Madrid hit by five ETA bombs

[Galmin]

Quote:

---

Galmin - "you claim the the US pushed convoys 1939-1941 over the altantic risking US lives, US ships and US goods to keep britain alive during this time."



No...that is what YOU claim that the US did NOT do...NOT what I claim we did do

---

This is your writing:

Quote:

---

Busy saving England by shipping tons of supplies to them via convoy and keeping their "butts" alive, literally.



..



the US risked it lives, ships and goods pushing a convoy across the Atlantic to keep Britain alive.

---

The US was the one who took the risk during this time while the brits sat on their asses and waited for the alms, although in reality UK had lost close to 20.000 lives, 1300 ships and 5000 thousand gross tons of goods in their Atlanic convoys destined to the UK?

The UK took the risk, NOT US!!



Did the US provide goods to the UK during this time? Hell yes, it came with an invoice! Stangely enough the US provided oil to Hitler during the same time. 'We're the good guys'? In this particular case: the goods guys.

Quote:

---

However, I have found it typical of you, Galmin, to play down Americas participation in WWII

---

No I do not downplay Americas participation in WWII. I am grateful for the US participation and believe the US saved our butt when it eventually entered the war.

[conalrehill]

"I am grateful for the US participation and believe the US saved our butt when it eventually entered the war."



That's very true, but of course it didn't 'save our butts' out of altruism. It was in America's own interests to 'save our butts' for reasons I've explained above.



In my opinion Dreamtone7's arguments are based in mythology rather than historical facts.

[DreamTone7]

In answer to you, conalrehill, and Galmin, the FACTS are posted in the several links I provided...showing that America lost 97 ships at over 200,000 gross tons total by the end of 1941, when it entered the war.



In the beginning of the war, America had very few merchant ships...which is why it was so necessary to employ British ships and other ships of the British Commonwealth to carry the US goods needed to keep Britian alive. You would think by your attitudes that America should have been able to spit ships out its mouth as necessary...when it truth, America employed as many ships of its own as it could spare. (If you had researched this instead of assuming otherwise, you would have known.) In fact, America began gearing up its ship-producing capability BEFORE it entered the war...with the idea in mind that there was a BRITISH need for it. The Liberty ships were a redesigned British ship that was redesigned with the intent of mass production in mind...not for US interests, mind you (we were still not at war when the first ones were launched). This came about because it was clear that the U-boats would sink ships faster than they could be built...IF the US did not step up to the plate with this kind of idea. The US also began providing escort services for convoys BEFORE it entered the war. It is quite clear to even the casual observer that, once the FACTS are known, the US was interested in helping out Britain before it entered the war.



As far as reasons are concerned, there were many...not one and only one as Mr. conalrehill would have everyone believe. He has given us a lot of rhetoric...but no proof.



There are many who now live in what has become a popular anti-American dreamworld...so the attitudes of many, and the rhetoric that follows, is really little surprise to me.

[Galmin]

Quote:

---

In answer to you, conalrehill, and Galmin, the FACTS are posted in the several links I provided...showing that America lost 97 ships at over 200,000 gross tons total by the end of 1941, when it entered the war.

---

Something I never have disputed, as I previously pointed out.

Quote:

---

In the beginning of the war, America had very few merchant ships...

---

You don't say.

Quote:

---

You would think by your attitudes that America should have been able to spit ships out its mouth as necessary...when it truth, America employed as many ships of its own as it could spare. (If you had researched this instead of assuming otherwise, you would have known.)

---

Yes, because they leased the ships to the brits, brits who were torpedoed on a regular basis on the Atlantic route. You know? UK took the risk!!!

Quote:

---

In fact, America began gearing up its ship-producing capability BEFORE it entered the war...with the idea in mind that there was a BRITISH need for it. The Liberty ships were a redesigned British ship that was redesigned with the intent of mass production in mind...not for US interests, mind you (we were still not at war when the first ones were launched). This came about because it was clear that the U-boats would sink ships faster than they could be built...IF the US did not step up to the plate with this kind of idea. The US also began providing escort services for convoys BEFORE it entered the war. It is quite clear to even the casual observer that, once the FACTS are known, the US was interested in helping out Britain before it entered the war.

---

It seems you have not been reading anything I wrote in this thread.

[conalrehill]

But Dreamtone7, you keep ignoring the facts and the analysis that Galmin and I put to you.



Nobody is disputing the fact that the USA were intent on keeping the British alive and able to resist Germany, but you cannot convince us of the oten arcane motivations of states by simply quoting ship tonnage all the time.



The question is this: WHY did the USA sell supplies to the British on credit in the first two years of the war and then intervene? If you read my posts I have already offered some likely economic and geopolitical reasons.



There is another interesting factor here. What would have happened had the Germans conquered Britain and took over the world's most powerful navy to add to their own? What would that have done to the USA's imperial ambitions?

[DreamTone7]

conalrehill - "What would have happened had the Germans conquered Britain and took over the world's most powerful navy to add to their own?"



If you really think that the British would have allowed that to happen, then you don't know the WWII British mentality at all.



conalrehill - "If you read my posts I have already offered some likely economic and geopolitical reasons."



You only ever offer the portion of potential reasons that fuel your agenda, while conveniently ignoring the rest. I believe that some of your reasoning played a part in the situation...while I believe that your notions that America was out to "conquer the world" are completely out to lunch. Speculative conjecture for the purposes of painting America in an ugly light that is so popular and common nowadays...without any proof or evidence to back it up. I've heard it all before...and nobody, including you, conalrehill, have ever been able to offer any tangible evidence to back it up. Rhetoric, all by itself, is merely rhetoric...and nothing else.

Melody and Instruments for the soul...

[conalrehill]

But there is lots of evidence in my posts.



A cursory look at the money-lending and manipulating that the USA did from WWI onwards demonstrates the intention. It's far less rhetorical than all your stuff about saving everyone's 'butts'. Now that IS rhetoric, the worst kind of narcissistic rhetoric.



Like I said, I don't know why you're getting so worked up about it. Most western industrial nations had imperial ambitions at that time.



The problem is that the USA is the only one left.

[DreamTone7]

conalrehill - "It's far less rhetorical than all your stuff about saving everyone's 'butts'."



I provided facts and data to back up my claims. Where are yours?



conalrehill - "A cursory look at the money-lending and manipulating that the USA did from WWI onwards demonstrates the intention."



OK...how about you provide at least a few examples? And please don't forget the "facts and data" requirement.

Melody and Instruments for the soul...