• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US gives Iraq $2.7B credit to buy military equipment

DA60 said:
Yeah...that American isolationism worked out SOOOO badly for the U.S. of A. in the 1930's.

All the major powers beat each other to a bloody pulp in early WW2. America came in at the right time, creamed everyone and came out of it as the undisputed world power of the planet. And because everyone else had to rebuild from beating each other up, America had the economic world almost completely to herself...with near total mastery of all she surveyed. And has been THE world power ever since.

Isolationism...when done properly...is BY FAR the best way to go.

No doubt you disagree.

No doubt you are wrong on this...no offense.


Good day.
Click to expand...

Right, and there all that for the low low cost of 407,300 American lives! Such a bargain. :roll:
 
Yeah, right. Isolationism like Korea, Indo-China, Viet Nam,The Falkland Islands, etc. etc. etc.

The WHOLE WIDE WORLD is safer, more free, more healthy, and more democratic not because of American isolationism but because WE are willing and able to choose between GOOD and EVIL, and put our money where our mouth is.

Cowardice in the face of the enemy is treason.
 
Quazimodo said:
Yeah, right. Isolationism like Korea, Indo-China, Viet Nam,The Falkland Islands, etc. etc. etc.

The WHOLE WIDE WORLD is safer, more free, more healthy, and more democratic not because of American isolationism but because WE are willing and able to choose between GOOD and EVIL, and put our money where our mouth is.

Cowardice in the face of the enemy is treason.
Click to expand...

We have no enemies other than those we CREATE.
 
Howler63 said:
What? The same thing we've been doing for 40 years? Hasn't seemed to work.
Click to expand...


Never have we sent a million troops over there with a mission to "knock it off".
 
jet57 said:
Never have we sent a million troops over there with a mission to "knock it off".
Click to expand...


We have sent tens of thousands. Time and again for the past decade. And what has that bought us?

caskets_iraq.jpg
 
Don't worry, Howler, nobody is going to make you go and fight. You can stay home and live off the sacrifices of all the others who came before you.
 
jmotivator said:
Right, and there all that for the low low cost of 407,300 American lives! Such a bargain. :roll:
Click to expand...

Oh, come on now...think about what you are saying. If America had joined in 1939 obviously the number of deaths would have been far greater (especially considering how ill-prepared America was for war in 1939). So how are more deaths for the exact same goal better?

Clearly they lost FAR fewer then had they started on September 1, 1939.


And compared to how many all the other major powers lost...it was fortunate America delayed entry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

UK - 450,000..despite a population roughly 1/3 of America's.
Japan - over 2.5 million
Germany - about 7 million
China - 15 million minimum
USSR - 26 million

America exited WW2 FAR richer, FAR more powerful, THE dominant military on Earth and THE dominant economy on Earth. Yet the five other major combatants lost over 100 TIMES more people.

I would call that a relative bargain.

All war sucks and all killing is ****ty...but if you must do it, do it better then everyone else. And in WW2...America CLEARLY did.
 
Last edited:
DA60 said:
Oh, come on now...think about what you are saying. If America had joined in 1939 obviously the number of deaths would have been far greater (especially considering how ill-prepared America was for war in 1939). So how are more deaths for the exact same goal better?

Clearly they lost FAR fewer then had they started on September 1, 1939.


And compared to how many all the other major powers lost...it was fortunate America delayed entry (bargain is your word).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

UK - 450,000..despite a population roughly 1/3 of America's.
Japan - over 2.5 million
Germany - about 7 million
China - 15 million minimum
USSR - 26 million
Click to expand...

I find it funny that interventionists have to go back to WW2 to try and make their case (Japan and Germany declared war on us and attacked us first). Almost all of our interventionism after the war made things worse.
 
Quazimodo said:
Yeah, right. Isolationism like Korea, Indo-China, Viet Nam,The Falkland Islands, etc. etc. etc.

The WHOLE WIDE WORLD is safer, more free, more healthy, and more democratic not because of American isolationism but because WE are willing and able to choose between GOOD and EVIL, and put our money where our mouth is.

Cowardice in the face of the enemy is treason.
Click to expand...

What if the enemy is inside the gates? What if the enemy is of the domestic variety? Is cowardice in the face of those domestic enemies still treasonous?

What about those domestic enemies who have attacked the US Constitution by way of the legislative process? Is cowardice in the face of their actions also treasonous?

The Global War On Terror is a hoax of epic proportions. It has IN FACT brought attacks upon our Constitution, in many ways. A majority of our elected officials, in the name of the war on terror, have violated and neutralized many parts of our Constitution.

Is cowardice and silence and approval of such attacks also treasonous? Methinks YES, it is.
 
DA60 said:
Oh, come on now...think about what you are saying. If America had joined in 1939 obviously the number of deaths would have been far greater (especially considering how ill-prepared America was for war in 1939). So how are more deaths for the exact same goal better?
Click to expand...

Don't claim "obvious" that which isn't obvious. The US wasn't the only country that made the war worse through dithering, but they certainly helped. When Germany, Italy and Japan were walking over weak opponents the world sat and did nothing, allowing the Axis forces to gain valuable resources needed to build the armies that they would later use to kill millions of people. Had the US made a show of power in the early days of the war, when the German army was a shadow of the juggernaut it would become, many millions of lives would have been spared.

Clearly they lost FAR fewer then had they started on September 1, 1939.
Click to expand...

Not clearly. And why do you limit the US involvement to September 1939? Hitler had been in violation of the Treaty of Versailles for many years before his 2400 tanks -- that he wasn't supposed to have -- rolled into Poland.


And compared to how many all the other major powers lost...it was fortunate America delayed entry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

UK - 450,000..despite a population roughly 1/3 of America's.
Japan - over 2.5 million
Germany - about 7 million
China - 15 million minimum
USSR - 26 million
Click to expand...

And ending the war early when it would have been easy would have saved many of those lives as well. You seem to have missed the lesson of WWII that showed that waiting and hoping for the best only brings greater misery and death.

Out of curiosity, what are your opinions of Chamberlain's "Peace in our Time" speech? Your argument seems to support him...

America exited WW2 FAR richer, FAR more powerful, THE dominant military on Earth and THE dominant economy on Earth. Yet the five other major combatants lost over 100 TIMES more people.
Click to expand...

And I think it is entirely ghoulish to applaud our fortune on the bodies of millions of dead.

I would call that a relative bargain.
Click to expand...

And I would call it a catastrophic mistake. The ripples of that mistake are still felt the world over.

All war sucks and all killing is ****ty...but if you must do it, do it better then everyone else. And in WW2...America CLEARLY did.
Click to expand...

Also wrong. America came out of the war smelling like roses because they had two giant oceans separating them from the war. The US would always win the war because there wasn't technology at the time to mount a viable invasion of the US from the sea and the Axis never had the equipment to to try even an invasion of Mexico. American industry would have always outmatched it's European rivals even without 80 million dead and utter devastation.

The lesson learned from WWII is to fight small wars so that you don't need to fight big wars, and to maintain an viable standing army that can project force anywhere on the globe. This lesson has been lost on you.
 
Howler63 said:
They will be too busy fighting each other. And we'll be too busy beefing up our own border/immigration control.
Click to expand...

AQ wasn't too busy fighting other groups to attack us.
 
Thoreau,

My belief is that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are both guilty of cowardice in the face of the enemy and sedition.

Would you be inclined to agree?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom