASSIVE amounts of military supplies to the USSR during the second world war.

Only a third as much as they provided to Britain alone on the Western front.

Then consider that britain maybe did like 1/7th or so as much combat as the USSR and the aid proportionally is like 20 times greater to Britain alone than to the USSR.

[singo]

And funnily enough, the USSR still came out on top. With massive expenses of manpower admittedly but she won her part of the war.

Getting supplies to the Soviet union was difficult as all hell, having to go via either North Africa (which at the stage of the war in question was also being fought over) or through the Arctic convoys, which needed more defence than something that needs a lot of defence given that the Tirpitz (most powerful battleship in the world at the time) was lurking in norway with the avowed intention of having a bash at those convoys, as were a good amount of U-Boats. Had those convoys been bigger they would have been easier to find and the U-Boats would have had a field day.

The thing is, Britain had a hell of a sight less resources than the USSR and thus needed them more. Consider what would have happened had Britain gone out of the war, there would have been NO prospect of any second front in Europe, there would have been NO strategic air war and as such another hundred or more divisions would have been available for the war on the eastern front along with nearly seventy THOUSAND 88mm anti-tank/anti-air guns. There would also have been no supply routes for those supplies as both supply routes (arctic and Africa-Iran) would have been held by Germany.

The Suez canal would also have then been in German hands, allowing a link up between Germany and Japan, which woud have had diasterous consequences for the pacific war as well.

I am not saying the USSR's contribution should be belittled, just that no-one could have won that war on their own (whith the possible exception of Germany, who came distrurbingly close) and that thus keeping Britain in the war was vital.

And where did you get 1/7th as much combat from? It was either less than 1/20th if you count war by casualties (the traditional but innaccurate way) or just under 2/7ths more if you count it by time fighting (1939-1945 as opposed to 1941-1945).

[uberfoop]

I'm not going on total deaths or time. I'm going off of combat losses. The Eastern Front was about 3/4ths of the European theatre. Britain wasn't the ONLY nation fighting the Western front. The majority of the effect of Lend-lease sent to the SU was supply line anyway, and pretty much mostly just made the war end faster. After the Russians had truned back the Germans, any more cash only had any bearing at all as to to speed of the Russian Steamroller, not the power. Remember that the western front didn't even reach a climax until after Germany was already being pushed back. Something you need to understand about the military facts of the 1940's: The Russian Steamroller of WWII is not something you just go push back. Once it forms, it's all over. It may be over sooner or later depending on the speed that they can transport stuff out, but it's still over. The only thing that could have saved the Axis powers after they were turned back would have been nukes, and they were going off in weird directions at that point in that field which may have taken a while to yield a practical result.


The thing is, Britain had a hell of a sight less resources than the USSR and thus needed them more. Consider what would have happened had Britain gone out of the war, there would have been NO prospect of any second front in Europe, there would have been NO strategic air war and as such another hundred or more divisions would have been available for the war on the eastern front along with nearly seventy THOUSAND 88mm anti-tank/anti-air guns. There would also have been no supply routes for those supplies as both supply routes (arctic and Africa-Iran) would have been held by Germany.

Not saying the Western Front didn't make a difference, because it did. A massive strategic difference. My argument is regarding lend-lease. I'm saying that lend-lease just finished the war faster because the Soviet Union got some functional trucks. That had no bearing on the Axis incapacity to fight endless lines of t-34's, which were easily the best tank of the time, with new sloped armour systems working extremely well on a low-weight tank with a powerful gun implemented, and built extremely fast and for low cost. I'm not saying lend-lease was a bad thing either. Getting wwii over with is pretty awesome. Drawing out wars is like reading youtube comments. But I do feel that people saying that lend-lease to the USSR caused a decisive difference is...kind of an exaggeration.

[femoimal]

about not being able to get a second front anywhere, take a look at what happened with the japanese. The US could muster battlegroups of say, fifteen Essex carriers carrying F-4Us and bearcats (later), plus as many escort carriers, covered by 10 (or even 20, depending on class) times as many ships as any axis power could muster, and strike anywhere.

first option would be to get bases such as the azores, Cape Verde (ascension island was already done), and iceland. Easy done. Then they could strike with b-29 at leasure on coastal objectives, and land several hundred thousand men anywhere from Dakar to Narvik. Most likely they would try to do something with the UK, in order to complicate logistics for the axis (anyhow, axis shipping would disappear with the advent of hundreds of Gato submarines on the theater). Of course, axis could retaliate, but slowly, and such a long coastline would be a bitch to defend. And i do not even talk of troop needs in a very likely guerilla-filled ex-USSR. Look at what the serbs did, and multiply.

well, simply put, the US (with canada) could have pretty much (if political will was behind of course, thats another matter) taken over the world then (except the USSR). And of course, there is the nuke :D (for some time)

Japanese where doomed before they started, they do not even count as for the final outcome. No industrial base, no steel and medieval leadership (no convoy system and no escorts, where is my final battle?).

Ah, for the record, before late nineties bombings, there was just a single (or 2) US attack casualty on its soil, in 1942, when the japs released some explosives attached to balloons and driven by wind currents. One pick-nicker opened one and got blasted.

PS :ah, north korea will be helped, sometime, just to piss off the Chinese. The bad news is that it will be hard for US companies to get a hold there and sell their crap (main motivation) without very seriously pissing off the same Chinese. What is the purpose of 'freeing' a country if it buys its electric toaster from your enemy ? None.

[singo]

But I do feel that people saying that lend-lease to the USSR caused a decisive difference is...kind of an exaggeration.

I think what needs to be clarified is the historians definition of "decisive difference" I agree that lend-lease was not in any way the most important factor in the ending of the war.

Decisive is usually taken to mean "very important when taken in context" I do reccomend "A World At Arms" if you can ever be arsed reading it (unlikely unless you aboslutely have to as its sodding huge) paints a good picture of the way the war was so completley intertwined that you cant really seperate one thing from another.

Apart from that yes I pretty much agree. Operation Barbarossa was the biggest strategic mistake ever. And lets face it, no one misses the Nazi's, so its probably just as well.

What is the purpose of 'freeing' a country if it buys its electric toaster from your enemy ? None.

China are not the "enemy" of the US. The Chinese and US economies are too dependant on each other to consider each other enemies. Economic relationships lead to political ones, even when no-one wants them to.

axis shipping would disappear with the advent of hundreds of Gato submarines on the theater

A bit like Allied shipping vanished with the advent of the wolf packs in the atlantic? Came close, but submarines cannot win a war on their own (A mistake germany made in BOTH wars)

Japanese where doomed before they started, they do not even count as for the final outcome.

Really? They may not have had much of their own industrial base, but they captured several thousand square miles of resources and other peoples industry, had they managed to bomb pearl harbour on the right day (ie with the US carriers in port) and followed that up, possibly by invading australia before consolidating their position (as opposed to consolidating immediately after pearl harbour) they could have got together a pretty secure position in the pacific before the allies got around to dealing with them. Especially given the "Germany First" plans.

[femoimal]

the Chinese are not the enemy of the united states. Neither is Russia. Get the subtlety ?
Strategic Area Influencers, you might call them. Or Potential enemies. The fact is that they have conflicting objectives.
The entwined economies are a fact, you are right. But that does not preclude competition. It's all about money anyway. Countries fight for clients. Even then, if its needed, economic re-routing might be possible. China and India might become a lovely couple.

okay, no enemies, "strategic competitors" ?

- ah, about subs. I mis-expressed myself. I was talking about maritime superiority. Well, the US almost won the war against japan by submarines alone. The subs where so succesful that building was cut back because they where no more targets to seek (look at the list of capital ships sunk, the total annihilation of the merchant fleet and the consequences of strategic choices for japan. The combined fleet had to remain where the oil was, because of the incapacity to transport it. No more oil for ships and airplanes, so no more training of aircrews. That is decisive in a sense that is forces a strategic choice upon your enemy).
Of course, germania (sic) would be a land power, so it would not matter so much. Granted. I just wanted to point out the naval supremacy of the allies, and the fact that they could choose to strike wherever they liked with unrestrained might, with something like 1000 fighter-bombers anywhere near the coastline. With centimetric radars too.

and i did not even talk about Enigma deciphering :P

The Japanese used all their cards and concentrated their assets beautifully. Unfortunately, those assets where the fruit of 10 years of labor. Once those evaporated after midway, defeat was the only option : they would never have that decisive battle they sought. Its easy to see now : their logistic lanes where too vulnerable, and the americans refused to play ball (although the later where lucky not to have their carriers in pearl harbour).

and i did not even talk about the Code Purple deciphering ;)