COVID-19 RESOURCES
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Is The US Ready For An Invasion Of Eastern Europe?

pecksniff said:
What else could he have done? The U.S. did not, at the time, have the strength to force the Red Army out of Eastern Europe.
Click to expand...

Don't hand me that bullshit. The force was definitely there but not the will or the foresight, with the exception of one particular American general.:cool:
 
Rightguide said:
Don't hand me that bullshit. The force was definitely there but not the will or the foresight, with the exception of one particular American general.:cool:
Click to expand...

If Patton had gone up against the Soviets, he would have lost. And his own troops would have been justified in shooting him.
 
Last edited:
Rightguide said:
I haven't looked into the television industry in the course of my education. For instance, I know that Lucius Flavius Silva commanded the X Legion in 73 AD when he conquered Masada, but I don't know off hand when TVs became prolific among the American population, or exactly when your mom started selling her pussy.

PS: I was born in the 70s.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I attended a ceremony with the IDF on top of Masada in 1989. Very moving.
 
pecksniff said:
Payment for land already taken by conquest. It was an afterthought.
Click to expand...

It was a treaty requirement. We could have annexed all of Mexico when our army after having swept aside the Mexican Army and was standing astride of Mexico City unopposed after the fall of Chapultepec. The Congress of the United States and President Polk didn't want the whole of Mexico and ceded it back to the people of Mexico by treaty.
 
pecksniff said:
If Patton had tried, he would have lost. And his own troops would have been justified in shooting him.
Click to expand...

The point is, the Russian army almost wholly supplied by the United States could not have prevailed against the combined might of US forces in 1945 their country was destroyed their people starving. Patton would not have tried without orders. If American forces were ordered, I doubt they would have failed. We had almost 12 million men under arms, the world's largest navy, the biggest defense industry, and the most efficient lines of communication and supply on earth. It wouldn't have been anything like Napoleon's debacle.
 
Rightguide said:
It was a treaty requirement. We could have annexed all of Mexico when our army after having swept aside the Mexican Army and was standing astride of Mexico City unopposed after the fall of Chapultepec. The Congress of the United States and President Polk didn't want the whole of Mexico and ceded it back to the people of Mexico by treaty.
Click to expand...

Actually, that was considered at the time.

After the election of Polk, but before he took office, Congress approved the annexation of Texas. Polk moved to occupy a portion of Texas that had declared independence from Mexico in 1836, but was still claimed by Mexico. This paved the way for the outbreak of the Mexican–American War on April 24, 1846. With American successes on the battlefield, by the summer of 1847 there were calls for the annexation of "All Mexico", particularly among Eastern Democrats, who argued that bringing Mexico into the Union was the best way to ensure future peace in the region.[57]

This was a controversial proposition for two reasons. First, idealistic advocates of manifest destiny like O'Sullivan had always maintained that the laws of the United States should not be imposed on people against their will. The annexation of "All Mexico" would be a violation of this principle. And secondly, the annexation of Mexico was controversial because it would mean extending U.S. citizenship to millions of Mexicans, who were of dark skin and majority Catholic. Senator John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, who had approved of the annexation of Texas, was opposed to the annexation of Mexico, as well as the "mission" aspect of manifest destiny, for racial reasons.[58] He made these views clear in a speech to Congress on January 4, 1848:

We have never dreamt of incorporating into our Union any but the Caucasian race—the free white race. To incorporate Mexico, would be the very first instance of the kind, of incorporating an Indian race; for more than half of the Mexicans are Indians, and the other is composed chiefly of mixed tribes. I protest against such a union as that! Ours, sir, is the Government of a white race…. We are anxious to force free government on all; and I see that it has been urged … that it is the mission of this country to spread civil and religious liberty over all the world, and especially over this continent. It is a great mistake.[59][60]
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Rightguide said:
You know, Lincoln supported relocating black slaves to Central and South America. I think this was one of the groups that opposed the removal of former slaves from the south and relocating them elsewhere, I could be wrong.
Click to expand...

Possibly.

Like many self-styled moderates, Abraham Lincoln supported the colonization (resettlement) of African Americans outside the United States, notably in Liberia. Historians have disputed his motivation, with scholars such as James McPherson, David Reynolds, and Allen Guelzo arguing that Lincoln advocated colonization of the freedpeople in order to assuage racist concerns about the Emancipation Proclamation.[112][113][114] Other historians, such as Phillip W. Magness, Richard Blackett, Phillip Paludan, and Mark E. Neely, Jr., have challenged that contention by highlighting the quiet, even secretive basis of most of Lincoln's colonization activity; the lack of falsifiability to any unsubstantiated claim that historical actors did not mean what they said; and the inadequacy, for a deportationist target audience, of Lincoln's adherence to African American consent.[115][116][117][118] The author of the one book-length study of black colonization during the Civil War era, Sebastian N. Page, argues that Lincoln believed in colonization to his death, but that the policy failed due to the corruption, controversy, and the inadequate African American interest that it generated.[119]
Click to expand...

Also, I read in What Lincoln Believed, by Michael Lind, that during the war, Lincoln appointed General McClellan to study the feasibility. McClellan reported that if the entire naval and merchant shipping capacity of the U.S. were drafted for the purpose, it would be impossible to deport blacks "one-half so fast as negro children will be born here."
 
pecksniff said:
Possibly.



Also, I read in What Lincoln Believed, by Michael Lind, that during the war, Lincoln appointed General McClellan to study the feasibility. McClellan reported that if the entire naval and merchant shipping capacity of the U.S. were drafted for the purpose, it would be impossible to deport blacks "one-half so fast as negro children will be born here."
Click to expand...

Lincoln's program I believe involved a colony in Belize and another in Guyana, both British possessions at the time. The Belize project only contemplated some 50,000 people max. So. I don't think it was any kind of practical program for mass relocation. Here is an old New York Times link that explains much of the program plus some quotes from the Abraham Lincoln you never learned about in school:

https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/16/lincolns-panama-plan/
 
Last edited:
Just remember that this idiot said the US can't stop a Euro "invasion." Seriously... Wtf?
 
Rightguide said:
I haven't looked into the television industry in the course of my education. For instance, I know that Lucius Flavius Silva commanded the X Legion in 73 AD when he conquered Masada, but I don't know off hand when TVs became prolific among the American population, or exactly when your mom started selling her pussy.

PS: I was born in the 70s.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You weren't born in the 70s. You ARE 70.
 
Rightguide said:
Lincoln's program I believe involved a colony in Belize and another in Guyana, both British possessions at the time. The Belize project only contemplated some 50,000 people max. So. I don't think it was any kind of practical program for mass relocation. Here is an old New York Times link that explains much of the program plus some quotes from the Abraham Lincoln you never learned about in school:

https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/16/lincolns-panama-plan/
Click to expand...

How'd they do in America?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
What Putin wants
Replies
13
Views
93
Politruk
P
Bodington
A Foreign Policy Discussion
2
Replies
28
Views
222
Politruk
P
Wifetheif
Trump's Foreign policy expertise on display for the world to see.
Replies
2
Views
77
Bray123
B
AlexBailey
Predictions for 2025-2029 under 47
Replies
17
Views
82
AlexBailey
AlexBailey
butters
Finland and Sweden: plans to build bridge joining them in face of russian aggression
Replies
20
Views
341
dkovic77
D
Back
Top