Like the logistic problems involved in sailing a carrier strike force undetected halfway across the Pacific and destroying the American fleet in port?
Or how about the logistic problems involved in launching an attack against New York City and the Pentagon?
I wouldn’t be too quick to say that an attack would never happen because it COULDN’T happen. History would be pretty boring if armies only attacked where and how you expected them to.
???
I was talking about the Islamism of Al Queda and Mullahs, if I were to mention it as Islam, I would of not added the ‘ism’ 
Am I being whooshed by this post. I can’t quite decide… :dubious:
There is a big difference between a single hit-and-run raid, no matter how destructive, and an invasion. I’m of the opinion that the US would have had one hell of a time conducting WWII with Germany without the British Isles as a logistical base.
I would point out that logistics is a problem in Iraq. We seem unable, despite administration claims that is war involves vital national security, to muster the resources necessary to equip the reserves with adequate materiel, like body army and enough operable trucks.
[QUOTE=MaxTheVoolCan any responsible and intelligent conservative please disavow Brutus’s hateful ignorance and restore at least a shred of my faith in this country’s political discourse?[/QUOTE]
Yeesh, I’m at the point where I’d be willing to pay his or her membership just to get one.
For all intents & purposes, the Taliban was not recognized by ANYONE. So, in that “war” we were aiding one side of a Civil war, as opposed to invading a Soveriegn Nation (Iraq). IMHO- a huge difference.
Please tell me you aren’t serious. Is this what passes for military acumen amongst conservatives these days?
Note: I did not say “raid North America.” I did not say “attack North America.” I said invade North America. The logistical issues involved in one-off attacks are entirely different from those involved in sustained invasions. There’s not a shadow of a doubt that the Germans could have launched raids on North America if they’d have wanted to - slip a U-boat into an estuary somewhere, land some commandos, blow up some shit. Easy. Larger scale wouldn’t be much more difficult. Invasion, on the other hand, is an entirely different kettle of fish. You need effective control over supply lanes, for one. You need the transport capacity to supply your invasion army, for two. For three, you need military force sufficient to fend off counterattacks, since you can’t hit and run if you’re invading - not much of an invasion if you don’t hang around and actually gain control over the territory.
Now, if Germany had established undisputed control over Europe, at some point they might have built up the logistical capacity to launch a transatlantic invasion, but even that’s not certain. Logistics was an extremely serious problem for the Allies in Normandy even after stockpiling materiel for two years, and they only had to supply across the Channel, which, if memory serves, is slightly narrower than the Atlantic. Realistically, the chances of a German invasion of North America were very low, even should the UK and USSR have been utterly defeated.