You actually only entered the war when it became obvious that the USA would have to deal with a power greater than itself if Britain fell. The penny didn't drop in the Pacific until most of the fleet had been sunk at Pearl Harbour.
It is hard to imagine that the average American has the slightest more idea of how their military work than anyone anywhere but others could take a step back dispassionately and see what was happening in Vietnam. It is also fairly obvious what is happening now in Iraq and the gung-ho talk of whooping Chinese asses by some here is a reasoning that is a fair way removed from reality. One has to see beyond the militarist rhetoric. Face it, your military power is not capable even if the government chose to do so. And why should it be capable? Military action should be a last resort in defence not as an invading force on a power that was no doubt sympathetic to Bin Laden, but was no real threat to the USA. There are now a hell of a lot more enemies of the West than ever before and with no end in sight for your stretched military or for peace in Iraq. Hammas, a terrorist organisation, has just won free and fair election in Palestine. This would not have happened without a greatly increased animosity towards the West.
Perhaps YOU should get out more if you feel that the U.S. is all one set of driving conditions. Maybe next time you arrive on our shores, you should go farther than the local taxi takes you, which is to say, leave the city behind and forget about the pubs.
Tell that to the families of the thousands of American military personal killed and maimed there so far. Tell it to the tens of thousands of brave soldiers who risk committed bombers who blow themselves up to rid their country of the foreign invaders on a daily basis and who are there for months at a time on several repeated tours of duty because there is not the manpower to relieve them.
That is at variance to what I hear on the mainly right wing American posters on alt.autos.toyota where there is only one decenting voice to the overwhelming majority who believe both Toyota and Honda are leagues ahead in reliability and longevity compared with domestic cars. Rust has been a thing of the past on Japanese built vehicles that have been imported here in the last 15 years. There was a time in the 1970's that they developed bodywork holes you could put your fist through within five years. That is historical and not representative of recent products.
European vehicles fare a bit better, but
Mass sellers always have cheaper parts. If European cars sold in enough numbers the parts prices would reduce in the same way that seldom needed Japanese parts have.
I am aware that huge American vehicles have a very low payload in relation to their size and weight compared to European vehicles but that is only a symptom of poor design by the big American manufacturers. Could it be that some of their problems and decreasing market share is related to poor and profligate design? Toyota is going to overtake GM this year in volume terms. In profitability it has overtaken GM long ago and customer retention is very high, which is a prerecuisite of increasing sales.
You are ignorant of wear factors affecting automobiles. A car reaches its operating temperature and wear is minimised.
Thus our
Tell that to the owners of Toyota and all the other Japanese vehicles who consistently lead reliability and longevity ratings all over the World.
Is that so? A whole lot of your country has a55mpg limit while ours is an universally ignored 70mph. Italy is inhabited by looney drivers and Germany has no speed limits on some roads. I know of one owner of a British built McLaren there who regularly drives at over 200mph on his commute. Here in the UK speeds are generally kept down to 90mph or so because the driving license is lost if speeds exceed 100.
This is
Heard it all before about various cars trucks plant machinery and everything and it is bollocks. Japanese and exotic European cars would not be so successful in America if this were true. Fact is the big American barges and smaller cars that just don't drive as well as Japanese and European cars are like dinasaurs, out of time. This is the reason Ford and GM are in such a hole.
Actually very many cars make it that far. At least European and Japanese cars do. I have a Mitsubishi Shogun that has 165000 miles on it that has towed highly illegal loads far higher than it was designed for that is only now slipping its first clutch. My Toyota is just on 100,000 miles in eight years and it has only needed bulbs [two brake lights] and a rear wheel bearing so far. Even the exhaust is like new. A friends Audi Allroad which was serviced every 20,000 miles if it was lucky crossed 200,000 miles and it is still running somewhere probably.
Your assertion that conditions are harder on cars in the USA is just nonsense as anyone who has travelled extensively will know for certain. Conditions are only really worse where roads are not metalled and where it freezes really hard for long periods. These things cause increased wear not your ridiculous assertion that long distance running causes it, which is laughable if it were not so sad in that you actually believe that you know your ass from your elbow.
There are huge numbers of pickups sold in Europe though a lower proportion of total vehicles than in America. Very few have a payload of less than one ton. The market for half ton payload trucks is almost non existant. OTOH very few pickups have more than a 1.5 ton payload and most then buy 7.5 ton gross forward control trucks which are driven without a special driving license.
Like taking those nice straight roads that go on for miles and miles? Yes of course conditions vary from place to place in the same way Europe varies from Finland down to Swizerland to Hungary down again to the bottom of Italy. European cars have no problem in these varied conditions and neither is there a problem with a Polish built car run in Sardinia which is as much of a contrast in conditions as you will get anywhere. You really should get out more.
Well Alan, I guess you forgot about Lend Lease destroyers (the four stackers, as they were called), and the huge amounts of supplies and milatary hardware shipped to England from 1939 to 1941 PRIOR to Pearl Harbor. Further, I guess you forgot the guys who died on patrol aboard the U.S.S. Reuben James in the North Atlantic while escorting a convoy. They died as a result of a torpedo attack on the ship, with a loss of over 100 men on October 31st, 1941. This was just the first of (IIRC) four USN ships sunk prior to war being declared.
In addition, all of these events were part of the reason that there is a theory that FDR conspired to get us into the war. In order to continue sending supplies to England, if not increase the amounts, it has been supposed that FDR deliberately allowed Pearl Harbor to occur.
It fascinates me that not only do you not realize so much was done before WWII started for the U.S., but that you don't know it despite the conspiracy to which the events prior to WWII have given rise.
First off, Lend Lease was signed March 11 1941. Prior ot that, executive order placed miltary freight on its way to England. Thus we supplied Britain far before we entered the war. Second, we entered the war, not because we saw Britain in danger, but because we were attacked. (funny how we get pissed about that sort of thing.) It was enough for us to supply GB with aid and funding (some $50Billion) at the time.
As to Pearl Harbor, most of the fleet was NOT sunk on December 7th. Not only were the carriers at sea, but IIRC, less than 10% of the ships anchored in the harbor were sunk. If 10% is "most", then certainly you are correct. Obviously, most of the world has a different idea of "most". More importantly, Pearl Harbor and its infrastructure were not significantly damaged. In fact, in less than six months, the "sunk" fleet so severely damaged the Japanese fleet that Yamamoto knew he had been correct in his predictions of eventual failure for Japan.
You people should really try reading a little bit.
Oh but Scott, didn't you read the top posting bullshit about how everyone now has a 20GB connection, and we have 900 terrabyte drives on every one of the billion servers that Giganews has. Come now, why should we be concerned with waste. We are Americans by God!!!!
I don't care either way, but that is certainly a poor argument. It would be a great argument if we were talking about reading books - but we're not. The only thing a newsgroup has in common with books is that they both contain words and ideas. Beyond that, the similarity stops.
Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.