We must leave Iraq

[Volker]

I liked Robin!

He made some good posts.

 

[Volker]

I am not saying that you, personally, hate America. But There are a lot of discussions about how the USA and their role is overblown and how Americans are ignorant of what happened during WWII and how much Russia did or where was the USA in 1939. It is all becoming a trend here at DP to subtly "bash" America and now it seems that people aren't just bashing America now, they feel they need to go back in history and bash us throughout.

Maybe it's just how people see things. Maybe people see things so, because they happened this way. Maybe it's not about being pro-American or being anti-American.

 

[Iriemon]

I am not saying that you, personally, hate America. But There are a lot of discussions about how the USA and their role is overblown and how Americans are ignorant of what happened during WWII and how much Russia did or where was the USA in 1939. It is all becoming a trend here at DP to subtly "bash" America and now it seems that people aren't just bashing America now, they feel they need to go back in history and bash us throughout.

Then why would you quote my post if you don't think I hate America or that I was being dishonest?

I cannot speak for everyone's experience. But I grew up during the Cold war, when the SU and communism were the bad guys, and so it was not PC to emphasize the SU successes, including WWII. The story I learned in grade school was like the original post I corrected -- that the SU was hanging on by its fingertips only because of US aid, and it was only after the US invaded France and opened up a second front that the Ruskies were able to make any headway against the depleted German army. It wasn't until I studied WWII history that I learned that that was a bit of a myth.

I don't want to say that you are lying. But this statement is not accurate. If you want to discount the "team" effort, that is fine, but the Russians did not beat the Germans.

My statement: This is common misconception. In truth, by the time the Allies landed in France in June 1944, the Russians had already beat the Germans. They had stopped them in frigid snows outside Moscow, bled them white in Stalingrad, and broke the back of Wermacht at Kursk. By June 1944, the Germans were reeling. The Soviets had driven the Germans many hundreds of miles back out of their territory. Russian troops were sweeping into into Romania and Bulgaria in the Balkans, and poised for an offensive on the Polish border.

Every statement I made in that paragraph is the truth. If you deny it, show me which statement (my words, not yours) you contend is not the truth, and I will direct you to a source or sources on the history of WWII that will back it up.

If you want to take offense with my conclusion based upon these facts that the Russians "beat" the Germans, fine. But the fact that they stopped the Germans, decimated their forces, and drove them hundreds of miles out of Russian by June 44 fairly counts as "beating" them IMO.

If there was not also anti-American sentiment running rampant at this site, a statement like your would not appear to be just another anti-American Pro-Communism statement and would not even warrent another look.

You are entitled to your own opinion. If to you, the truth is anti-American, then I guess I am guilty as charged.

That is a good question. The only reason I can think of is to paint the USA as always bad so that whatever ideology they are promoting seems better. I think that this tactic is pretty weak though.

Here's another possibility you might consider as to why I wrote that post.

It is the truth, whether it comports to your idea of how a pro-American version of the history of WWII should be or not.

About the rest, it was a blanket statetment to all, in fact it all was. I used your post as an example of things that I am sick of seeing, and yours is not the worst by any means. Just the one that I used.

And so far, I have seen nothing you have posted which demonstrates that I either was being dishonest or anti-American. Unless you feel those who tell the truth are anti-America. If that is the case, say so and there will be nothing more to say about your opinion.

 

[Iriemon]

Maybe it's just how people see things. Maybe people see things so, because they happened this way. Maybe it's not about being pro-American or being anti-American.

And maybe it's the truth, as anti-American as it may seem to some.

 

[VTA]

A pre-war report with a crystal ball...For those that echo VTA's sentiments on why I would draw parallel's between Bush and Hitler, because events that are unfolding are similar. Bush, like Hitler, is not listening to his generals, is not making decisions based on intelligence estimates, he is simply playing the "decider", just like Hitler.

The preceding quotes are from a report in 1999 predicting what is happening in Iraq today if we decided to remove Hussein. 4 years before the war, this report stated what is happening now! Why didn't Bush listen then? Why don't the pro-war crowd listen now?

Not much of a prognosticator in '99. This was the consensus in 1980 - Iraq without Hussein= Civil War.

Still not much of a parallel, considering Hitlers penchent for ethnic cleansing and conquering.

Yes, you can draw up some silly comaparison, based on oil and the color of the average Middle Easterners' skin to fit your into your view of things, but it's not going to change the ultimate facts that transcend the current dope in the White House.

Of course we can have one that ignores the problem and pretends it doesn't exist (see the heady days of the '90's, when Iran was killing U.S. Marines, and American interests were being attacked by a rate of every 3-4 years, without consequence), but the problem will still exist. But that's all right, as long as it doesn't interrupt the average Joe's Prime Time favorites.:roll:

 

[WI Crippler]

Yes, you can draw up some silly comaparison, based on oil and the color of the average Middle Easterners' skin to fit your into your view of things, but it's not going to change the ultimate facts that transcend the current dope in the White House.Of course we can have one that ignores the problem and pretends it doesn't exist (see the heady days of the '90's, when Iran was killing U.S. Marines, and American interests were being attacked by a rate of every 3-4 years, without consequence), but the problem will still exist. But that's all right, as long as it doesn't interrupt the average Joe's Prime Time favorites.:roll:

Beautifully stated.

 

[Flea]

I used your post to make a statement to all regarding revisionist history and anti-American sentiment. I did not intend to single you out or get into a debate about your statment. Sorry about that. The premise of my statement is clear and undeniable though. Anti-Americanism is popular now and so is devaluing Americas role in WWII and that just plain sucks. That's it.

 

[VTA]

Beautifully stated.

Thank you.

 

[Iriemon]

I used your post to make a statement to all regarding revisionist history and anti-American sentiment. I did not intend to single you out or get into a debate about your statment. Sorry about that. The premise of my statement is clear and undeniable though. Anti-Americanism is popular now and so is devaluing Americas role in WWII and that just plain sucks. That's it.

Fair enough. Equally prevelant IMO is the sentiment that America can do no wrong, that it has some God given right to rule the world, that the American way (however the Govt is doing it at the time) is the best and proper way and that we have the right to impose it on others, by force if necessary. Dishonestly exagerrating the role the US played in WWII or denying the acts of other nations to justify this premise is equally wrong, IMO.

 

[Flea]

I agree with that. The USA should get no more credit than it deserves and no other nation should be slighted in doing so. The USA, as an Ideology, is perhaps the greatest example of what a country and a people can be. I do not think that we have achieved what we think we have. I think that the ideas of the founding fathers and other enlightened visionaries have not been achieved by any means. The government is too big and there are too many people taking advantage of the system. ie Special Interest Groups.

USA can do wrong, case in point was Vietnam. We interfered with a civil war and mislabeled it the Domino Theory. I think that there is a valid threat with Radical Islam, but we are handling it poorly. It started great and I was all for Afghanistan, but then the USA dropped the ball and looked to far ahead through with the wrong prescription reading glasses and we morphed a valid and good thing into this ridiculous situation that we see now.

 

[Lightdemon]

Your bad on many levels, not withstanding the fact that you arrive at totally inane conclusions... Of course the USA was totally involved in WWII and no other nation was in as many places around the world as the USA and no other nation helped as many other nations as the USA in terms of money and...ahhh what the hell is the point? You don't even know how to address your quotes or questions properly...Iriemon had to search this out since it was addressed to WWI Crippler. Whatever bro, you are done IMO :doh

Then I guess there's really no point in furthering our conversation then? But I just want to correct you slightly, Washington had nothing to do with the Declaration of Independace. He didn't even sign it. And just to clarify what I was talking about, the southern states did not want to form a separate nation, they wanted to stay as a colony of Britain. In fact, by forming thier own union, it was considered treason. This would effectively severe ties with thier customers. Why would the south elminate thier consumer market? That is economic suicide. This makes no sense. And if you look carefully at the signatures on the actual document, judging by the size of the signature, legibility, boldness and underlining, you can tell who was from the south, and who was from the north. Southern signatures were small, distanced away from the northern signatures, not underlined, scribbled on to make it illegible. While the north wrote there names in large size and boldness, underlined with fancy loops, like that of John Hancock.

Check it for yourself:
NARA | The National Archives Experience

The thread has moved on, people recognize Russia's presence, whether you think they contributed less than the US is your opinion. This has already caused the thread to de-rail, and is finally back on track. If you still wish to pursue your point, you are free to send me more PMs.

 

[Iriemon]

I agree with that. The USA should get no more credit than it deserves and no other nation should be slighted in doing so. The USA, as an Ideology, is perhaps the greatest example of what a country and a people can be. I do not think that we have achieved what we think we have. I think that the ideas of the founding fathers and other enlightened visionaries have not been achieved by any means. The government is too big and there are too many people taking advantage of the system. ie Special Interest Groups.

USA can do wrong, case in point was Vietnam. We interfered with a civil war and mislabeled it the Domino Theory. I think that there is a valid threat with Radical Islam, but we are handling it poorly. It started great and I was all for Afghanistan, but then the USA dropped the ball and looked to far ahead through with the wrong prescription reading glasses and we morphed a valid and good thing into this ridiculous situation that we see now.

I've said this before. What makes me most proud to be an American is the principles upon which she was founded -- democracy, individual rights superior even to the government's, the rule of law where all stand before the law equally, all are afforded due process and rights equally -- the concept of unalienable rights which truths we hold to be self evident. The stuff that made America that shining city on the hill. It wasn't the size of America's army that made it shining, or its economy. It was that it stands as a beacon of freedom and justice to all mankind. What mankind can be, as you put it.

That is why I get so upset when I see the crap this administration is doing. You can make all the arguments you want about "enemy combatants" and terrorism is different and etc etc. The shining city on the hill does not bomb the crap out of and invade and occupy a country that did not start the fight first. The beacon of freedom does not nab people away and throw them in secret torture dungeons. The country that was founded upon inalienable rights does not make up reasons why rights don't apply to others.

America's greatest moments were when she stood by these principles, IMO. I truly believe like you that these ideals represent the best hope for mankind, and I believe that is self-evident. In this latest struggle against radical Islam ideology, I believe our ideals will prevail because they are self-evident and right and just. But when we do things inconsistent with those great ideals, we are defeating ourselves in this war of ideals.

We will win by standing by what our country stands for.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by VTA
Not much of a prognosticator in '99. This was the consensus in 1980 - Iraq without Hussein= Civil War.

That makes going into Iraq even worse. We knew how bad Hussein was 20 years ago and still sold him arms. He didn't change. The same guy we considered an ally 20 years ago was the same guy they hanged a couple of weeks ago. But aside from that, don't you want your elected leaders to make intelligent decisions based on facts presented by the experts in their particular fields? Let's say your a minor, and the doctor just told you and your father that you have cancer and need to have surgery right away to survive, but your father blows off the opinion of the doctor and tells you, "I'll decide what you need!" How would you feel about that? Now you got the President of a nation blowing off all the experts of his intelligence and military community and making decisions that are costing lives and destroying this nation. Yet, you're OK with that!

Originally Posted by VTA
Still not much of a parallel, considering Hitlers penchent for ethnic cleansing and conquering.

I wasn't saying Bush WAS Hitler. I was saying there is enough similarities to allow you to be able to read the writing on the wall, which is a government running amok with no apparant accountability.

Originally Posted by VTA
Yes, you can draw up some silly comaparison, based on oil and the color of the average Middle Easterners' skin to fit your into your view of things, but it's not going to change the ultimate facts that transcend the current dope in the White House.

Are we having the same conversation? What the hell are you talking about? This report said there would be a civil war in that country with sectarian violence that we could not control. Given this information, why would he decide to go forward? What did Iraq do to us to deserve this?

Originally Posted by VTA
Of course we can have one that ignores the problem and pretends it doesn't exist (see the heady days of the '90's, when Iran was killing U.S. Marines, and American interests were being attacked by a rate of every 3-4 years, without consequence), but the problem will still exist. But that's all right, as long as it doesn't interrupt the average Joe's Prime Time favorites

We got some people ignoring the problem alright, but it's not ALL out there. What we seem to be ignoring is our role in enabling the situation to begin with.

 

[oldreliable67]

Allied deliveries of fuel were critical in supporting the Russian offensives.

Quite correct. And supporting not only the Russians. According to energy expert Daniel Yergin, "out of seven billion barrels of oil used by the Allies in World War II, six billion were produced in the U.S."

This point illustrates the fallacy of LightDemon's argument that US participation in WWII was somehow not as significant as that of the SU because more Russian troops were killed. In terms of numbers of soldiers lost and some other quantitative measures, it is quite true that the SU is at the top of the list. But those measures have a certain logic and reasons behind their being what they are, and can't be taken strictly and solely at face value as proof of whose contribution to the effort was more significant to the eventual outcome of the WWII. Measured strictly in terms of lives lost? No question. When considering the eventual outcome? Not so simple.

It is also true that, as Iriemon pointed out, that certain SU imports from the US were relatively small percentages of the total SU production. However, if you examine the timing and the nature of those imports, you will find that the timing and nature was crucial to Russian survival.

The Russians were exhausted but were fighting for their very survival on their home turf, i.e., their motivation was extremely strong. The Germans were also exhausted but had supply lines hundreds of miles long and significantly, competed for resources with troops in France and elsewhere. It can be reasonably argued that the supplies coming in from the US made the difference in the Russians being able to regain the offensive and drive the Germans back into Germany. The timing was crucial; the supplies were crucial (relatively speaking, not the jeeps and trucks so much as the machine tools, lathes, etc., that the Russians put to good use turning out all those T-34s eta al).

There was a very good reason that Stalin continuously pleaded with the Allies to open a western front as soon as possible. Without it, Stalin knew that the risk that the Germans might ultimately prevail in Russia was quite high.

It is simply naive and incorrect to say the US won WWII alone or even that US participation alone made the difference. The Russian defense of their homeland bought enough time for the US to make a significant contribution to both Russian survival and the ultimate outcome. Without both the Russian defense of their homeland and subsequent offensive and the western front by the US and the rest of the Allies, and the economic might of the US, the outcome would most likely have been significantly altered.

Apologies for backtracking on the hijacking of the thread, but I was away for several days. LightDemon's analysis and comments are just way too superficial and simplistic to let go by. (Granted, my comments above don't do the subject justice either, not by a long shot, but hopefully, they illuminate the realities of the WWII situation a bit more.)

Now back to your regularly scheduled program, er, thread...

 

[Iriemon]

Quite correct. And supporting not only the Russians. According to energy expert Daniel Yergin, "out of seven billion barrels of oil used by the Allies in World War II, six billion were produced in the U.S."

This point illustrates the fallacy of LightDemon's argument that US participation in WWII was somehow not as significant as that of the SU because more Russian troops were killed. In terms of numbers of soldiers lost and some other quantitative measures, it is quite true that the SU is at the top of the list. But those measures have a certain logic and reasons behind their being what they are, and can't be taken strictly and solely at face value as proof of whose contribution to the effort was more significant to the eventual outcome of the WWII. Measured strictly in terms of lives lost? No question. When considering the eventual outcome? Not so simple.

It is also true that, as Iriemon pointed out, that certain SU imports from the US were relatively small percentages of the total SU production. However, if you examine the timing and the nature of those imports, you will find that the timing and nature was crucial to Russian survival.

The Russians were exhausted but were fighting for their very survival on their home turf, i.e., their motivation was extremely strong. The Germans were also exhausted but had supply lines hundreds of miles long and significantly, competed for resources with troops in France and elsewhere. It can be reasonably argued that the supplies coming in from the US made the difference in the Russians being able to regain the offensive and drive the Germans back into Germany. The timing was crucial; the supplies were crucial (relatively speaking, not the jeeps and trucks so much as the machine tools, lathes, etc., that the Russians put to good use turning out all those T-34s eta al).

There was a very good reason that Stalin continuously pleaded with the Allies to open a western front as soon as possible. Without it, Stalin knew that the risk that the Germans might ultimately prevail in Russia was quite high.

It is simply naive and incorrect to say the US won WWII alone or even that US participation alone made the difference. The Russian defense of their homeland bought enough time for the US to make a significant contribution to both Russian survival and the ultimate outcome. Without both the Russian defense of their homeland and subsequent offensive and the western front by the US and the rest of the Allies, and the economic might of the US, the outcome would most likely have been significantly altered.

Apologies for backtracking on the hijacking of the thread, but I was away for several days. LightDemon's analysis and comments are just way too superficial and simplistic to let go by. (Granted, my comments above don't do the subject justice either, not by a long shot, but hopefully, they illuminate the realities of the WWII situation a bit more.)

Now back to your regularly scheduled program, er, thread...

Good post, OR. One question, I understand that the bulk of Allied aid to Russia arrived in the '44-45 timeframe, and to a lesser extent in '41-42, the time period when the Russians at least stopped the Germans. I'm not sure that the US supply to Russian was the factor that made the difference in '41-42, but I could be wrong.

I agree that the second front in France in June '44 hastened the defeat of Germany. It would be speculation to assert that even without the invasion, the Russians would have won, though I can make an argument for it as the Russians had pushed back the Germans hundreds of miles out of Russia before the invasion. But the Allied invasion of Normandy was not really the turning point in the war as cold war gradeschoolers were led to believe. The turning point was Stalingrad, late '42- early '43, where the Russian encirclement and Hitler's stand and die orders doomed hundreds of thousands of the crack troops of esteemed German 6th Army, and put Germany on the defensive for the first time.

As far as significance, that is a subjective term and everyone can express an opinion about it. However, Russia fought the bulk and the cream of the Wermacht virtually on its own for three years. Hundreds of miles of its terroritory was captured and destroyed. An estimated 20 million Russians died, more than decimating its population.

Compared to that, the US engagement in Europe was on a much smaller scale. The Italian front was just a small fraction of the size of the Russian front. US engagement in France and Germany lasted about a year. It also involved a much smaller scale of forces, and by the time the allies hit the beaches in Normandy in June 44, Germany was exhausted and had been beaten by the Russians, and was not the same power that it was in '41-42. Was the US/allied operation in Western Europe important? Sure. No doubt it ended the war faster (and more importantly, kept Western Europe out of Soviet domination). Is Lightdemon's contention that the Russian front was more significant a fallacy? That's a matter of opinion, but I wouldn't necessarily call it a fallacy, and IMO a good argument can be made that his contention is valid.

IMO, the act that really made the strategic difference was something that with any kind of coordination, the Axis could have avoided. Had Japan joined with her ally Germany in attacking Russia, the US entry in the war may have been averted or delayed, and almost as important, it would have tied down Russians Siberian forces. When instead Japan attacked the US, it took the pressure of Russian, and it moved those troops to the German front, where those fresh troops were instrumental in relieving and reinforcing the exhausted Russian troops in early '42

 

[oldreliable67]

Good post, OR. One question, I understand that the bulk of Allied aid to Russia arrived in the '44-45 timeframe, and to a lesser extent in '41-42, the time period when the Russians at least stopped the Germans. I'm not sure that the US supply to Russian was the factor that made the difference in '41-42, but I could be wrong.

Some "experts" say it made the difference; some say it didn't. My conclusion: the supplies in '41 -'42 made a significant contribution and affected the time frame and the outcome, but was the outcome solely dependent on those supplies? Impossible to know with any degree of certainty, but I don't think so. While the supplies in that period helped reduce the odds against them by some arguable amount, I think it was mainly the home turf and the Russian belief that they were fighting for their survival. Just my opinion.

I agree that the second front in France in June '44 hastened the defeat of Germany. It would be speculation to assert that even without the invasion, the Russians would have won, though I can make an argument for it as the Russians had pushed back the Germans hundreds of miles out of Russia before the invasion. But the Allied invasion of Normandy was not really the turning point in the war as cold war gradeschoolers were led to believe. The turning point was Stalingrad, late '42- early '43, where the Russian encirclement and Hitler's stand and die orders doomed hundreds of thousands of the crack troops of esteemed German 6th Army, and put Germany on the defensive for the first time.

Absolutely agree that Stalingrad was the turning point. Without it, the rest of the Allies would not have had the time necessary to continue "bulking up" for what was to come later. And as you correctly point out, it cost the Germans a huge number of their best, most seasoned, troops.

Would the Russians have won without a second front? You are right, it would be speculation to say yes, they would have, though some will insist on such. Personally, I think not. Remember that the Russian and German positions would be reversed: the Germans defending their homeland with shortened supply lines; the Russians the invaders with supply lines hundreds of miles long. The Russian advantage? An experienced army that had defeated - and eliminated - some of Germany's best. But home turf counts for a lot!

What can be said with relative assurance is that the war would most likely have been much, much longer, with a commensurately greater loss of life.

IMO, the act that really made the strategic difference was something that with any kind of coordination, the Axis could have avoided. Had Japan joined with her ally Germany in attacking Russia, the US entry in the war may have been averted or delayed, and almost as important, it would have tied down Russians Siberian forces. When instead Japan attacked the US, it took the pressure of Russian, and it moved those troops to the German front, where those fresh troops were instrumental in relieving and reinforcing the exhausted Russian troops in early '42.

Is Lightdemon's contention that the Russian front was more significant a fallacy? That's a matter of opinion, but I wouldn't necessarily call it a fallacy, and IMO a good argument can be made that his contention is valid.

You are indeed correct: it can be argued. LightDemon couched his argument for the greater significance of the Russian effort on the numbers killed. I pointed out that if that is your only measure of "significance", then his/her assertion is most likely true. My argument is that there are reasons why those numbers are what they are, and those reasons suggest that taken as a whole, those numbers do not sufficiently define or describe "significant" in terms of WWII effort.

Fascinating, isn't it, to consider some of the strategic options that were open to Japan and Germany but passed by? Excellent subject for another thread...

 

[VTA]

That makes going into Iraq even worse. We knew how bad Hussein was 20 years ago and still sold him arms. He didn't change. The same guy we considered an ally 20 years ago was the same guy they hanged a couple of weeks ago. But aside from that, don't you want your elected leaders to make intelligent decisions based on facts presented by the experts in their particular fields? Let's say your a minor, and the doctor just told you and your father that you have cancer and need to have surgery right away to survive, but your father blows off the opinion of the doctor and tells you, "I'll decide what you need!" How would you feel about that? Now you got the President of a nation blowing off all the experts of his intelligence and military community and making decisions that are costing lives and destroying this nation. Yet, you're OK with that!

It was either that or Iran getting it's hands on Iraq, decry the decision all you want it was a move that had to be made... short of taking down Iran itself.

Stop with the analogies... If you don't like what the president is deciding, do something. The average American plasters his *** to a couch and only bothers to worry about what the President is doing when popular opinion decides it's time to interrupt American Joe's favorite show. I've lived long enough to see both sides of the situation and I recognize disingenuousness when I see it.

These problem existed during the previous administration and beyond, in one case they were pushed off for later consideration, in the other they were simply ignored. Which do you prefer?

I wasn't saying Bush WAS Hitler. I was saying there is enough similarities to allow you to be able to read the writing on the wall, which is a government running amok with no apparant accountability.

Errr.. still no good. Stop using the analogy. It insensitively cheapens the awful truths that that animal wrought and doesn't reflect the same kind of challenge we're facing today, in any way shape or form.

Are we having the same conversation? What the hell are you talking about? This report said there would be a civil war in that country with sectarian violence that we could not control. Given this information, why would he decide to go forward? What did Iraq do to us to deserve this?

That all depends. Are we talking about America at war in 2006 or re-hashing an unrelated incident that happened 40 years ago? Now the discussion is about the report... Great. Either way, America, in the midst of fighting a large contingent of untethered, enemy combatants, finds it would better serve it's interests to kill two birds with one stone: get that enemy to flock to one central location, in order to make it easier to fight them and head off any designs Iran might have on a Sadaam-less Iraq.

What did the people of Iraq do to deserve this? Had it happened without American intervention, which it most certainly would have, as the report itself asserts, who on this side of the ocean would be asking this question? How different would the dynamic be, when it's evident that their own prejudices are tearing them apart? Cut the moral hyprocrisy, please. There's alot of misery going on in the world, it seems the only time attention is paid to it is when America is involved. Well America is involved to protect it's interests; the animals hiding behind civilians(in many more ways than one) are the only ones to blame for the misfortunes of the average Iraqi people.

It doesn't make war right, it just spells it out for what it is. When you have a better idea, feel free to leave your warm home and make a difference, the rest of us prognathous louts are still waiting for evolution to pull us along in its wake.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by VTA
It was either that or Iran getting it's hands on Iraq, decry the decision all you want it was a move that had to be made... .

Hold on a second! Let me pull up my pant legs, I don't want to get them dirty!

OK, now go ahead...

Originally Posted by VTA
...short of taking down Iran itself

"...had to be made", you are too f.u.c.k.i.n' funny!

Originally Posted by VTA
Stop with the analogies... If you don't like what the president is deciding, do something. The average American plasters his *** to a couch and only bothers to worry about what the President is doing when popular opinion decides it's time to interrupt American Joe's favorite show. I've lived long enough to see both sides of the situation and I recognize disingenuousness when I see it.

The question is why don't you disagree with the decision to illegally attack a sovereign nation that did nothing to us first? Then be silent while a half million people died as a result of our barbaric occupation. Is this what you call being an American?

Originally Posted by VTA
These problem existed during the previous administration and beyond, in one case they were pushed off for later consideration, in the other they were simply ignored. Which do you prefer?

What problem is that? Bullshit Americans who are so narcissistic and irresponsible they think it is okay to commit armed aggression without just cause?

Originally Posted by VTA
Errr.. still no good. Stop using the analogy. It insensitively cheapens the awful truths that that animal wrought and doesn't reflect the same kind of challenge we're facing today, in any way shape or form.

A "challenge" we played a role in creating.

Originally Posted by VTA
That all depends. Are we talking about America at war in 2006 or re-hashing an unrelated incident that happened 40 years ago? Now the discussion is about the report... Great. Either way, America, in the midst of fighting a large contingent of untethered, enemy combatants, finds it would better serve it's interests to kill two birds with one stone: get that enemy to flock to one central location, in order to make it easier to fight them and head off any designs Iran might have on a Sadaam-less Iraq.

It's always been about the report. You were just to busy being condescending to join the conversation. Now look who's using analogies. Ones that happen to be FOS, for that matter!

Originally Posted by VTA
What did the people of Iraq do to deserve this? Had it happened without American intervention, which it most certainly would have, as the report itself asserts, who on this side of the ocean would be asking this question? How different would the dynamic be, when it's evident that their own prejudices are tearing them apart? Cut the moral hyprocrisy, please. There's alot of misery going on in the world, it seems the only time attention is paid to it is when America is involved. Well America is involved to protect it's interests; the animals hiding behind civilians(in many more ways than one) are the only ones to blame for the misfortunes of the average Iraqi people.

You don't have a clue as to what an American is, do you? You don't seem to be a very good human being, either.

Originally Posted by VTA
It doesn't make war right, it just spells it out for what it is. When you have a better idea, feel free to leave your warm home and make a difference, the rest of us prognathous louts are still waiting for evolution to pull us along in its wake.

Well, by that same logic, if you dig killing brown people so much, why aren't you over there fighting? Are you a coward? Or a hypocrit? Or both?

Just asking the question.

 

[VTA]

Hold on a second! Let me pull up my pant legs, I don't want to get them dirty!

OK, now go ahead..."...had to be made", you are too f.u.c.k.i.n' funny!

None of this makes any sense. Gratuitous nonsense.

The question is why don't you disagree with the decision to illegally attack a sovereign nation that did nothing to us first? Then be silent while a half million people died as a result of our barbaric occupation. Is this what you call being an American?

Oh is that the question? The topic changes so much I thought it was about America in Iraq, or the Russians role in WWII, or the report, or...

No, it's what I call being a human who accepts life as it is. It seems to me that being an American means pretending all is well, just as long as it's only America being attacked and only finding time for moral outrage when America responds. There were innocents in the middle os those attacks on America too, my friend.

What problem is that? Bullshit Americans who are so narcissistic and irresponsible they think it is okay to commit armed aggression without just cause?

The little problem of Islamic extremists committing atrocities against civilians, since... oh, for as long as I can remember... and I have a very long and strong memory for a 38 YO. Sorry to have aroused you from your slumber. You can go back to pretending it doesn't exist again.

A "challenge" we played a role in creating.

What challenge is that? Bullshit Americans who are so narcissistic and irresponsible they think it is okay to leave it all to the government until popular opinion tells them not to anymore?

It's always been about the report. You were just to busy being condescending to join the conversation. Now look who's using analogies. Ones that happen to be FOS, for that matter!

The dictionary is free these days Billo; that wasn't an analogy that I offerd, that was a perception based on actual events that have unfolded. America is in Iraq. Thousands of enemy combatants have flocked there to fight and Iran is now making so much noise in response to America's presence.

You don't have a clue as to what an American is, do you? You don't seem to be a very good human being, either.

Save the dime store psycho-analysis for the 10 cent heads that might be impressed with that drivel.

Well, by that same logic, if you dig killing brown people so much, why aren't you over there fighting? Are you a coward? Or a hypocrit? Or both?

Just asking the question.

Are you just typing things to fill space? How is that question 'by the same logic' of my assertion that man hasn't evolved out of war yet?

Yeah, right, when all else fails, play the race card and pull out that why aren't you fighting crap? How weak. I support what our country's doing by virtue of educating myself on the particulars and not being a patsy for partisan hacks with their own self serving agenda.

But, hey, 'by that same logic', why are you wasting your time mis-using the English language on this forum, instead of trying to institute change in our system? Are you a coward? Or a hypocrit? Or both?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by VTA
None of this makes any sense. Gratuitous nonsense.

I agree. Why do you enter into a conversation you have no interest participating in? And why respond to posts without knowing what you're talking about? If you don't spend the effort to understand my point of view, then you have no clue as to what you are responding too!

Originally Posted by VTA
Oh is that the question? The topic changes so much I thought it was about America in Iraq, or the Russians role in WWII, or the report, or...

So now you go from condescending to sarcasm. Tell you what, shove them both up your a.s.s, if that's what you think is debating the issues.

Originally Posted by VTA
No, it's what I call being a human who accepts life as it is. It seems to me that being an American means pretending all is well, just as long as it's only America being attacked and only finding time for moral outrage when America responds. There were innocents in the middle os those attacks on America too, my friend.

Where the f.u.c.k to you get off saying your human? A half a million people would be alive today if it wasn't for people like you that supported a trumped up reason to go to war.

Originally Posted by VTA
The little problem of Islamic extremists committing atrocities against civilians, since... oh, for as long as I can remember... and I have a very long and strong memory for a 38 YO. Sorry to have aroused you from your slumber. You can go back to pretending it doesn't exist again.

I've never denied they don't exist. You think that because it is convenient for you. But I expect that now. You have demonstrated nary an interest in understanding other points of view.

Originally Posted by VTA
What challenge is that? Bullshit Americans who are so narcissistic and irresponsible they think it is okay to leave it all to the government until popular opinion tells them not to anymore?

I don't know what you're saying with the first part of that, but I agree with the last part.

Originally Posted by VTA
The dictionary is free these days Billo; that wasn't an analogy that I offerd, that was a perception based on actual events that have unfolded. America is in Iraq. Thousands of enemy combatants have flocked there to fight and Iran is now making so much noise in response to America's presence.

No s.h.i.t! Were in their part of the planet. We are on their soil. We are f.u.c.k.i.n.g up their home. Put the shoe on the other foot for once, if you want to base your opinion on actual events. It is immoral to scapegoat Iraq over something they had nothing to do with.

Originally Posted by VTA
Save the dime store psycho-analysis for the 10 cent heads that might be impressed with that drivel.

Did you go to school in a long bus, or a short bus?

Originally Posted by VTA
Are you just typing things to fill space? How is that question 'by the same logic' of my assertion that man hasn't evolved out of war yet?

Yeah, right, when all else fails, play the race card and pull out that why aren't you fighting crap? How weak. I support what our country's doing by virtue of educating myself on the particulars and not being a patsy for partisan hacks with their own self serving agenda.

But, hey, 'by that same logic', why are you wasting your time mis-using the English language on this forum, instead of trying to institute change in our system? Are you a coward? Or a hypocrit? Or both?

You mean, "...educating yourself on [half] the particulars". That's why I asked you if your a coward. You don't seem to have the balls to look at all the evidence. Pro and con. In fact, you can't even bear to understand the point I'm making.

You must be really good at dodge ball...

 

[VTA]

I agree. Why do you enter into a conversation you have no interest participating in? And why respond to posts without knowing what you're talking about? If you don't spend the effort to understand my point of view, then you have no clue as to what you are responding too!

So now you go from condescending to sarcasm. Tell you what, shove them both up your a.s.s, if that's what you think is debating the issues.

Where the f.u.c.k to you get off saying your human? A half a million people would be alive today if it wasn't for people like you that supported a trumped up reason to go to war.

I've never denied they don't exist. You think that because it is convenient for you. But I expect that now. You have demonstrated nary an interest in understanding other points of view.

I don't know what you're saying with the first part of that, but I agree with the last part.

No s.h.i.t! Were in their part of the planet. We are on their soil. We are f.u.c.k.i.n.g up their home. Put the shoe on the other foot for once, if you want to base your opinion on actual events. It is immoral to scapegoat Iraq over something they had nothing to do with.

Did you go to school in a long bus, or a short bus?

You mean, "...educating yourself on [half] the particulars". That's why I asked you if your a coward. You don't seem to have the balls to look at all the evidence. Pro and con. In fact, you can't even bear to understand the point I'm making.

You must be really good at dodge ball...

That's a lengthy way of saying you have nothing but your own misguided passion to refute the facts. Puerile screaming about me says nothing about the topic...

 

[Flea]

Originally Posted by LightDemon
Then I guess there's really no point in furthering our conversation then?

** Rolls up Sleaves **

No. But we do.

** Glares at LightDemon **

:lol: Just Joking, but I do want to clarify some stuff.

Originally Posted by LightDemon
Lets pick one of these wars of the list to show you my point. How about the most important one to our American heritage? The Revolutionary War. First you would need to know the relationship between the North versus the South. The South didn't want to become independant in the first place, and they were forced to sign the Declaration of Independence

Originally Posted by BodiSatva
Incorrect, what the hell are you even talking about...Jefferson was a Virginain and he WROTE the Dec of Ind. Washington was a Southerner as well, stop making stupid statements

I have to interject into this discussion, I was waiting for Bodi, but he is AWOL. I would like to know how the South was “Forced” to sign the Declaration of Independence, especially when most Loyalists resided in the Middle Colonies…

They were signing a document that guaranteed them a War with one of the most powerful nations on Earth. Why would they not have opted to side with Britain instead and fight the pitiable North together? Hmmmm…?

Really, I am interested. How were they “Forced”?

Originally Posted by LightDemon
I just want to correct you slightly, Washington had nothing to do with the Declaration of Independace. He didn't even sign it. And just to clarify what I was talking about, the southern states did not want to form a separate nation, they wanted to stay as a colony of Britain

Washington didn’t sign the Declaration of Independence? So?

Look. You say that the South did not want to be Independent and I now say that you are Incorrect. But what about Jefferson and Washington, as Bodi points out? Of course Washington did not sign the document. You can tell this by the fact that his name is not signed on the document. Oooohh…haha. Why would you assume that I think that this has to be the extent of Washington’s involvement? It isn’t.

- George Washington:
1st President of the United States
Commander of all United States Colonial Armies fighting for Independence against the British
He was a Southerner

That alone supports the initial assertion and supports the fact that a major figure in the South and in all the Colonies supported an American Revolution from Britain.

That is also not the extent of Southerners who did support the revolution. About 15-20% of the colonists were supposedly Loyalists, and I have read that as few as 5% of the White population were actually Loyalists. Did you know that the largest numbers were found in the middle colonies: New York and New Jersey and Long Island and they were NOT Southern Colonies? Also…

- Thomas Jefferson:
3rd President of the United States
Author of the Declaration of Independence
He was a Southerner

- James Madison:
4th President of the United States
“Father of the US Constitution”
Author of the Bill of Rights
He was a Southerner

Historian Robert Middlekauff summarizes scholarly research on who was a Loyalist as follows:
In no colony did loyalists outnumber revolutionaries. The largest numbers were found in the middle colonies: many tenant farmers of New York supported the king, for example, as did many of the Dutch in the colony and in New Jersey. The Germans in Pennsylvania tried to stay out of the Revolution, just as many Quakers did, and when that failed, clung to the familiar connection rather than embrace the new. Highland Scots in the Carolinas, a fair number of Anglican clergy and their parishioners in Connecticut and New York, a few Presbyterians in the southern colonies, and a large number of the Iroquois Indians stayed loyal to the king

Yes! Another?

- James Monroe:
5th President of the United States
He was caught up by the fervor of the revolutionary spirit, he enlisted in the Third Virginia Regiment in the spring of 1776 and fought under Washington
He was a Southerner.

British troops in the South were saving Southerners from Indians? What crack pipe are you smoking kid? Holy cow! :lol:

They had two armies in the colonies initially, one in Canada and one in New York. You don’t even have that part right. From 1775-1778, after General Clinton sailed to attack Charleston and it ended in humiliating loss for the British, and the Colonialists remained in control of the the South for the next three years. The main military battles took place in the north. The French entered the war in 1779 and THEN the British finally turned their focus to the Southern colonies.

Originally Posted by LightDemon
But compared to what the US offered, Russia was the one who put thier neck on the line

Man, it is stuff like this that makes it hard to talk to some of you guys that just don’t get it. Russia did not “put their neck on the line”. Russia had no choice. Russia had the knife thrust up to their neck and had to grapple to remove it. The USA actually stepped up and took on more than they had to. The USA could have stayed out for longer, if they wanted to. Russia had not choice but to fight or submit, why the subtle twist of words like this?

Russia put up 34 million men.
USA put up 20 million men.

20 Million! Yeah, we didn’t offer much, did we? Compared to what the Russian population suffered, why don’t you also say that compared to what the Jews suffered, it wasn’t much compared to the Russians? Haha, that won’t get you any Liberal PC points though. But it is fine and dandy to bash the good ol’ USA. Comments like yours have a sublte and demeaning attitude.

Originally Posted by LightDemon
people recognize Russia's presence

Most people do, this is not a new thing. Look, History is what I do. Russia was involved in WWII and that alone makes them a “presence”. Also, they were a major factor in defeating Germany. But that is no the point. You said…

Originally Posted by LightDemon
Russia who did the most fighting… If you asked me who won the war, I'd say it was actually Russia's defiance against Hitler

You seem to be insinuating that he and many others don’t see it this way, that Russia did MUCH of the fighting against Hitler, but you made this little tangent off of the bigger topic regarding input into WWII in general, not just against Germany. You seem to forget that this was a WORLD WAR, not a war against Germany in Europe alone. Even though many of us already stated that it was obvious…meaning that we do, you seem to continue on this path. Can you not admit that we agree on this point? Can you further agree that you are creating a specific and non-related tangent for your own purpose? We can discuss that separately if you want, but you can’t mistake the original point with this new one that you created. To me, that seems like a weird way of communicating.

If all you think is that Russia contributed more to WWII than the USA, then just state that opinion, but stop making little side comments about how the USA does not fight in wars and how the USA didn’t risk anything, it was Russia that did. Opinions are fine, just stop trying to pass them off as fact.

Lastly, this started with Bodi’s list of wars displaying your statement as incorrect in the first place.

Originally Posted by LightDemon
The US is known for staying out of wars

The US is not known for staying out of wars. The whole profit line is IRRELEVENT to this one singular point.

A huge list of American wars accurately showing how the USA does not stay out of wars, in fact, the USA engages in many wars. Can you admit that the USA does not stay out of wars? That is another original point that you have sidetracked.

You are skirting this initial point and you need to concede that your initial statement was incorrect or you need to make a better case. I don’t let people skate by, creating tangents so that they don’t ever have to take accountability for their statements.

It is time to step up to the plate and be accountable for what you say. You seem a genuine guy, and I am trying to be patient. Too many people just spout off and then bail. That sucks. I am hoping to see a solidification of thought back to the original premise in each instance.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by VTA
That's a lengthy way of saying you have nothing but your own misguided passion to refute the facts. Puerile screaming about me says nothing about the topic...

Excuse me? You were responded to my post initially, not the other way around. So I ask you, "What topic were you responding too?" I know what topic I posted. I also know you haven't addressed it in any post since. And there is no way I'm going to spend any time on your facts, when you won't give me the same respect in return.

 

[BodiSatva]

Johnny_Utah
You are skirting this initial point and you need to concede that your initial statement was incorrect or you need to make a better case. I don’t let people skate by, creating tangents so that they don’t ever have to take accountability for their statements.

That is my contention as well Utah. LightDemon, we have gone off on a tangent even though I have been trying to keep you on point. We have to address each point independently before we can move on. You are all over the place at this point. Focus on the specific beginning debate points.

 

[VTA]

Excuse me? You were responded to my post initially, not the other way around. So I ask you, "What topic were you responding too?" I know what topic I posted. I also know you haven't addressed it in any post since. And there is no way I'm going to spend any time on your facts, when you won't give me the same respect in return.

Billo. With the exception of asking what WWII and Russia's involvement in it meant to the topic, I've kept the subject strictly to Iraq and the reasoning for America's presence there. I have in some instances given back the sarcasm, but the thread has remained the same: why America is Iraq. Even in the face of your foul mouthed tirades and remarks that I'm 'full of s.h.i.t'.

Feel free to continue on in the same way, either way I can handle it.