In article IImvc.32080$3x.1788@attbi_s54, "William Wright"
wrote:

"Mike Dargan" wrote in message
news:E2Suc.26929$js4.6877@attbi_s51...
snip
Me too. If the shrub had been President in December of 1941, we'd have
conquered Mexico City by June of '42.


And yet we in reality attacked FRENCH North Africa in November 1942.
Since
we were not at war with the French at the time and they had nothing what
ever to do with the Pearl Harbor attack, with your simple reasoning that
was
a bad. Perhaps you should leave strategy and grand strategy to the people
who actually formulate it.

Before the TORCH invasions, Vichy had been given a British ultimatum to
have the North African fleet sail to a neutral or allied port, scuttle
them, or suffer the consequences of having them destroyed. Britain was
at war with Germany, and had substantial concerns that the French
vessels might be taken by the Axis.

By 1942, of course, the US was also at war with Germany. The French
were sheltering and supporting German forces. Neutrality becomes
stretched or violated when one side is providing protection or support
to the others. The principal purpose of TORCH was to go after German and
Italian forces that happened to be in French territory. The US and UK
also had not recognized Vichy. Much the same as recently in
Afghanistan, where the Taliban were told they would be left alone if
they stopped providing al-Qaeda with sanctuary.