We must leave Iraq

[Iriemon]

Naturally the Russians suffered more. Russia was invaded by the Third Reich in 1941. Although Russians did bear the brunt of the fighting in WWII, their stout defense of the Motherland would not have been possible without the heroic Allied convoys which kept them resupplied with food and war materials. The Russians didn't get going offensively until the Allies opened the western front with the landing at Normandy. In all truth, WWII was going badly for both the Russians and the Brits until the US entered the war directly.

I disagree with your view of history.

Allied aid to Russia helped, to be sure, but overall it was a pretty small portion of overall Russian military output, especially in 1941 when the Germans were stopped outside Moscow and Leningrad. Those tens of thousands of T-34s weren't made in the US. Their stout defense would have happened in any case.

The Russians didn't get going offensively until the Allies opened the western front with the landing at Normandy.

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 Romania and Bulgaria in the Balkans, and poised for an offensive on the Polish border.

 

[teacher]

I disagree with your view of history.

Allied aid to Russia helped, to be sure, but overall it was a pretty small portion of overall Russian military output, especially in 1941 when the Germans were stopped outside Moscow and Leningrad. Those tens of thousands of T-34s weren't made in the US. Their stout defense would have happened in any case.

The Russians didn't get going offensively until the Allies opened the western front with the landing at Normandy.

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 Romania and Bulgaria in the Balkans, and poised for an offensive on the Polish border.

See my sig...

<Nothing America has ever done has been any good, ever, ever ever, and if you ever prove me wrong I'm gonna slam my eyes shut, plug my ears and hum "Aluetta" really friggin loud.>

Friggin Iremon, just move the hell outta this county and be done with it.

Lemme put it like this, Iremon, America is the best thing that has ever happened to mother Earth and all her children. Been like that since WWI.

Russian winter and Russian snipers aside from allied help had more to do with Nazi failure than any friggin thing.

Where the rest of this bullshit you people claim comes from I have no idea.

 

[teacher]

And also, I would hardly count WW2 as a war the US was involved in, I mean they only entered the war at the very end. I mean you can't just put a cherry on top of a cake and claim credit for baking a cake

Oh my friggin God, it's Iremon's twin.

Hey LD, here's the deal, you just need to flee, fast, now, and pray I'm too busy smoozing on Tashah when you do. That post was classic. Damn, I mean just, damn, that has to be a friggin joke, no one can that fu*king stupid. Well, there's Billo and all (happy now?) but he's got that...thing.

No, it's gotta be a typo, you did NOT just say that. Oh please say you did. I wanna have me some fun.

Someone check his IP, is Robin back?

 

[Tashah]

I disagree with your view of history.

Allied aid to Russia helped, to be sure, but overall it was a pretty small portion of overall Russian military output, especially in 1941 when the Germans were stopped outside Moscow and Leningrad. Those tens of thousands of T-34s weren't made in the US. Their stout defense would have happened in any case.

If I may interject. Many crucial raw materials necessary for the manufacture of Russian tanks and planes were supplied by Allied convoys. The US also supplied the Red Army with thousands of American made Jeeps. Since the German army occupied the Crimea region which contained Russia's oil refineries, Allied deliveries of fuel were critical in supporting the Russian offensives.

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 Romania and Bulgaria in the Balkans, and poised for an offensive on the Polish border.

I doubt the Russians would have conquered Germany alone without Allied material and intelligence assistence, without the Western front, and without incessant Allied air attacks on German manufacturing and weapons factories.

 

[teacher]

And you have been trying to preach about history to me? None of us can know it all and certainly we all can have our own perspectives, but damn. I don't even know where to go with this.

Smack, abuse, carnage pain and mayhem. Go ahead, you're not crowding me.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by teacher:
Oh my friggin God, it's Iremon's twin.

Hey LD, here's the deal, you just need to flee, fast, now, and pray I'm too busy smoozing on Tashah when you do. That post was classic. Damn, I mean just, damn, that has to be a friggin joke, no one can that fu*king stupid. Well, there's Billo and all (happy now?) but he's got that...thing.

No, it's gotta be a typo, you did NOT just say that. Oh please say you did. I wanna have me some fun.

Someone check his IP, is Robin back?

I liked Robin!

 

[Lightdemon]

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 Romania and Bulgaria in the Balkans, and poised for an offensive on the Polish border.

I doubt the Russians would have conquered Germany alone without Allied material and intelligence assistence, without the Western front, and without incessant Allied air attacks on German manufacturing and weapons factories.

Both of you are correct. It was the 2 fronts that really defeated Germany. But those 2 fronts are not equal. The major fights was done in the east on the Russian front. The Russians was essentially the ones doing all the hard work. And like Iriemon pointed out, by the time the Allied forces came in, the war had already turned in favor of the Russians. That is not to discount the western front, but I am only giving credit where it is due. On a 100 point scale of contribution to the war, I'd have to say the East did 70 points and the West only 30 points. That is where my cherry on the cake comment came from.

 

[BodiSatva]

Originally Posted by LightDemon
I would hardly count WW2 as a war the US was involved in

I think that everybody should just rest their case on this point and be done with LightDemon. What is the point of any further communication if he will not take accountability for such an egregious error? Even worse if he is not even aware of such a ridiculous point of view. In any case, I am not going to give peons like this a moment more than they deserve... :2razz:

 

[Alkaline]

But we haven't called him out on Russia's involvement in the Pacific theatre yet.

 

[Iriemon]

If I may interject. Many crucial raw materials necessary for the manufacture of Russian tanks and planes were supplied by Allied convoys. The US also supplied the Red Army with thousands of American made Jeeps. Since the German army occupied the Crimea region which contained Russia's oil refineries, Allied deliveries of fuel were critical in supporting the Russian offensives.

Don't deny it, the US supplied a bunch of trucks too. However, the vast majority of Russian tanks guns and planes were producec by the SU in factories moved to the Urals.

We had a thread on this subject in the past, I recall it was in the single digits the % of overall military produce supplied by the allies to the Russian effort. No doubt it helpd.

I'm not sure about supplying oil, I don't feel like looking it up so I'll take your word for it. However, the goal of "Operation Blue" in 1942 was for the German army to capture Stalingrad and the Caucasus region which were the SU's major supply of oil. The German campaign failed on both fronts.

I doubt the Russians would have conquered Germany alone without Allied material and intelligence assistence, without the Western front, and without incessant Allied air attacks on German manufacturing and weapons factories.

This is speculation. Who knows. I can make a good argment they would have. Allied air attacks did not significantly affect German production until the latter part of 1944. The Western front was maybe 1/4th the size of the Eastern front in terms of deployed units.

But my point was in response to the contention that major Russian offenses did not happen until after the D-day invasion (June '44) opened a second front. This is a myth we were all taught (in the US) in grade school, particularly during the Cold war when it was not kosher to emphasize Soviet successes. But in fact it is a myth. Russian offenses began with the encirclement and subsequent destruction the the German 6th Army in Stalingrad in Dec '42-Jan '43. After that time, the Russians were on the offensive. The Germans made one last major counterattack at Kursk in July 43, where their panzer units were obliterated. After that, Germany was on the defense.

By the time the Allies hit the beaches in June 44, the Germans had been pushed back many hundreds of miles and the Russians were at the Polish border.

 

[Iriemon]

I think that everybody should just rest their case on this point and be done with LightDemon. What is the point of any further communication if he will not take accountability for such an egregious error? Even worse if he is not even aware of such a ridiculous point of view. In any case, I am not going to give peons like this a moment more than they deserve... :2razz:

I think he did admit his error, #534.

 

[Billo_Really]

Who is this famous Leader?

• Believes his assention to power was a calling from a higher (devine) power.
• Launched un-provoked wars of aggression against two sovereign nations.
• Disagreed with his Generals regarding military tactics.
• Did not listen to others when it came time to make important decisions.

His name is _ _ _ _ _ _!

 

[VTA]

Errr... Nice run and re-run through history, but what the heck does it have to do with America's presence in Iraq today?

Belittling America's involvement in WWII in order to show disdain for today's conflict is disingenuous and cheap.
Next...

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by VTA:
Errr... Nice run and re-run through history, but what the heck does it have to do with America's presence in Iraq today?

Belittling America's involvement in WWII in order to show disdain for today's conflict is disingenuous and cheap.
Next...

Because history seems to be repeating itself. One would think you'd learn from the mistakes of the past. I guess you haven't.

 

[VTA]

Because history seems to be repeating itself. One would think you'd learn from the mistakes of the past. I guess you haven't.

???
Try to point out the parallels between WWII and the current conflict.

It's dissembling, nothing more. The current situation is too current to be fully judged and recognized for what it is in its proper scope, so these tomes of history written and rewritten to fit snugly within the individuals theory, are pointless, as they'll never be able to put into perspective what's going on today.

The great irony is that much of the reason for the current conflict is the need for some to cling to a past that really doesn't affect them in any tangible way. Fighting for someon else's ideal, based on archaic grudges.

 

[Lightdemon]

The original point that I was making, that stemmed into another debate into WW2, was that the interests of the US in Iraq is not to rid the world of Terrorism. That the US is not so righteous as some have made it sound. The purpose of the US army in Iraq is to secure the import of a raw material that is the life blood in the US economic system.

I was trying to refute the claim that the US is trying to create democracy in the Middle East, that is not the intention. I was also trying to refute the idea that the solution to the problem is by conducting ethnic cleansing, or the irradication of Radical Islamists. The ideology is not the origination of the problem. It's the economical and environmental structures that lead to those ideological structures that we have a problem with.

The solution, I think, lies in the structure and organization of the international economy in such a way that it benefits both the US and ME. Obviously bombing the hell out of the ME, is a step away from this, and therefore to me, a step in the wrong direction.

Make sense now VTA?

 

[VTA]

The original point that I was making, that stemmed into another debate into WW2, was that the interests of the US in Iraq is not to rid the world of Terrorism. That the US is not so righteous as some have made it sound. The purpose of the US army in Iraq is to secure the import of a raw material that is the life blood in the US economic system.

I was trying to refute the claim that the US is trying to create democracy in the Middle East, that is not the intention. I was also trying to refute the idea that the solution to the problem is by conducting ethnic cleansing, or the irradication of Radical Islamists. The ideology is not the origination of the problem. It's the economical and environmental structures that lead to those ideological structures that we have a problem with.

The solution, I think, lies in the structure and organization of the international economy in such a way that it benefits both the US and ME. Obviously bombing the hell out of the ME, is a step away from this, and therefore to me, a step in the wrong direction.

Make sense now VTA?

Like I said to Billo, not a very good comparison to the point you've just laid out. And by minimalizing America's involvement, in what is universally known as a great moment in American international relations only cheapens what you've smartly summed up in 2 1/2 paragraphs right now.

I don't agree with you completely, but you've made a good point.
You'd think by putting a stop to terrorism, America would realize they are serving their own business interests. Interests that you've already mentioned they are protecting.

What are the advantages of stopping terrorism? Lives saved, stability and good business. What are the disadvantages of ignoring it? The list can get ponderous...

America is in the Middle East to put an end to the knuckle dragging apes that believe social and global change can be implemented with terrorism as a means of communication. Call it whatever you want, good business or altruism. Either way, minimalizing terrorism can only be a good thing.

 

[BodiSatva]

Originally Posted by BodiSatva
I think that everybody should just rest their case on this point and be done with LightDemon. What is the point of any further communication if he will not take accountability for such an egregious error? Even worse if he is not even aware of such a ridiculous point of view. In any case, I am not going to give peons like this a moment more than they deserve...

Originally Posted by Iriemon
I think he did admit his error, #534. Ummm..No.

Originally Posted by LightDemon
Russia didn't count then? If Russia didn't put up such a fight in the east, Hitler wouldn't have been fighting a 2 front war. Too much credit is given to the western Allies, and not enough to the eastern front. Russia was by far the one who suffered the most casualties, the one that has contributed the most, the one who spent the most. Leningrad, as well as Stalingrad, became obsessions of Hitler because Hitler couldn't destroy them. Russia preoccupied the Germans, which then led the west to victory and glory, leaving themselves out of the picture for some reason...

But let's refer to that list once more. And I'll admit that calling that list ethnocentric was very impolite of me, but I did not misspoke. Impolite...Yes. Inaccurate...No. Any war involving any nation will be ethnocentric. This is simply an understood fact. That list is still ethnocentric, Of course in the context that it assumes that those wars are wars that the US wants to be involved in. And that is the point, you said that the USA stays out of wars and that they sit on the sidelines trying to make a profit. I obviously refuted this idea witha long list of wars that the USA actually engaged in and you have done NOTHING to refute this FACT... Referring back to my statement, I said, the US is known for staying out of wars because that's how they make a lot of profit. AS are MANY countries, stop being so naive...

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 Independance Incorrect, what the hell are you even talking about...Jefferson was a Virginain and he WROTE the Dec of Ind. Washintong was a Southerner as well, stop making stupid statements (you can tell from the penmanship of the signatures). :roll: Britain was the one buying all of their cotton, why would they want to break away from them? It wouldn't make sense to break of ties with Britain. Some...sure, so what? Stop trying to figure out complex ideas...

On the other hand the North needed to break off ties with Britain because of all the taxes on thier products. This distinction is evident because of the different market systems between the North and the South. What actually happened was British troops were sent to both South and North states, but the ones in the South were not fighting American troops, Sure, nothing happened in the South, like Yorktown or Savannah or Charleston? Haha they were fighting Native Americans. They were actually protecting the Southern states.

In the North, we had the French helping us out. By about 1779, French troops have nearly double the size of the US troops in North America. Silly as you might think it sound, but if it wasn't for the French (and it's hatred for the Brits) the US couldn't have won this war. That is debatable And now, let me go back to my statement, if the French had more troops than the US Lets see the numbers...OK? , that means the US contributed less. On the same lines of my statement that the US is hardly a major contributor to WW2, this is what context I'm stating it in. False Assumptions leading to faulty logic And how did it make money of this? Well, I'll defer everyone to the Declaration of Independance, which is essentially just a list of taxes the US refuses to pay (plus a fancy introduction in the front). That is a fairly lame way to look at it...

In WW2, the US have not contributed as nearly as much money as Britain or Russia have. Lets see some figures then... Not nearly the number of soldiers compared to Russia, So? and not nearly as much time as either of those two. In the end, it was Russia who did the most fighting, Incorrect but consequently also who suffered the most, both socially and economically. If you asked me who won the war, I'd say it was actually Russia's defiance against Hitler, not soley responsible for the entire victory of course. Of course this is so obvious, and one of your only concessions...it makes you laughable. It was the 2 fronts that defeated Hitler after all. And there was no Japan after all :roll: But compared to what the US offered, Russia was the one who put thier neck on the line. Shortsighted

But I'll admit to this much, after WW2, the US has changed it's foreign policy as it has become one of the most powerfullest nations in the world. So after WW2, it has become intricately involved in wars, It was before, during, and after WWII which is half that list basically. But beyond WW2 and earlier, expanding territorially was not a problem for US until they reached the pacific and when Mexico wouldn't let them get more than Texas.

And I'll also admit I may have crossed the line when I said the US was hardly involved in WW2, which they were. But not in comparison with the other major players in that war. My bad!

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

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by VTA:
Try to point out the parallels between WWII and the current conflict.

That wasn't my point. I was drawing parallels between two leaders that have no business running a government. Two leaders that have made bad decisions that resulted in the deaths of thousands and thousands of people.

Originally posted by VTA:
It's dissembling, nothing more. The current situation is too current to be fully judged and recognized for what it is in its proper scope, so these tomes of history written and rewritten to fit snugly within the individuals theory, are pointless, as they'll never be able to put into perspective what's going on today.

That's bullshit! The current situation would not be the current situation if we had never attacked. They would not be having a civil war right now if it wasn't for our illegal invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation. Do you not see the carnege we have caused by going into Iraq? Are we a country of irresponsible narcissists?

Originally posted by VTA:
The great irony is that much of the reason for the current conflict is the need for some to cling to a past that really doesn't affect them in any tangible way. Fighting for someon else's ideal, based on archaic grudges.

I don't think that far ahead. Right now, I want to clean my own house first. And I want to clean it with "Impeachment". Then charge that son-of-a-bitch with war crimes and lock his a.s.s up for life without the possibility of parole. And if I could have my way, I would do the same thing to everyone that played a role in supporting this war of aggression.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Ummm....just because I didn't state our activities here and there it doesn't mean I refused there existence. Did I say our troop presence globally was just about embassy duty? "oldreliable" has a nice reply to your implications that states it just right. And Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are what I gave you. Have I ever denied America's sins? You have yet to produce to me what you regard as American supported dictators all over the world. Merely changing your tone from "America's dictators" to "America's not quite a democracy support" won't work here.

Why do you keep giving me links about my profession? Have I not stated enough times of our presence in Chad, Phillipines, Djibouti, etc.? Is your next step to give me a link about the M16A4?

I also find it very deceitful that you enjoy producing only links from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch (as if they matter or really care) that focus on America and no one else. Is America supposed to be perfect as it strives to aid others in the absence of our "friends?" Is it supposed to be able to make the correct decision that pleases everybody all of the time? Even American politicians have to vote favorable on somehting they don't fully aggree on to get a greater good accepted. You might want to check out the sins of others while you try to remain focused on America's imperfection.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/470719-post132.html
http://www.debatepolitics.com/470720-post133.html

Maybee for arguments sake I say I'm wrong. I should have said USA support countries that oppresse their people instead USA support dictators. This wrongdoing can be related to my personally belife that dictators and countries that brutaly oppresse their people instead USA support dictators. But you havn't argued against my post that USA military support countries like Afganisthan, Tadjikistan and SaudArabria.

Also yes I would be very decietful if I argued that USA is the evil country and the EU countries is the moral hereos. But if you go back to the start of this discusion all I have argued is that USA policy of supporting countries that oppresse their people then it's USA allies and atack them then there are opposed to you. Can be seen as business as usual and not as a great new American future of support for democracy. I never said that USA was the only conducting that kind of business.

 

[Billo_Really]

A pre-war report with a crystal ball...

Desert Crossing

[This] ...report forewarned that regime change may cause regional instability by opening the doors to "rival forces bidding for power" which, in turn, could cause societal "fragmentation along religious and/or ethnic lines" and antagonize "aggressive neighbors." Further, the report illuminated worries that secure borders and a restoration of civil order may not be enough to stabilize Iraq if the replacement government were perceived as weak, subservient to outside powers, or out of touch with other regional governments. An exit strategy, the report said, would also be complicated by differing visions for a post-Saddam Iraq among those involved in the conflict.

[This]... report was similarly pessimistic when discussing the nature of a new Iraqi government. If the U.S. were to establish a transitional government, it would likely encounter difficulty, some groups discussed, from a "period of widespread bloodshed in which various factions seek to eliminate their enemies." The report stressed that the creation of a democratic government in Iraq was not feasible, but a new pluralistic Iraqi government which included nationalist leaders might be possible, suggesting that nationalist leaders were a stabilizing force. Moreover, the report suggested that the U.S. role be one in which it would assist Middle Eastern governments in creating the transitional government for Iraq.

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?

 

[Flea]

Originally Posted by Iriemon
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

Not that you are doing this, but I get so tired of hearing how Russia "Beat" Germany. I get tired of people trying to minimize the USA's value during WWII just because they don't like the USA's politics now. It is really ungrateful and dishonest.

If Germany had thrown its full weight against Russia alone, Germany would have prevailed. If Germany had thrown its full weight against anybody alone in the beginning, it would have undoubtedly prevail, but what the USA did WAS contribute more than any other nation in terms of securing WORLDWIDE solution to defeating the Axis Powers.

Russia concentrated itself on ONE FRONT.
The USA was in N. Africa / Europe / The Pacific / S.E. Asia / North Atlantic

Please, to all: Stop trying to devalue the USA for your own revisionist, "I hate America", reasons.

 

[Iriemon]

Originally Posted by Iriemon
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.

Not that you are doing this, but I get so tired of hearing how Russia "Beat" Germany. I get tired of people trying to minimize the USA's value during WWII just because they don't like the USA's politics now. It is really ungrateful and dishonest.

What, exactly, do you contend is "dishonest" about my statement?

If you don't believe my statement is dishonest, what is the point of quoting me and making the statement about being ungrateful and minimizing the US participation in WWII.

What would be the benefit of distorting history of WWII just because the policies of the present administrations are not liked?

If Germany had thrown its full weight against Russia alone, Germany would have prevailed. If Germany had thrown its full weight against anybody alone in the beginning, it would have undoubtedly prevail, but what the USA did WAS contribute more than any other nation in terms of securing WORLDWIDE solution to defeating the Axis Powers.

That is speculation. Germany did throw virtually its full weight against Russia alone in June 1941. At that time it had token forces on the Western Front (no reason to fear an invasion by England) and the African theatre was miniscule compared the Russian front.

I agree that in the Pacific, the US effort was without doubt the primary factor defeating the Japanese, and I think I have said so in this thread.

Russia concentrated itself on ONE FRONT.
The USA was in N. Africa / Europe / The Pacific / S.E. Asia / North Atlantic

This has something to do with what I posted?

Please, to all: Stop trying to devalue the USA for your own revisionist, "I hate America", reasons.

What is your have some basis for claiming either that I am revising history or that I hate America?

 

[VTA]

That wasn't my point. I was drawing parallels between two leaders that have no business running a government. Two leaders that have made bad decisions that resulted in the deaths of thousands and thousands of people.

Then the history of WWII is a poor analogy, and trumps your assertion that the current conflict can be understood by learning lessons from it. There are countless differences between what Hitler tried to accomplish and what America is trying to accomplish. I'm just not soo sure you're interested in hearing them, as they don't fit into a rant.

That's bullshit! The current situation would not be the current situation if we had never attacked. They would not be having a civil war right now if it wasn't for our illegal invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation. Do you not see the carnege we have caused by going into Iraq? Are we a country of irresponsible narcissists?

What? This is in response to my saying that rehashing WWII is dissembling..?

No matter what or when, Iraq was in a constant state of severe prejudicial hate, held together only by the fear of it's dictator. He wasn't going to last forever, his sons were basket cases and as soon as he faltered, Iran would have been in there - Shi'a Iran - and the sectarian violence, civil war, whatever you want to call it, would have been in full effect. And With Iran's long history of hostility towards the U.S., it having more ground to control would only cause troubles for the U.S.

Try to simplify it all you want, ignoring the depth of the struggle, by echoing lame partisan talking points about the current administration and what you think it's about only keeps you from understanding the complete picture.

The whole mess trancends Bush and will continue to it's culmination long after he's out of office, regardless of whatever floppy haired, brilliant smiling politician is in the White House. It trancends partisan politics.

All partisan politics serve to do is to divide Americans and keep them ignorant.

 

[Flea]

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.

This is common misconception. In truth, by the time the Allies landed in France in June 1944, the Russians had already beat the Germans.

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. 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.

There is dishonest that is conscious and and those that are not.

What would be the benefit of distorting history of WWII just because the policies of the present administrations are not liked?

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.

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.