[Iron_Ranger]

Gil-I think your a bit out of line here. The War on Terror is not WW 3, nor is it WW 2. The reason WW 2 was so bad is because there were diffrent methods of warfare. The USSR bassicly threw people onto the battle field and that was that. Not too much stratagy on there part. And they did it to millions of people. It cant even be counted how many people the USSR lost in WW II.

It was more 'mass' than the War on Terror. Technolagy has changed. Now things are done in stealth. Of corse there is still front lines, and of corse there will be bloodshed and collertal damage. But I doubt the world will ever see something as horrific as WW 2 was. Not for a while at least.

What is going to cause it? Nukes? Your scared of the threat of nuclear war yet you dont want to go into Iraq? This may surprise you but Americans arent doing this just because we are having fun or any other silly reason. Anything else you can think of that will case such mass damage? Another sort of Blitzkrieg? Uhh, last I knew off No one that has the capabilty or want to do that sort of thing had a base in Eroupe. Its unlikely Iraq is going to fly from Bagdhad to London..

The War on Terror is to prevent things like this happening. As for England would be able to over come the Nazi invasion with out Americas help....That is quiet simply, silly. Pictures, Facts and Stories prove that. France would still has a Schwaztica (probably not spelled right) flying over it, Estonia to The Ukriane would stll be under Communist controll and Poland would still have the Warsaw Ghetto going. And its likely The Burmingham (is that how you spell it? I dont think I have ever seen it spelled) would now be called The Adolf Hitler Palace.

Also, just curious....If your Grandfather lost his abilty to talk how did he tell you stories??