• 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

jmotivator said:
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.



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 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...



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



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



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.
Click to expand...

Oh Jeez.

I DO NOT do large multi-quote replies unless it is something that is important to me...this ain't. They just result in gigantic back and forths ...usually accomplishing nothing. PASS. Especially since you seem to be too emotional about this already. Lighten up..it's just a chat forum. :roll:

I glanced over what you typed. Some of it I agreed with...most of it I did not - sounds like typical neo con nonsense; especially the last line.

So if the Allies had handled things perfectly from WW1 onwards then things would have gone much better for everyone. NO KIDDING. But this is reality...not Neocon fantasy land.


WW2 was a mistake and was horrific. But it happened. And it is the leaders of America's job to see that America comes out of that hideousness as well as it can without violating as many laws of decency as possible (I am TOTALLY against bombing civilians in WW2 - for example. But at least America generally aimed for the factories by day instead of the Brits who aimed for the houses at night).

The ONLY time I say America should EVER get involved in other countries conflicts is a) when there is large genocide (which there CERTAINLY was in WW2 - but the West did not know about it until it was too late); b) for humanitarian reasons; c) peace keeping; or d) when it is in America's best strategic interests to do so.

You said yourself that America was not under threat due to the ocean's that washed upon her shores. Then why get involved at all then? America could have sat back, been 'The Arsenal Of Democracy', made bundles, developed nukes just in case, watched the other world powers beat themselves to death, come out of it HUGELY more powerful (in relative terms) and lose virtually nobody.

Unfortunately, Japan AND Germany forced their hand (Germany declared war on America before the reverse, btw). And when it did, America cleaned up (relatively speaking) and lost FAR fewer men on a per capita basis then any other country.


You want to disagree.. I don't much care. America should ALWAYS mind her own business except for the reasons I listed above.

Plus, your mind seems closed on the issue. So further discussion is obviously pointless with you on this.


We are done here.


Adios.


Oh...and Chamberlain was incredibly naive....DUH. Everyone knows that. What a silly (baiting) question.
 
Last edited:
DA60 said:
The ONLY time I say America should EVER get involved in other countries conflicts is a) when there is large genocide (which there CERTAINLY was in WW2 - but the West did not know about it until it was too late); b) for humanitarian reasons; c) peace keeping; or d) when it is in America's best strategic interests to do so.
Click to expand...

I forgot about LeMay's firebombing of Japanese cities when I typed that...so America was actually WAY worse then Britain on this score.
 
DA60 said:
I forgot about LeMay's firebombing of Japanese cities when I typed that...so America was actually WAY worse then Britain on this score.
Click to expand...

It was ****ing Imperial Japan. They were just as nasty as the Nazis. I'm not shedding any tears.
 
Tigerace117 said:
It was ****ing Imperial Japan. They were just as nasty as the Nazis. I'm not shedding any tears.
Click to expand...

It's leaders were horrible so it's okay with you to burn it's innocent civilians (women and children) to death or have them slowly suffocate in bomb shelters as the firestorms gradually suck all of the oxygen out of the air.

Your attitude on this disgusts me.

Bombing innocent civilians is NEVER right...NEVER.


We are done here.


Good day.
 
DA60 said:
It's leaders were horrible so it's okay with you to burn it's innocent civilians (women and children) to death or have them slowly suffocate in bomb shelters as the firestorms gradually suck all of the oxygen out of the air.

Your attitude on this disgusts me.

Bombing innocent civilians is NEVER right...NEVER.


We are done here.


Good day.
Click to expand...


I beg to differ. War is an endeavor that should be horrific on every facet. it should mean catastrophic loss on both sides until one side can fight no more. This is the only way it doesn't become a sport. If you kill enough civilians, they soon lose their taste for war and cease supporting those who make it.

Abhorrent as it may be, civilian causalities are necessary to keep wars brutal and SHORT.
 
DA60 said:
It's leaders were horrible so it's okay with you to burn it's innocent civilians (women and children) to death or have them slowly suffocate in bomb shelters as the firestorms gradually suck all of the oxygen out of the air.

Your attitude on this disgusts me.

Bombing innocent civilians is NEVER right...NEVER.


We are done here.


Good day.
Click to expand...

Payback's a bitch ain't it.

It wasn't anything the Japanese regime hadn't done to innocent Chinese, Burmese, Okinawan, Filipino, Korean, (the list goes on and on) civillians.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Well that piece certainly didn't sound biased at all.
Click to expand...

It was SUPPOSED to sound biased. That's the point. We, Americans, create that bias when we coddle Israel and pour weapons into the Middle East. That's the point EXACTLY. You wonder why we were attacked on 9/11? Look no further than our foreign policy and it's insatiable consequences since 1948.

Thew western world created this conflict and have since exacerbated it.
 
Howler63 said:
It was SUPPOSED to sound biased. That's the point. We, Americans, create that bias when we coddle Israel and pour weapons into the Middle East. That's the point EXACTLY. You wonder why we were attacked on 9/11? Look no further than our foreign policy and it's insatiable consequences since 1948.

Thew western world created this conflict and have since exacerbated it.
Click to expand...

All appeasing aggression does is fuel it. Do you honestly think if we gave, say, AQ everything they wanted they'll leave us alone? Nope.
 
Howler63 said:
I beg to differ. War is an endeavor that should be horrific on every facet. it should mean catastrophic loss on both sides until one side can fight no more. This is the only way it doesn't become a sport. If you kill enough civilians, they soon lose their taste for war and cease supporting those who make it.

Abhorrent as it may be, civilian causalities are necessary to keep wars brutal and SHORT.
Click to expand...

How can a dead civilian lose his/her taste for war...they are dead?

And that 'bombing them will remove their resolve' nonsense was paraded out over and over again in WW2..and it TOTALLY backfired. All bombing civilians does is make them hate you all the more and fill them with rage and purpose to avenge their fallen loved ones.

If someone murdered your family...would you become passive and give up? Or would you desperately want to get back at them? If you have a normal personality, it would be the latter.


Look at the Japanese firebombings? LeMay was wiping out entire cities. And still the Japanese fought on. It finally took the overwhelming power of nukes to make them realize that (as the Borg say) resistance IS futile. Plus, their Emperor finally told them 'enough is enough'.
I do think the nuclear bombing saved lives. But I think they should have bombed a military base (like Kure) and not a city. The Japanese would have got the message either way.


There is NO SUCH THING as the ends justifying the means...never. Murder is ALWAYS wrong.

I will not discuss this further because it should be obvious to you. If it is not, that is your problem, not mine.

No offense intended.


Good day.
 
Last edited:
DA60 said:
How can a dead civilian lose his/her taste for war...they are dead? *It's the folks left behind who lose the taste*

And that 'bombing them will remove their resolve' nonsense was paraded out over and over again in WW2..and it TOTALLY backfired. *Nagasaki and Hiroshima*

All bombing civilians does is make them had you all the more and fill them with rage and purpose to avenge their fallen loved ones. *Nagasaki and Hiroshima*

If someone murdered your family...would you become passive and give up? Or would you desperately want to get back at them? *You can be desperate to 'get back at them' all you wish; but only a fool fights bombs with sticks.*

If you have a normal personality, it would be the latter.


Look at the Japanese firebombings? LeMay was wiping out entire cities. And still the Japanese fought on. It finally took the overwhelming power of nukes to make them realize that (as the Borg used to say) resistance WAS futile.Plus, their Emperor finally told them 'enough is enough'.


THere is NO SUCH THING as the ends justifying the means...never. *I beg to differ. If I kill enough Nazis and Nazi supporters, they cease to be.*

I will not discuss this because it should be obvious to you. if it is not, that is your problem, not mine.


Good day.
Click to expand...

It's people like you who lose wars, or are forced to fight the same enemies again and again. See WWI and WWII.
 
Howler63 said:
Were it not for our interventionism, there would BE NO AGGRESSION.

Or do you not get that?
Click to expand...

That's a rather idealistic way to look at the attitudes of a bunch of half rate psychopaths.
 
Tigerace117 said:
That's a rather idealistic way to look at the attitudes of a bunch of half rate psychopaths.
Click to expand...

Let's put it to the test. Did we have a terror problem BEFORE we started propping up Israel? We did have a piracy problem a couple hundred years ago...but we dealt with that.
 
Howler63 said:
Let's put it to the test. Did we have a terror problem BEFORE we started propping up Israel? We did have a piracy problem a couple hundred years ago...but we dealt with that.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we did. German agents, anarchists, the KKK.....
 
The world has had a problem with radicals for centuries. The Crusaders didn't create radicalism. Nomadic fanatics have been butchering each other since the dawn of man.

To include Isreal in the equation at this stage of the game smells just a little bit like anti-semitism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom