[DRB]

Originally posted by fluff
Well clearly despite reading it you completely missed the point.

DT mentioned Poland and France in the context of the US saving their asses. Clearly the US did nothing to prevent the German invasion of Poland (or France).

That was the point of the post, that the US are being portrayed (almost, if not entirely, by US posters) as saviours of the free world when that is not the case and certainly not in the specific examples used.

Why and how the situation arose had nothing to do with the point. The point was that the US did not do what DT implied they did. End of story.

Clear enough?

You are right the US did not help Poland during WWII nor did anyone else, again as you pointed out, except for the USSR. And we all know how that help came. That is obvious and didn't think needed any comments. You made that point very well and accurate that DT was wrong about Poland.

But he was only wrong about Poland. The US help for France is painfully obvious in the numerous military cemeteries that dot the French countryside. It is also obvious in the military supplies that the US provided to the England from 1939 until the US entry in 1941. All of which was done at great political peril by Roosevelt.

Again you made some effort to point out the English and French "immediate" reaction to the German invasion of Poland for some reason. So I commented on that "immediate" reaction, putting it into context. It wasn't some noble act but the only move left.

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by valve bouncer
Sure America could go it alone for a while but I honestly can't think of anything much positive that would come from American disengagement with the rest of the world, especially for Americans. You're the biggest, toughest kid on the block, no doubt or arguement, and it's nice to have you around most of the time but you're still just one of many. Having a "well if you don't like it I'll take my bat and ball and go home" attitude doesn't do anyone any good.

You are correct. But I'll modify it a bit. I think the attitude that gets us in trouble is "I don't care what the rules are. I got the bat so we are going to play by my rules."

For me personally, I get bothered by ALL of the self interests that are countries are serving with the various stances taken on Iraq. All of which pretty much revolve around oil. I wish that it would be more about non violence, human rights and WMD for everyone involved.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by DRB
You are right the US did not help Poland during WWII nor did anyone else, again as you pointed out, except for the USSR. And we all know how that help came. That is obvious and didn't think needed any comments. You made that point very well and accurate that DT was wrong about Poland.

But he was only wrong about Poland. The US help for France is painfully obvious in the numerous military cemeteries that dot the French countryside. It is also obvious in the military supplies that the US provided to the England from 1939 until the US entry in 1941. All of which was done at great political peril by Roosevelt.

Again you made some effort to point out the English and French "immediate" reaction to the German invasion of Poland for some reason. So I commented on that "immediate" reaction, putting it into context. It wasn't some noble act but the only move left.

I'd have to say that 48 hours is fairly immediate when it comes to a declaration of war. Given that immediate is not an absolute term.

Not only was the military aid to Britain at such terrible political peril but also at a cost. In fact we're still paying for it. Also very noble, eh?

Somehow I'd always like to see war as the last resort.

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by fluff
I'd have to say that 48 hours is fairly immediate when it comes to a declaration of war. Given that immediate is not an absolute term.

Not only was the military aid to Britain at such terrible political peril but also at a cost. In fact we're still paying for it. Also very noble, eh?

Somehow I'd always like to see war as the last resort.

Okay fine. But don't forget its a pretty well accepted fact that if he had started to pull out or at least stopped his advances, France and England would not have declared war. But immediate is subjective and will let it drop.

As for the cost of that military aid, what costs are you still paying? Was it worth it or not? In total the US dolled out in the neighborhood of 50 billion in materials and cash thru Lend Lease (that's 1940's money) and received less than 10 billion (adjusted for 1940's) in payments in return (that includes the value on the leases of the British military bases).

You have hit the nail on the head about war being the last resort. I could not agree more. When it was me on the tip of the sword it was amazing how far away I wanted that last resort to be. But the problem becomes when is that last resort met? That's very subjective and hard to judge. I mean reasonable, if not naive, folks in the 1930's thought that everything up to the invasion of Poland didn't cause the last resort. Large numbers even thought that the invasion of Poland still didn't meet the criteria. However, in hindsight many see that as a mistake.

So it is reasonable that folks see where the line of last resort is differently. Everyone thinks they are right and some of that comes from an unwillness to put themselves on the other side. (I'm not saying that you haven't). But looking at this from a different perspective certainly can't hurt anyone.

 

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by fluff
I'd have to say that 48 hours is fairly immediate when it comes to a declaration of war. Given that immediate is not an absolute term.

Not only was the military aid to Britain at such terrible political peril but also at a cost. In fact we're still paying for it. Also very noble, eh?

Somehow I'd always like to see war as the last resort.

I would also like to see war as a last resort.

As far as nobility is concerned I feel pretty good about what my country did in the days leading up to our entry into WW2. Do you suggest we just give arms and medicine to a rich and powerful country like England? Things have a cost.

I'm going to be London in July. What would you suggest as a must see section of England that most tourists miss out on?

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by DRB
Okay fine. But don't forget its a pretty well accepted fact that if he had started to pull out or at least stopped his advances, France and England would not have declared war. But immediate is subjective and will let it drop.

As for the cost of that military aid, what costs are you still paying? Was it worth it or not? In total the US dolled out in the neighborhood of 50 billion in materials and cash thru Lend Lease (that's 1940's money) and received less than 10 billion (adjusted for 1940's) in payments in return (that includes the value on the leases of the British military bases).

You have hit the nail on the head about war being the last resort. I could not agree more. When it was me on the tip of the sword it was amazing how far away I wanted that last resort to be. But the problem becomes when is that last resort met? That's very subjective and hard to judge. I mean reasonable, if not naive, folks in the 1930's thought that everything up to the invasion of Poland didn't cause the last resort. Large numbers even thought that the invasion of Poland still didn't meet the criteria. However, in hindsight many see that as a mistake.

So it is reasonable that folks see where the line of last resort is differently. Everyone thinks they are right and some of that comes from an unwillness to put themselves on the other side. (I'm not saying that you haven't). But looking at this from a different perspective certainly can't hurt anyone.

Yup, it's a sad fact that sometimes it's impossible to tell. One problem is that if we invade Iraq today we may never know whether there was a genuine threat, and therefore whether those who would die really needed to. Of course, as you say, the flip side is that if the threat is real we can only know once Saddam has done something horrific.

My personal leaning morally is that I would not support an attack unless I truly knew the threat was genuine and immediate, which of course means I would either need first hand knowledge of the threat (which I'm unlikely to receive from any source) or Saddam would have to take action that showed he does indeed have weapons of mass destruction. In some peoples' eyes that would make me an appeaser or a bleeding heart liberal. If I were to take the other path some would see me as a warmonger.

It's certainly not black and white.

 

[Damn True]

Originally posted by fluff
I just think we need a bit more clarity in the debate. The US is serving its own interest and making the world a more stable place in its own image.

The USSR shut down the Polish camps. The Poles still don't like them much though. They have little affection for the British or US either. In fact I'm not sure they like anyone much!

What did the US do?

Chelemno, Treblinka, Sobibor, Majdanek, Belzec, Auschwitz. All inside Poland.

Yeah, we were only serving our own iterests.

Somehow I doubt the people in those camps would see it the same way. Far better to have a country turned over to the Eastern Bloc than to remain a part of the Third Reich.

 

[Damn True]

Originally posted by fluff
Well clearly despite reading it you completely missed the point.

DT mentioned Poland and France in the context of the US saving their asses. Clearly the US did nothing to prevent the German invasion of Poland (or France).

That was the point of the post, that the US are being portrayed (almost, if not entirely, by US posters) as saviours of the free world when that is not the case and certainly not in the specific examples used.

Why and how the situation arose had nothing to do with the point. The point was that the US did not do what DT implied they did. End of story.

Clear enough?

Wrong.
We bailed out France, twice. We bailed out the UK as well. Had we not entered the war you would have been able to walk to France on the backs of German U-boats and destroyed Brit shipping.

Funny the way people from the countries we have bailed out like to think that we had nothing to do with the fact that they are not the smallest f'n province of the Third Reich. If we had not enterd the war Hitler would have been a$$ raping the Queen by the middle of 1943 and the Tour de France would end at the Rou de la Adolf.

 

[Damn True]

Originally posted by fluff
Yup, it's a sad fact that sometimes it's impossible to tell. One problem is that if we invade Iraq today we may never know whether there was a genuine threat, and therefore whether those who would die really needed to. Of course, as you say, the flip side is that if the threat is real we can only know once Saddam has done something horrific.

My personal leaning morally is that I would not support an attack unless I truly knew the threat was genuine and immediate, which of course means I would either need first hand knowledge of the threat (which I'm unlikely to receive from any source) or Saddam would have to take action that showed he does indeed have weapons of mass destruction. In some peoples' eyes that would make me an appeaser or a bleeding heart liberal. If I were to take the other path some would see me as a warmonger.

It's certainly not black and white.

I too agree that war should be the last resort. We however disagree on what constitutes the "last straw". Id rather not wait for a release of V-x gas in the London Underground for proof. Sadam claims he dosen't have chemical weapons. Yet he went on TV all over the world and said that he "authorized the use of chemical weapons if the U.S. invades his country."

Wait, I thought he didn't have them?

There is a clear alliance, despite philosophical differences, between the Hussein regime and terrorist organizations. There is a means, there is a motive. I'd rather not wait for the next step before we remove the regime and get rid of the weapons.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by Damn True
Wrong.
We bailed out France, twice. We bailed out the UK as well. Had we not entered the war you would have been able to walk to France on the backs of German U-boats and destroyed Brit shipping.

Funny the way people from the countries we have bailed out like to think that we had nothing to do with the fact that they are not the smallest f'n province of the Third Reich. If we had not enterd the war Hitler would have been a$$ raping the Queen by the middle of 1943 and the Tour de France would end at the Rou de la Adolf.

What a completely pointless post..

Tell me DT, do you possess some omniscient power that enables you to see alternative reality or are you simply stating supposition as fact?

Neither you nor I have any knowledge of what would have happened had the US not entered either of the two world wars so there really is no point in pursuing this train of thought.

And (as I seem to have to point far too often) the US entered the war for its own interests & benefits and not through some philanthropic desire to save European culture so please desist with the 'we bailed everyone out' delusions.

Charming comment about the queen (not that I hold royalty in any great esteem myself). Historically flawed as she was but a princess until 1952 and it still adds nothing to the discussion.

Funny how Europe survived for centuries without US intervention and even managed to stop Napolean making everyone eat snails whilst he performed unspeakable acts on other heads of state.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by Damn True
I too agree that war should be the last resort. We however disagree on what constitutes the "last straw". Id rather not wait for a release of V-x gas in the London Underground for proof. Sadam claims he dosen't have chemical weapons. Yet he went on TV all over the world and said that he "authorized the use of chemical weapons if the U.S. invades his country."

Wait, I thought he didn't have them?

There is a clear alliance, despite philosophical differences, between the Hussein regime and terrorist organizations. There is a means, there is a motive. I'd rather not wait for the next step before we remove the regime and get rid of the weapons.

I'd certainly like to see Saddam Hussein gone from power but I baulk at the prospect of killing innocent people simply because he has the means and the motive. Doesn't seem like justice to me.

Authorising the use of weapons if you are invaded is not the same as releasing them on the London Underground (which, given the state of the trains is probably not a lot safer without the gas anyway).

 

[llkoolkeg]

...save the day, bear in mind that long before we officially declared war and sent our own troops overseas, we propped up the allies immeasurably with MASSIVE merchant marine shipments of material on an armada of Liberty Ships. Guns, tanks, planes, ammunition, hospital supplies, food, etc. Without the industrial might(not to mention the indomitable will) of the US, the world would be a much different place now.

How soon they forget if in fact they ever knew.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by llkoolkeg
...save the day, bear in mind that long before we officially declared war and sent our own troops overseas, we propped up the allies immeasurably with MASSIVE merchant marine shipments of material on an armada of Liberty Ships. Guns, tanks, planes, ammunition, hospital supplies, food, etc. Without the industrial might(not to mention the indomitable will) of the US, the world would be a much different place now.

How soon they forget if in fact they ever knew.

Yawn!

And I think as a previous poster mentioned...

Unless Britain had continued to fight there wouldn't have been a world for the US to save. Etc.

And of course the USSR had nothing to do with it either.

Can we leave the chest-beating behind now?

 

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by fluff


Can we leave the chest-beating behind now?

No.

Jackass.

 

[llkoolkeg]

Originally posted by fluff
Yawn!

And I think as a previous poster mentioned...

Unless Britain had continued to fight there wouldn't have been a world for the US to save. Etc.

And of course the USSR had nothing to do with it either.

Can we leave the chest-beating behind now?

...your cities were being bombed. What was your alternative to continuing to fight- turn the other ass-cheek for Hitler to smack his dick on like the French did? Now don't get me wrong, I have no beef with Britain, but expecting applause for self-preservation is like calling people "heroes" for dialing 911 on their cell phones while they are being chased by the rapist. Without US help, Britain would have been overrun like a porta-john at a chili cookoff.

The USSR was also being invaded by Hitler. Should they have just rolled over too?

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by llkoolkeg
...your cities were being bombed. What was your alternative to continuing to fight- turn the other ass-cheek for Hitler to smack his dick on like the French did? Now don't get me wrong, I have no beef with Britain, but expecting applause for self-preservation is like calling people "heroes" for dialing 911 on their cell phones while they are being chased by the rapist. Without US help, Britain would have been overrun like a porta-john at a chili cookoff.

The USSR was also being invaded by Hitler. Should they have just rolled over too?

Is there any point to this? There were other alternatives.

If you want a debate on the second worlld war perhaps it belongs in another thread?

 

[llkoolkeg]

Originally posted by fluff
Is there any point to this? There were other alternatives.

If you want a debate on the second worlld war perhaps it belongs in another thread?

Other than divine providence, you GOT the best alternative. Who else was lining up to help and had the deeds to back up the words?

I don't seek to debate but to correct contemporary myths and rewrites based on actual events that people still living can attest to. At least your elders were slightly more respectful, except where your women were concerned.

 

[SandMan]

Originally posted by Damn True
I too agree that war should be the last resort. We however disagree on what constitutes the "last straw". Id rather not wait for a release of V-x gas in the London Underground for proof. Sadam claims he dosen't have chemical weapons. Yet he went on TV all over the world and said that he "authorized the use of chemical weapons if the U.S. invades his country."

Is there proof that the terrorists that would release the gas have a connection with Saddam? I am just curious, all the Al qeada threat has been blamed on Saddam now, as reason for invading. Let the inspections run there course, if there is weapons of mass destruction, then the UN can deal with it.

Yes there have been 12 years without any inspections, but now we are inspection Iraq like never before. Let the inspections continue, if they find something, then we take action. What bothers me most about this whole situation is the rush to war.

 

[Espen]

Thats wery true Sandman.

 

[mrbigisbudgood]

Originally posted by SandMan
What bothers me most about this whole situation is the rush to war.

12 years.......Saddam has had 12 years to disarm.

How is 12 years rushing?

Just because Clinton wasn't forcing the issue and Bush actually is, it's rushing to war?

How long should we wait? Until he does something? I would think the Europeans should be the people that want something done!!!!!!

 

[SandMan]

Originally posted by mrbigisbudgood
12 years.......Saddam has had 12 years to disarm.

How is 12 years rushing?

Just because Clinton wasn't forcing the issue and Bush actually is, it's rushing to war?

How long should we wait? Until he does something? I would think the Europeans should be the people that want something done!!!!!!

The problem is that only now do we really have any affective inspections, yes maybe Clinton ignored the problem, but is that any justafication for the rush. Now that we have inspections, let them at least finish inspecting.

Also since the US has so much information on Iraqi weapons, they can feed the information to the inspectors which will speed up the process.

 

[Tenchiro]

This was in the news today;

Powell Ties 'bin Laden' Message to Iraq

By BARRY SCHWEID, AP Diplomatic Writer

WASHINGTON - Secretary of State Colin Powell told a Senate panel Tuesday that what appears to be a new statement from Osama bin Laden shows why the world needs to be concerned about Iraqi ties to terrorism.

Powell said he read a transcript of "what bin Laden — or who we believe to be bin Laden" will be saying on the Al-Jazeera Arab satellite station later Tuesday, "where once again he speaks to the people of Iraq and talks about their struggle and how he is in partnership with Iraq."

But Al-Jazeera chief editor Ibrahim Hilal told The Associated Press his station has no such tape. And Powell, when asked by a reporter to comment on the station's denial, declined to do so.

"Be patient, it's coming," Powell said.

This really strikes me as odd, the fact that the US knows what is going to be broadcast on AL-Jazeera before even they do. It also seems like the timing is just too good like it was released to bolster support for the US attack...

I dunno, maybe I am just paranoid...

 

[Eddie420]

Originally posted by Tenchiro
This was in the news today;


I dunno, maybe I am just paranoid...

On that note(bit off topic) have you seen Bowling for Columbine, I saw it today, interesting...

 

[Damn True]

Originally posted by fluff
What a completely pointless post..

Tell me DT, do you possess some omniscient power that enables you to see alternative reality or are you simply stating supposition as fact?

Neither you nor I have any knowledge of what would have happened had the US not entered either of the two world wars so there really is no point in pursuing this train of thought.

And (as I seem to have to point far too often) the US entered the war for its own interests & benefits and not through some philanthropic desire to save European culture so please desist with the 'we bailed everyone out' delusions.

Charming comment about the queen (not that I hold royalty in any great esteem myself). Historically flawed as she was but a princess until 1952 and it still adds nothing to the discussion.

Funny how Europe survived for centuries without US intervention and even managed to stop Napolean making everyone eat snails whilst he performed unspeakable acts on other heads of state.

Good lord, could you be any more deluded?
Lets see: V-2's dropping like rain on London and you had no means of stopping them. Unless the US took out the launch sites.
The Luftwaffe filling the skies with bombers and you had no means to stop them. Until US pilots kicked their ass. and US bombers took out their bases and supply lines.
Your dinky little island surrounded by U-boats and you had no means to stop them. Until the US gave you ships to replace that which you had already lost and sent our own Navy to do what yours could not.

Granted the UK military fought valiantly all over the theatre of war including North Africa, France and in your own skies. But more often than not you were grossly overmatched by numbers and technology. Your RAF did an amazing job, but they were on their last legs. Montgomery was good, but not good enough w/o the additional threat of Patton's troops to split the German defense.
You would have lasted a while.
You could not have triumphed. Sorry.

As for the Queen, I was talking about Churchill. You've heard the rumors too.

 

[Damn True]

Originally posted by SandMan
Is there proof that the terrorists that would release the gas have a connection with Saddam? I am just curious, all the Al qeada threat has been blamed on Saddam now, as reason for invading. Let the inspections run there course, if there is weapons of mass destruction, then the UN can deal with it.

Yes there have been 12 years without any inspections, but now we are inspection Iraq like never before. Let the inspections continue, if they find something, then we take action. What bothers me most about this whole situation is the rush to war.

We know he has the stuff.
We know he has the menas to deploy it.
He has said publicly that he would use it.
He has used it against his own people, he wouldn't hesitiate to use it against others.
There is a clear connection between he and terroroist organizations.

Shall w wait until there is another even equal to 9/11? Do we have to way until it happens where you live?

 

[SandMan]

Originally posted by Damn True
We know he has the stuff.
We know he has the menas to deploy it.
He has said publicly that he would use it.
He has used it against his own people, he wouldn't hesitiate to use it against others.
There is a clear connection between he and terroroist organizations.

Shall w wait until there is another even equal to 9/11? Do we have to way until it happens where you live?

Then what about the North Korea threats? The US has a very different policy with them, don't they?

 

[Damn True]

Originally posted by SandMan
Then what about the North Korea threats? The US has a very different policy with them, don't they?

These are two separate diplomatic timelines, we are much further along that line with Saddam than we are with Kim Il-Jong(sp?).

 

[SandMan]

Originally posted by Damn True
These are two separate diplomatic timelines, we are much further along that line with Saddam than we are with Kim Il-Jong(sp?).

I guess the Iraqi timeline must have been pre-planned. But don't you think that with the open threats that North Korea makes, the timeline should be changed? I would worry more about them.

 

[Damn True]

Originally posted by SandMan
I guess the Iraqi timeline must have been pre-planned. But don't you think that with the open threats that North Korea makes, the timeline should be changed? I would worry more about them.

Well don't worry your little Canadian self about it. We'll take care of this one too.

Again.

 

[SandMan]

Originally posted by Damn True
Well don't worry your little Canadian self about it. We'll take care of this one too.

Again.

I find it funny what people write, once they have run out of valid arguments.

 

[mrbigisbudgood]

Originally posted by SandMan
I find it funny what people write, once they have run out of valid arguments.

Sometimes, the truth can be spoken in few words.

I don't think DT needed to say anything more.

 

[rbx]

the thing that bugs me is that saddams army is composed of over 240 000 soldiers and they are stationed in bagdad were 4.8 millions citizen live,even with smart bombs i am affraid that alot of the casualities will be civilians!!
(i am no weapons expert maybe there is a way we can do this without killing alot innocent people!!?? )

 

[N8 v2.0]

Originally posted by rbx
the thing that bugs me is that saddams army is composed of over 240 000 soldiers and they are stationed in bagdad were 4.8 millions citizen live,even with smart bombs i am affraid that alot of the casualities will be civilians!!
(i am no weapons expert maybe there is a way we can do this without killing alot innocent people!!?? )

It is Saddam's desire that we kill silly-vilians...

Some will perish... some will be dismembered... some will live...

Can't make an omlete without breaking some eggs...

 

[N8 v2.0]

Originally posted by rbx

(i am no weapons expert maybe there is a way we can do this without killing alot innocent people!!?? )

..oop... did I read the word "WE" in there???

I had no idea that this was a Canadian led operation... LOL!



I like how it is WE all of a sudden.... hahahahaha

 

[Damn True]

It'll be "we" when it's over.
But now and when the dirty work is being done it is "you".

 

[rbx]

Originally posted by N8



It is Saddam's desire that we kill silly-vilians...

Some will perish... some will be dismembered... some will live...

Can't make an omlete without breaking some eggs...

agree N8 that there will always be civilians casualities in a war,but at which point do we say "that there will be to much civilian casualities for the result we are trying to obtain"?
Not to let saddam do whatever he wants but there must be a middle road solution that will get saddam out of power and that doesnt involve killing alot of civillians.

 

[valve bouncer]

Originally posted by N8



It is Saddam's desire that we kill silly-vilians...

Some will perish... some will be dismembered... some will live...

Can't make an omlete without breaking some eggs...

I read somewhere today that 1 in every 200 people on the planet is a descendant of Genghis Khan. I'm sure he'd be proud of you
You're certainly right about your omlettes but you'd hope that eggs wouldn't be wasted un-necessarily.

 

[rbx]

Originally posted by Damn True
It'll be "we" when it's over.
But now and when the dirty work is being done it is "you".

relax just a french canadian still learning his english
(boy you guys dont let anything slip by )

 

[SandMan]

Originally posted by N8
..oop... did I read the word "WE" in there???

I had no idea that this was a Canadian led operation... LOL!



I like how it is WE all of a sudden.... hahahahaha

You are correct. We would not like get attacked by Al qaeda as revenge either.

 

[Damn True]

Originally posted by rbx
agree N8 that there will always be civilians casualities in a war,but at which point do we say "that there will be to much civilian casualities for the result we are trying to obtain"?
Not to let saddam do whatever he wants but there must be a middle road solution that will get saddam out of power and that doesnt involve killing alot of civillians.

So do we let Saddam win by using his weapon of cowardice?

If he choses to place military targets in civilian area's those deaths are on his head. There is a reason the majority of our tactical assets are out in the middle of nowhere.

Sadly Navy bases are another story. Because we are a capitalist nation we are a society that congregates near major ports (NY, LA, SD, Seattle, Norfolk, Charlston etc).