Support for the invasion

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

Hardly, I'm Scottish but congratulations on showing your own bigotry towards a nation of people that have done more for freedom around the world than any other. As a German resident you should be intimately familiar with the benefits of a good American invasion/liberation.

Some things are funny yea.

As an scottish citizen, I wouldn´t have thought that you were affected by a severe case of selective memory as some american people seems to be.

The U.S was not alone in that war (France, UK, and Russia was there as well. As well as Germany was not alone (Italy and Spain were a very friendly neutral country toward the germans)

It was in the best interests of the U.S to stop the germans, and better to do it in Europe than in the U.S. You know less american civilians killed.

Make no mistake, every single country looks for their own interests, to do otherwise would be a treason of the government. But only the U.S tries to tell the rest of the world that they do things out of kindness of heart. Few foreign people believes it.

I generally agree, but the US had the greatest number of people anvolved in either or both theatres to my understanding, and the most amount of capital invested. If that's incorrect, please illustrate.

The question is, would the rest of the world have been able to organize an effort against Japan and Germany... oh ya, Italy (smirk) too?

Interesting factoid, Italy wa sthe first country to declare war against the US in, I think 42. I think we did them by lunch . Actually I think the 442nd, comprised entirely of Japanese-Americans who were interned in the US, 110,000 of them, took care of most of Italy. But we won't talk about the US imprisoning their own and then those prisoners paying back the US by helping to save our ass. American policy and politics sucked back then too.

I think not, I think the rest of the world would have sucombed to Germany and Japan w/o the US, so I do believe the US did save the world, but since then our record has tarnished greatly.

The U.S was not alone in that war (France, UK, and Russia was there as well. As well as Germany was not alone (Italy and Spain were a very friendly neutral country toward the germans)



Italy was an ally to Germany in that war. I'm not sure of Spain's involvement, but Italy was an enemy of the US allied forces.

Make no mistake, every single country looks for their own interests, to do otherwise would be a treason of the government. But only the U.S tries to tell the rest of the world that they do things out of kindness of heart. Few foreign people believes it.


Totally agree. How did the US fuck up such great status we earned after WWII? The greatest generation...... yes. Now, the oppressive government....yes.

[kallend 2,027]

In WWII the USSR did more to destroy the Nazis than all other nations combined. The "US saved the world" story is a Hollywood myth.

If Britain hadn't held in 1940, Nazi Germany would have won.

If the USSR hadn't held in 1941 and 1942, Nazi Germany would have won.

No disputing the US destroyed Japan.

In any case, allies are always good to have. Denigrating the role of your allies is stupid.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

In WWII the USSR did more to destroy the Nazis than all other nations combined. The "US saved the world" story is a Hollywood myth.

If Britain hadn't held in 1940, Nazi Germany would have won.

If the USSR hadn't held in 1941 and 1942, Nazi Germany would have won.

No disputing the US destroyed Japan.

In any case, allies are always good to have. Denigrating the role of your allies is stupid.

What are ya gonna say next: we didn't really land on the moon

No, I agree that Russia did the most to kick Germany's ass. I was just saying that we dedicated the most to the entire effort. Could we have won alone, in both theatres? Maybe, possibly not. Could the rest of the world defeated both of them w/o us? No way. Hey, you know I'm not a big fan of US policy and politics, I'm just calling it the way I see it.

In any case, allies are always good to have. Denigrating the role of your allies is stupid.


Absolutley, and in no way was I doing that or even undermining their importance.

[jimbarry 0]

Quote

- ...knowing that SH had WMD for quite some time in the past,

OK, and they were never found and the Whote House has admited there were none. So that's wrong.

You're confusing 'never had them' with 'gone now'. Ask the Kurds if SH ever used chem on them. SH agreed to prove he got rid of them. He had 12 years. He didn't. He guessed UN bribes would keep us off his back. He guessed wrong.

Quote

War is always a bad solution, but it's the right choice when you're convinced doing nothing will eventually be worse.

And there's only 2 options?

There are always lots of options. But when it comes to war, there are only two. You either go to war or you don't. And you should if you're convinced that the alternative is worse.

Quote

There are several, but the untelligent thing to ask is why Arabs/Muslims don't like us.

They don't like us because keeping the masses focused on an external enemy keep their minds off oppression at home. And no, the same argument being redirected at us is cute but doesn't wash.

Quote

Quit defending Israel.

Israel doesn't have the right to exist? The arab world had plenty of opportunities to take care of palestinians. It's just in the arab world's best interest to keep them oppressed and blame israel.

[jimbarry 0]

>>...never proving he got rid of them,
>because we yanked the inspectors before
>they could finish looking for them

12 years he failed to prove it, and threw every roadblock he could. But somehow we were able to do this in less than 2?

The war is SH's fault, no one else's.

Main point is that it wasn't the inspectors' job to look for weapons; that would be impossible. Rather, it was only their job to verify their destruction.

>speaking from personal experience.....

No disrespect to your personal experience. But what if during the oak assault you found yourself losing. Maybe too late to go for the gun?

I wish no ill will on anyone who doesn't bring it on themselves, but if someone breaks into my house, I'm aiming center mass.

>ITS CALLED SELF PROTECTION!!!!!!!

Nothing wrong with that. Nations have a right to defend themselves. But what if your 9mm is used against an innocent family member? Like when SH chem'd the Kurds? Was that self-protection?

At that point, shouldn't the unconventional weapons be taken away? Like the UN, US Dems, US Reps, and our allies around the world agreed should happen?

>against assholes that want to inflict their
>beliefs, laws and morals on you.

The idea of Iraqi liberation is to let the people decide how they want their society to be, not for a dictator to decide, nor for the US to decide. Shoot, if we wanted to inflict our society onto theirs it would've already happened years ago.

>>something they forgot to put in the bible....

And on that, I agree. People should be free to live and shape their society as they see fit.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

And there's only 2 options? There are several, but the untelligent thing to ask is why Arabs/Muslims don't like us. Could ir be our involvement with Israel? Could it be our proactive involvement with them to the point we protect their hell-raising in the region? I think so. 3rd option: Quit defending Israel.

There's a message the US wants to send to the world - be assholes long enough and we'll sell out our closest allies.

[Botellines 0]

Quote

There's a message the US wants to send to the world - be assholes long enough and we'll sell out our closest allies.

Actually I think the messages goes like this: "Have nuclear power or we will do with your country, people and natural resources as we see fit".

And i think Iran and North Korea got the message quite well.

[jimbarry 0]

Quote

There's a message the US wants to send to the world - be assholes long enough and we'll sell out our closest allies.

One could say that the business deals and 10+ figure contracts France, Germany, and Russia had with SH's Iraq caused them to soften their stance on his disarmament, hence selling *us* out, along with selling out the oppressed Kurds and southern Shiites, many slaughtered by SH after the first gulf war.

You can say the US was in this for oil (although we haven't stolen any of it in 14 years), but many defenders of SH were doing so for oil too. Thanks a lot "allies".

[jimbarry 0]

Quote

Actually I think the messages goes like this: "Have nuclear power or we will do with your country, people and natural resources as we see fit".

If you threaten us, your region, and the world. Yes.

[TheAnvil 0]

I think you should take a closer look at the strategic and tactical problems the US would encounter mounting an invasion of either Iran or North Korea and re-evaluate that statement.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[MC208B 0]

Yes I have changed my mind. I support GWB but am oppossed to this fiasco in Iraq.

[rhys 0]

i think you yanks are arrogant for thinking you have the right to invade a country(against the will of the united nations) because you don't like the way they do things!

thats is not the reason iraq was invaded anyway that is just the brainwashing process that was involved in getting the (redneck warmonging)voters approval! the main reason was a particular pipeline that carries a particular black gold. which shouldn't be in such demand because alternitave energies are available but not utlised.

i don't like the way the u.s. manages itself. the poor civilians are brainwashed into thinking that drinking 2 litres of coke to wash down 2 1/4 pounders is o.k., the poor u.s. civilians are also subjected to mass pollution because they are brainwashed into thinking big cars are nessecary to drop the kids off to school. i don't like they way the u.s. does things i think the civilians are suffering so i think i should invade the u.s.

if the reasoning behind the u.s. attacks were legitimate then a mass invasion of the u.s. would be legitimate as well.

arrogant fucks.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[jimbarry 0]

Quote

you have the right to invade a country because you don't like the way they do things!

Not even close. But if oversimplifying the situation far beyond facts and history keep you bashing the US, then have your fun.

Quote

(against the will of the united nations)

The will of the UN was for Iraq to disarm. But you prefer dictators with WMD to a democracy where all participate in guiding their own society? Eh, to each their own.

To jump on your bandwagon, you must also ignore the bias of the UN from the bribes taken at the top levels to keep the heat off SH.

Quote

the main reason was a particular pipeline that carries a particular black gold.

And oil was also the reason why the UN, France, Germany, and Russia were against military action.

Quote

2 litres of coke to wash down 2 1/4 pounders
...
big cars are nessecary to drop the kids off to school.

Unhealthy eating is one thing that's killing the US from within. Something that's being worked on. No society is perfect. But to you this is worthy of a military invasion? Whatever.

[justinb138 0]

Quote

i think you yanks are arrogant for thinking you have the right to invade a country(against the will of the united nations) because you don't like the way they do things!

Against the will of the UN? Tell me, how many UN resolutions was SH complying with? The UN sure as hell wasn't going to to anything about it (except the whole oil-for-food scandal thing).

Quote

i don't like the way the u.s. manages itself.

Good for you. I, like many others, don't give a shit what you think.

Quote

i don't like they way the u.s. does things i think the civilians are suffering so i think i should invade the u.s.

Good luck. You'll need it.

[TheAnvil 0]

You haven't really read a lot about the U.S. or its foreign policy, have you?

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[Botellines 0]

Quote

If you threaten us, your region, and the world. Yes.

That is very... macho, so to speak, but it just is not true.

With all the military might the U.S has, the U.S is still Saudi Arab´s bitch. Most of the WTC hijackers comes from that country, still you guys are best buddies with them.
You know, there is so many countries that pose a threat to your country, but the U.S always goes to the easy pick. Regarding WMD, Iran and North Korea are much more dangerous than Irak, but the U.S is showing an endless patient. Why?

[Botellines 0]

Quote

I think you should take a closer look at the strategic and tactical problems the US would encounter mounting an invasion of either Iran or North Korea and re-evaluate that statement.

So now the opponent in a war is not chosen by who attacks you or poses a threat but among the easiest picks. Nice, and you wonder why Iran is looking at nuclear power so stubornly.

[Skyrad 0]

Yea, but don't hold back now Rhyso, what do you REALLY think?

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Skyrad 0]

The majority of troops who landed on the D-Day beaches were from Great Britain, Canada and the US. However, troops from many other countries participated in D-Day and the Battle of Normandy, in all the different armed services: Australia, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, France, Greece, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway and Poland.


How many Allied troops were involved in D-Day?

On D-Day, the Allies landed around 156,000 troops in Normandy. The American forces landed numbered 73,000: 23,250 on Utah Beach, 34,250 on Omaha Beach, and 15,500 airborne troops. In the British and Canadian sector, 83,115 troops were landed: 24,970 on Gold Beach, 21,400 on Juno Beach, 28,845 on Sword Beach, and 7900 airborne troops.

Don't forget the ANZACs! Not to mention the soldiers from all around the Britsh Empire from India to the West Indies.

NO one country won the second world war and only Dangermouse and James Bond ever saved the world!

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[jimbarry 0]

Quote

Regarding WMD, Iran and North Korea are much more dangerous than Irak, but the U.S is showing an endless patient. Why?

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should, and just because you should do something doesn't mean you can.

So again, it seems you prefer a dictator with a history of wmd, to a democracy where the people control their lives and future. Sweet.

[TheAnvil 0]

Like I said....

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[rhys 0]

you said"Not even close. But if oversimplifying the situation far beyond facts and history keep you bashing the US, then have your fun."

um is over simplifying the situation to the u.s. carpet bombing civilians and destroying their country, killing and maiming women, children and men. mothers, sons, daughters and fathers to get rid of one person? so let me see how can you get rid of one person and minimise casualties by carpet bombing? um i don't think you can.

military intelligence is an oxy'moron'

you said"The will of the UN was for Iraq to disarm. But you prefer dictators with WMD to a democracy where all participate in guiding their own society? Eh, to each their own."

the united nations would probably like the u.s. to disarm also not kill innocent people. miliary force is not the only way to deal with a problem. do you fight to deal with your problems? if you do then i suggest an anger management program.

so "WHO'S GOT THE BOMB?" hypocrite.

you said"And oil was also the reason why the UN, France, Germany, and Russia were against military action."

so there is a race for the oil eh. check www.oilcrash.com

you said"Unhealthy eating is one thing that's killing the US from within. Something that's being worked on. No society is perfect. But to you this is worthy of a military invasion? Whatever. "

i don't think anything is worth a military invasion, i was being sarcastic if you didn't get it i meant that every country has it;s problems others can decide to 'help' but it does not give anyone the right to invade as the u.s. did

do you not think the obesty problem is due to similar brainwashing from fast food giants?

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[rhys 0]

you said "Against the will of the UN? Tell me, how many UN resolutions was SH complying with? The UN sure as hell wasn't going to to anything about it (except the whole oil-for-food scandal thing)."

oh so two wrongs do make a right?

you said " Good for you. I, like many others, don't give a shit what you think."

so why bother replying my comments and do you speak for more than yourself?

you said " Good luck. You'll need it."

if you didn't get the sarcasm i was making an example of the u.s. idea of reasoning

it seems to me that you condone murder because that is exactly what all those unessecary deaths were!

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

i don't think anything is worth a military invasion, i was being sarcastic if you didn't get it i meant that every country has it;s problems others can decide to 'help' but it does not give anyone the right to invade as the u.s. did

do you not think the obesty problem is due to similar brainwashing from fast food giants?

You need to forget this notion about war being good or bad, legitimate or legal or not. War is typically a bigger party imposing its will on a smaller one. Been around a long time, won't stop for an artificial entity like the UN.

Obesity is showing up all around the world, as prosperity spreads, and fewer people need to do manual labor to survive. Australia is apparently in as bad a shape as the US, and heart disease has been growing rapidly in Asia as people discover fast food and the tastiness of beef.

[shropshire 0]

Come, come Rhys, surely you cann't slam/invade a whole nation based upon the actions of a few mad men..... ()

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome