Debating is for politicians.Quote:
Originally Posted by crptcblade
Printable View
Debating is for politicians.Quote:
Originally Posted by crptcblade
Yes, but when you get a large mass of people like this, then it's fun.Quote:
Originally Posted by crptcblade
I mean, is there anyone here who doesn't like mass debating? :ehh:
No you didn't say Iraq, I started on this rant because someone compared the west to Saddam's regime. I do not bear any responsibility personally for the majority of the f-ed up stuff my government does because I have no control over it. Even with the power to vote, a person can only go by what they think a politician will do. Quite often what they say they will do before they are elected and what they do after they are elected are usually different. No I am not skirting any responsibility, My responsability as an american and a human being it to vote the moron out of office the next time around. It is not a perfect system but it is the best civilization has come up with so far. Ok, back to Saddam: Saddam and his baathists have done nothing positive for society. And while the west has really screwed up at times, I think it is reasonable to say that at least we have good intentions and the majority of what we are about has made the world a better place to live.Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
How is it inconsistant? I have already stated that, when legally possible, my tax money goes to causes that I think are worthy. So I am removing money from the pockets of elected offiicals that want to "...drag unconvicted persons across countries and torture... blahh blahh blahh" and putting money in the hands of people trying to make the world a better place. That doesnt even count the personal time, effort, and dollars that I contribute on my own. I'm sorry, but I think that is as consistant as it getts.Quote:
'We' as in the Western World have given so much to the progress and science (I do NOT dispute that the Western World has progresed the human race a great deal - in particular with the efforts from the US) but when it comes to 'We' being those that drag unconvicted persons across countries and torture them, you resort to 'I' have never done it. When we talk of 'we' travelling half-way round the world and then imprison foreigners without trial or explanation for years on end, then you resort to 'I' have never done that.
It's inconsistent language, behaviour, and it's bloody typical. Have it one way or the other.
OK.
I think that this is less emotive than you seem to want to make. I come from, in this case, a more philosophical point of view, here. As a member of a democracy I am of the opinion that we are all collectively responsible for the actions of our government.
On the basis of that belief I think I can stand by what I've said; that it is inconsistent to share the good parts but to distance one's self from the bad parts.
That was basically what I said, or was trying to say, of course you stated it much clearer than I did. I was trying to say those that Disagree with our right to disagree should get out before they loose another right for the rest of us, like the ability(although feeble) to keep our elected officials in check.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
I am not responsible for a United States President getting a hummer from an intern in the oval office. He and his intern are responsible. We are collectively responsible to hold our government responsible for their actions, that is all we can do, or at least make an attempt to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
Saying that the entire western world is guilty of the same crimes as saddam is a joke.
If I WAS responsible for that, I would expect at least an invitation to dinner, or a couple football tickets or something, just as a thank you. It's only good manners.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
By the way, on the subject of mass debates, I was just reading that protons and neutrons are composed of quarks, but those quarks only acount for about a third of the mass of the nucleus. So where does the other mass come from? Debate that!!
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by mendhak
Nah, the only person I'll vote for is the one who doesn't let 3% of the nation control 97% of the nation and will nuke the ******* **** out of the many worthless places in the middle east when they deserve it.Quote:
No, you probably haven't; but you've put people in power who are quite happy to undergo process such as 'special rendition' . . . .
[impression of MasterBlaster]We're a tolerant society and if you don't agree with me you can **** off.[/impression of MasterBlaster]
Sorry MB but I really wasn't agreeing with you - can't you see the problem with your position is that you are denying that which you defend - tolerance and the right of free speech? You can't argue that those things are what makes us better than Saddam and then tell people to get out of your country if they disagree.
After reading this thread, I can only say that I think that we should have waited another year or two before driving Germany out of power (except we needed to help the Jews) so the Germans could hop the river and take over the Island. How quickly people forget what it takes to defeat an enemy. We nuked two cities to force a surrender. Those bombs killed many civilians. Unfortunately, sometimes those things happen in the course of defeating an enemy. This war has lasted longer than WWII and has had less casualties, on both sides. Everyone is ungrateful for what America does for them, until they want our money or need our help. Then, after we help them, they piss and moan about how we did it. If their way worked, they wouldn't have needed our help.
Ah - a Russian! Yes, thanks for defeating hitler, but if you remember he actually attacked you..... unless of course you're an American who knows very little about world war II apart from what you learned watching U571 and Saving private Ryan..... :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Krenshau
You may well find that the turning point of the war was the Battle of Britain, this followed by Hitlers attack on Russia placed Germany on the path to defeat. Don't get me wrong, the US shortened the war by a good year or two and doubtless saved many needless deaths, and for that we will forever be grateful to the US servicemen of the time and their familes, but please do not belittle the many brave soldiers and civilians of Europe, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and Russia who defeated Hitler, by implying that they were lost without the USA.
I am sure the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's who have lost children, siblings and parents in this war may seem to be ungrateful, but I'm sure they're just being selfish.... I mean, it's not like they love their children as much as we love ours is it.....?Quote:
Originally Posted by Krenshau
And the rest of the world is totally ungrateful for you for giving the terrorists the greatest recruiting weapon they could wish for and fanning the flames of hatred amongst the easily swayed. But hey, they just don't appreciate what you do for them.....
Luckily none of these selfish people will probably deter you, and we can look forward to you "helping" Iran next.... I'm sure, for some strange reason, they will be equally ungrateful.... but like Bush says, "You're on a crusade!"
No, they decided to help Somalia first.Quote:
and we can look forward to you "helping" Iran next
How dare you. Bon Jovi was in that movie. I doubt he would lend his name to something that was historically inaccurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex-FB
:mad:
Actually the ousted Somali government that was placed back into power welcomed US help. I found it amazing that the Ethiopian army did what the UN couldn’t do, drive out those terrorists and thugs from power.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
X
Man, there's a lot of people who care about the US that don't live here. I'll need you guys when I take over the world.
I was watching U238 by mistake, but I would give it a glowing review.
The thing that the US contributed to WWII more than anything else is material. Other countries suffered greater costs in lives, but if the US had not been supporting the allies with material long before we ever sent a single soldier anywhere, the outcome would have been much different.
Considering how inferior much of our equipment was, especially tanks, if the US had not bee contributing vast quantities of material production to our OWN troops, the result would have been much different.
America: Spending Our Way to Victory!!
See, this is what got the snot beat out of France in WWII. They thought they could talk Hitler out of attacking them. So did many other countries. Really, America thought it could just hide from it too, until Japan hit us.
The fact is that Muslim extremist have said openly that they are going to take over the world, and kill anyone that doesn't convert. They are growing their populations in Europe, China, as well as violently trying to take over countries in Africa. Not by attacking governments or military outposts, but by killing civilians.
So, now we are where we were at the beginning of WWII. A threat has emerged on the world front, and as usual everyone else is the problem except the people that go around killing other people because they won't convert to Islam. So, while the rest of the world tries to reason with the very people that are trying to take over their countries, we are defeating our enemies, again.
Just as a side note, I believe that Australia and other countries have troops that are actively helping in Iraq, I am not forgetting British troops, I am just taking note because of the remark that somehow I am saying that America did it alone in WWII. It is my understanding that it was American and British forces that were the ones pushing the Germans back in their hole (for lack of a better way to say it) as well as smaller amounts of troops from Canada and Australia. My point is this. we contributed a great deal to winning WWII, and it amazes so many people here as to why many countries that were involved in WWII have the same problem seeing the threat, the same way they didn't see the threat before WWII. The only real difference between now and then is that we are now dealing with an enemy that has no real country to identify them with. They transcend boundaries across the globe. The only way to identify them is to track the propaganda and dead bodies.
BTW, I should qualify my statement about Iraq lasting longer than WWII. It is more accurate to say it has lasted longer than the U.S.A.'s involvement in WWII. WWII actually was going on long before we got involved. Talking about America sticking its collective head in the sand. I'm not sure we learned our lesson on that, though. We are pushing ahead of the rest of the world, more less, but we should have been taking real action back in the 80s and 90s. America seems to be saying, "Give me liberty, or give me death." The rest of the world seems to be saying, "Maybe, if we just leave them alone they will go away." I am, of course, generalizing.
As another side note, I know a little bit about WWII. My Grandpa served in WWII and he taught me quite a bit about it. He fought in France and was wounded. He received a purple heart. I was basically raised by him. I have seen the path the Germans made the Jews walk to get to other concentration camps where dead, decaying bodies were laying on the side of the road. I have seen pictures of where American forces took a location with American and German bodies littering the area. I have seen the affects of what letting a murderous group of people run across the world killing people does. Which is why I so strongly believe that America, and the rest of the world should wake up and put this threat down before it becomes another world war.
Get to know your history a bit better:Quote:
Originally Posted by Krenshau
The country with largest standing army, with the best tanks, and the largest and best air force, prior to the German invasion of France was: France!
Most of Europe, including France, believed that France had the best army in the world. They didn't think they could "talk Germany our of attacking them", they thought they could mop up the floor with Germany whenever they chose to, and everybody else agreed with that belief with the exception of Germany.
And America wasn't nearly as ignorant as you seem to suggest. The pacific fleet, which was destroyed at Pearl Harbor, was designed with one expectation: To meet and destroy the Japanese fleet in a great naval battle.
The army and the navy was well aware that they were going to end up fighting Japan, and were planning for it. They simply didn't know quite when it was going to happen.
You don't have to read more than one or two decent history books to confirm all of that. If you'd like, I could dig out a few references for you.
The only country that didn't see the threat was the US (actually, they saw the threat, just didn't think it would effect them). All of Europe could see the threat, (even the French - they just underestimated the modern warfare techniques employed by the Germans). For someone who purports to know a lot about the second world war, you seem to be dropping some awful clangers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Krenshau
It does remind me of the quote: "The Americans are trying to make up for being late for the last two world wars by being really, really early for the next one..." :lol:
Not sure how many Australians etc. were involved, but I seem to recall reading that Canada had some 0.5 million troops on the ground in Europe.... hardly a small insignificant number. In fact they are attributed with liberating the Netherlands... so, it does irk me somewhat to read someone (such as yourself) sidelining these people's great sacrifices so that you can glorify your own countrymen. WWII was a massive undertaking with many brave men, women and children on all sides. A great debt is owed by all in the Western world and Russia to these people whoever they may be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Krenshau
This is nothing like the start of World War II. World war II consisted of an agressive country attacking other countries and hoping that nobody would notice. Hitler was very suprised when Britain and Canada declared war on him for attacking Poland. How is that in any way like terrorists operating in hard to identify cells and attacking innocent citizens. It's a completely different scenario and it requires a completely different solution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Krenshau
Who is trying to reason with the terrorists? I don't see anyone trying that! What I see is people saying that attacking Iraq was a stupid thing to do, because any soldier who has been involved in urban combat or foreign occupation could tell you that there would be no exit strategy possible for Iraq. It would also be a stupid move because it would inflict civilian casualties on the Iraqi's, and once you kill someone's child, you have turned a person from being a potential ally to a potential enemy. The invasion of Iraq was quite simply the best gift Al-Quieda could have had. No, you are not fighting the good fight by attacking countries. You are making the problem worse. The only way to combat terrorism is to remove the recruits and selectively capture or kill the terrorists. Blowing up groups of people from afar is not the way to win the hearts and minds of a people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Krenshau
What do I think should have been done? Well it's too late now, but wouldn't it have been better if you had talked to the Taliban, maybe strong armed them a little bit and got them to hand over Osama? They asked for proof that he was guilty, so in response you attacked them. Can you imaging if the tables were turned and Afghanistan asked for someone to be deported from the US to Afghanistan to stand trial for a crime.... don't you think the US would ask for proof before even considering the request.... No, the US government was far to quick to attack, and all it got them was a minor political victory - oh look we've toppled the evil Taliban. Well, my cousin just got back from a tour there and apparently it's in an even worse state now with Warlords in control of most of the regions. Hey, at least you got Osama.... right? Then there was the farce with Iraq.... which reason was it again.... WMD? No wait... links to Al-Quieda.... No wait.... non conformance of UN sanctions.... oh, that fact the UN council agreed that it is not up to individual states to interpret what punishments should be metted out is just a petty annoyance right..? And what did that gain? more terrorists?
Sorry, but so far the US's actions have helped the terrorist extremists by "proving" that the West are out to wipe out the Muslims.... of course having a numpty of a President in charge isn't going to help things.... did anyone not cringe when he said that we were on a Crusade....!
That is what we are trying to do, stop it from becoming a world war.... but Bush seems adamant to fan the fires and divide the world. Look at the aftermath of September 11th. The US had world sympathy from all nations. They could have used that as a powerful weapon to take the moral high ground, expose the terrorists as the murderers they are and turn the population of the Muslim world against them. Instead he chose to lower the West to their standards (imprisonment without trial, kidnapping, torture? For god's sake), and turn the terrorists into freedom fighters - resisting the Western invaders. He botched it big time, and unfortunately I don't think we can ever win this fight now, as any attrocity metted out on the west will be seen as just retaliation to countless civilian deaths in Iraq.Quote:
Originally Posted by Krenshau
I think you just proved my point.Quote:
What do I think should have been done? Well it's too late now, but wouldn't it have been better if you had talked to the Taliban, maybe strong armed them a little bit and got them to hand over Osama?
France may have had a big army, but it didn't do them any good, did it? Maybe, they should have used it better and earlier. Many countries signed peace treaties with Hitler and thought that would avoid war, but all it did was buy time for Hitler to set the time of the battle.
I am not familiar with this site, but it talks about the treaties that France and England made with Germany. This exemplifies what I was talking about with people wanting to talk things out. When I say that they didn't see the threat, I mean, they didn't seem to see that they were trying to negotiate with someone that couldn't be negotiated with.
http://www.worldwariihistory.info/WWII/war.html
Do you think that no innocent people died in WWII? We (that is the allies) fought in cities in WWII. Not really different than fighting in Iraq cities.Quote:
During March 1938 German troops had occupied Austria, incorporating it into the Reich. In September Hitler announced that the "oppression" of ethnic Germans living in Czechoslovakia was intolerable and that war was near. England and France met with Hitler (the Munich Pact) and compelled Czechoslovakia to cede its frontier districts to Germany in order to secure "peace in our time." Peace, however, was only an illusion. During March 1939 Hitler seized the rest of Czechoslovakia by force of arms and then turned his attention to Poland. Although Britain and France had guaranteed the integrity of Poland, Hitler and Josef Stalin, dictator of the Soviet Union, signed a secret, mutual nonaggression pact in August 1939. With the pact Stalin bought time to build up his strength at the expense of Britain and France, and Hitler gained a free hand to deal with Poland. When Hitler's army invaded Poland on 1 September 1939, World War II began.
I know about this, it is reported that the report that Japan's planes were heading to Pearl Harbor to bomb them was "misfiled". This was reported to be done because America was largely isolationist. In general, no one wanted another world war after WWI. That is why the League of Nations was established. I think the American people, and congress, didn't want to get involved, and thought it would just get handled. I think the President knew better, and, well, we got attacked. That is just my opinion, though.Quote:
And America wasn't nearly as ignorant as you seem to suggest. The pacific fleet, which was destroyed at Pearl Harbor, was designed with one expectation: To meet and destroy the Japanese fleet in a great naval battle.
There are similar theories about 9/11. If I remember correctly, the plane that crashed into the ground was heading to the white house, and there were questions about where the plane debris was that crashed into the pentagon. Some witnesses said they saw military planes flying around the plane that crashed into the ground, from what I saw in news reports shortly after it occurred. Yet, the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center "made it thru".
I am not saying that .5 million troops, or even if it was less, is insignificant. It took everyone that contributed to win that war. Frankly, I think that there was a good chance we (the allies) could have lost if it wasn't for the bomb. Japan, I read, wasn't going to surrender. Even after we dropped the first bomb the Japanese country didn't want to surrender, but, after the second bomb, the ruler knew that if they didn't it could mean that Japan would no longer exist. That is what I have read. So I am not trying to diminish anyone's contribution, no matter what the degree. I just think that people try to minimize Americas involvement.Quote:
Not sure how many Australians etc. were involved, but I seem to recall reading that Canada had some 0.5 million troops on the ground in Europe.... hardly a small insignificant number.
Just for the record. I think President Bush was placed into office by the powers that be ( some say the world banks, some say the Illuminati, who really knows). I think the VP is the force behind the white house. I think Bush was chosen because whoever chose him knew that he would be more than willing to go after Saddam after Saddam trying to kill his Dad, if some evidence could be shown to him that Saddam was somehow linked. I think we are all pawns in the plan to globalize the world. First, financially. Then by creating a hierarchical structure of governance with a central world power at the helm. What better way to get the people to agree than to have things spiral into WWIII. The only way to prevent it is to defeat the enemy before things get chaotic all over the world (beyond control that is). Even that may not work. If we pull out of Iraq, or even if we become isolationist again, the extremist will just bring the battle to us, again. It would be ideal if the Muslim extremist could be shown that they are being used as pawns in a bigger global plan. Maybe, they would realize that much of what they hear is just propaganda. Americans already know that most of what they hear is propaganda, at least they should.
In any case, we can't hide, so the only other option is to defeat our enemy. The game must be played if we are to survive.
It's unusual to find a somewhat egalitist post from you, Shaggy. For your information the US didn't do too much out of the kindness of it's heart. Some of the allies have only just finished paying back the loan (with interest)Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
I guess, for business sense, the US does, always, come out on top.
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, and I respect that.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
It is, in my opinion not enough to say "I give to charity" and "I try to keep money out of the government's coffers." I think, in your case, it would have been better to say "I am lobbying my government in order to change their policy"
But you didn't; and you're few $k's will make not one iota of difference in the huge ocean of space that makes up the US 'defence' budget.
Meanwhile Vietnam PtII carries on with an extra 20,000 American lives sent out to fight to correct a UK/US blunder of extraordinary magnitude.
Krenshau, your knowledge of WW2 is woeful but this is the most woeful of all:-
By the time America dropped the bombs Japans navy had been effectively anihalated and it had no production base left to speak of. For an island nation that's pretty much game over. Dropping the bomb probably shortened the war by a year or two and almost certainly saved the lives of some American troops who would otherwise have had to storm the beaches but it in no way changed the final outcomeQuote:
Frankly, I think that there was a good chance we (the allies) could have lost if it wasn't for the bomb.
By the way, Britain and France did indeed follow a policy of appeasement in 38/39 but whether this gave Germany any extra advantage is highly debatable. Germany's army was pretty much in place by the end of 37, he'd been ramping up the military machine since 35/36. At that time Frances and Britains army had both been pretty much stood down - they needed until 39 to mobilise.
Drugs are bad, mkay.Quote:
Just for the record. I think President Bush was placed into office by the powers that be ( some say the world banks, some say the Illuminati, who really knows). I think the VP is the force behind the white house. I think Bush was chosen because whoever chose him knew that he would be more than willing to go after Saddam after Saddam trying to kill his Dad, if some evidence could be shown to him that Saddam was somehow linked. I think we are all pawns in the plan to globalize the world. First, financially. Then by creating a hierarchical structure of governance with a central world power at the helm. What better way to get the people to agree than to have things spiral into WWIII. The only way to prevent it is to defeat the enemy before things get chaotic all over the world (beyond control that is). Even that may not work. If we pull out of Iraq, or even if we become isolationist again, the extremist will just bring the battle to us, again. It would be ideal if the Muslim extremist could be shown that they are being used as pawns in a bigger global plan. Maybe, they would realize that much of what they hear is just propaganda. Americans already know that most of what they hear is propaganda, at least they should.
I never realized the British people expected welfare from the US. Hmmmm so its your feeling the US should have just given the UK free money without having to pay it back eventually? When in real life does that ever happen?Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
X
No. Not at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanith
I'm just sick and tired of hearing how the US did the world a favour when in reality they were in it for the money rather than any moral cause; which, I'm afraid, is the way it looks.
[edit]I suppose you could argue that the US lent money to the side which they felt were morally 'right' but I think that's a little tenuous at best [/edit]
This was actually quite a contentious issue after the war.Quote:
Hmmmm so its your feeling the US should have just given the UK free money without having to pay it back eventually?
The nations that had recieved aid from the US tended to take the view that they'd fought a war on behalf of the world, not just themselves. In that context they viewed America as a benificiary of their efforts and argues that US should write off the debt as it's half of the bargain.
The US on the other hand, tended to take the view that WW2 was primarily a European war before 41 and the fact that it had spilled over into a world war was primarily a failing of the European nations to stop the Axis. In that context, why should they write off debts when they'd already done the allies a favour by bank rolling them pre 41 and then stepping in to recover the situation (I'm overstating the american position a bit just to give the idea)
In the end the US actually did write of alot of the debts under the Marshall plan and commuted the rest to loans. In hindsight this doesn't seem unreasonable although the rapidity with which the Truman administration tried to recover those debts was undoubtedly a major contributing factor in the break up of the British empire. And it's equally doubtless that the US became a super power on the back of the profits made by flogging arms to Europe in WW2.
No, It may not, but it is a start. If more people did the same instead of the same old "there's nothing I can do the government is too..... <insert pathetic excuse here>" sob story I hear day in and day out, It might make a difference. Unfortunatly, the mentally challenged majority let our governments turn us into goddamn cattle in exchange for pseudo-security. Ask the 3000 dead cattle that died in the WTC attacks how secure they were. I'm paying, quite a bit more than a few thousand BTW, these morons for protection and someone was actually able to fly a jetliner into the pentagon? The fooking pentagon? the "most secure building on the planet"? Where were all of those 50 million dollar jets we bought? They couldn't get one in the air in time to shoot down a big slow fighter that is about as agile as my grandmother? No maybe deferring my tax dollars isn't going to fix the f-ed up situation we're stuck in but at least I and others who still give a sheit can sleep at night.Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
I actually agree with quite a lot of this; you are correct - if everyone avoided tax and re-channeled the money into charities they support the govt. would certainly have to change their ways.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
I thought someone might consider that out of character, but from what I have read, it is pretty much true. Regardless of whether it was done for a profit motive or not (somebody profits from EVERY war) was not the point, the point was that the huge volume of production was our largest contribution to WWII, beside which our troop level was insignificant.Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
By the way, that was not the case in WWI, so it was a "New for Number 2" kind of a thing.
That's a popular view, which you can find in many places. However, it has two flaws that I believe are fatal:Quote:
France may have had a big army, but it didn't do them any good, did it? Maybe, they should have used it better and earlier. Many countries signed peace treaties with Hitler and thought that would avoid war, but all it did was buy time for Hitler to set the time of the battle.
1) As FunkyDexter pointed out, Germany didn't buy any time. When Germany went into France, they did so with Panzer Is and IIs, which were training tanks they had been using for developing the tactics. The Panzer I had fake armor which couldn't necessarily stop a rifle bullet. The tanks which were to form the backbone of their armored divisions were just starting to be produced, and were not yet deployed. Basically, had France and Britain waited longer, Germany would have had real tanks, as it was, they had fake tanks....and still swept over them in short order. It is unlikely that the fight would have been different if France had gone into it less well prepared.
2) They didn't see that what they were trying to do couldn't be done...so...should they have done what they subsequently proved incapable of doing? He couldn't be appeased....and France couldn't beat him. They didn't realize either point in advance. Had they enough foresight to recognize both points, what would you suggest then?
The other part of this is that you have the benefit of hindsight. We now know that there really wasn't anything they could have done. Had they kept up with the diplomacy, Hitler would have ignored them, because his western flank was secure. Had they attacked, as they did (or any time earlier), they would have lost. They had too many weaknesses, and too much pride to recognize any of them.
Interesting to make an analogy between Hitler and today. Are we like France then? Should we make sure that we do not appease anybody because we are certain that they can be beaten? France expected that war with Germany, if it happened, would happen in certain ways, which they were well prepared for. The Belgian forts would stand, and the Ardennes were impassable.
We already hear people complaining because the terrorists won't fight us the way we want to fight them.
With regards the loans from the US for the war effort. In fairness I am 100% behind the US on this one. The interest they charged was low, and let's face it Britain needed the raw materials and equipment. At the time it made the difference between life and death for Britain, so it would be somewhat churlish to welch on the deal once the battle is done. It is one thing for the US to write off debts to African nations who have no hope of repaying the interest alone, but let's face it, Britain could (and has) afford to repay the loan. It was difficult to repay sure, but by no means impossible.
At the time, it was life or death, and it was/is still greatly appreciated.
Shaggy Hiker,
I just hope we aren't sitting around fifty years from now saying that we should have done more. We do have the advantage of looking back on WWII. We should use that advantage to ensure the mistakes never happen again.
_______________________________________
I think it is funny how people debate whether something in history is true. They see the facts and think that they know better than the facts. In books and any other historical documentation it is very important to draw a line between factual events, and speculations of reason. France stated the reasons they tried to get a treaty. Anyone who thinks they know more about another person's intentions than that person is, well, they just shouldn't do that to say it nicely. Their actions were in line with their words, I have no reason to think anything else. Looking at words and actions is a good way to determine a persons intentions.
In regards to us losing or winning if we had not dropped the bomb. Japan was not going to surrender. The entire country was against it, even after the second bomb was dropped. The ruler decided to surrender, despite the wishes of his country. With that kind of determination, short of killing every person in Japan, it would be very difficult to win. Surrender was dishonorable to them.
That's true, but not anything I have an issue with. Ignorance kills more people than drugs, though. If you don't believe me about my remarks on our government, then, if you are American, you should file for declassified material related to evidence for war with Iraq under the freedom for information act. You can also view interviews with former members of the United States Government on Frontline that directly address the statements I made. Regardless of your belief in it, there is a lot of evidence to support what I have stated.Quote:
Drugs are bad, mkay.
Anyway, I enjoy posting here and reading everyones views. I have pretty much stated all I have wanted to say. I hope that these things don't polarize people on this forum. I certainly wouldn't want someone to not help me with something in another thread because we disagree about something in this thread. I won't be doing that.
:) Don't worry, I think most people here come to this part of the forum to get things off their chest and have a good constructive argument. Very few of them take it personally. In fact, though I disagree with you on a number of points, I have thoroughly enjoyed arguing them with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Krenshau
For instance, I rarely agree with Xanith and Masterblaster (though it has been known to happen), but I really enjoy discussing things with them because they usually present very good arguments and bring another perspective to my life. Because of this I respect them and their opinions.
I think as long as the discussion doesn't devolve down to name calling, it's all good. Some of our members can be very er, simplistic in their responses and take things very personally, but luckily they are few and far between.
If you feel this conversation has done it's course, please start a thread on something else to argue about and I will enjoy jumping in.... what about abortion? Saying the Lords game at football games etc?, Nuclear Power, Global warming, British Army cutbacks, feel strongly about any of those things?
I agree completely with what Ex-FB said. This forum doesn't bleed over into the others.Quote:
Originally Posted by Krenshau
As for this quote, it's an interesting one. If you can figure out how to make sure that we should have done either more or less, please let us all know. History, and life, are not science experiments. We never get to repeat an experience, because every one is different, despite how similar they are. The comparisons between Saddam and Hitler are particularly laughable. Hitler had one of the best armies in the world at the start of WWII, while Saddam couldn't beat anybody who was capable of even minimal resistance. He was reduced to beating up on his own population after two disasterously failed wars. Hitler couldn't be bullied because he could fight back very effectively. Saddam could be bullied. He whined about it plenty, and he didn't like it anymore than anyone else would, but ever since GWI, he always caved if he believed people were serious.
What does this whole bit mean? Are you saying that the views of history that are not the same as yours are based on fiction, while yours are based on fact? Or are you saying....heck, I can't figure out what you were saying. What facts do people think they know better than? What are you refering to?Quote:
I think it is funny how people debate whether something in history is true. They see the facts and think that they know better than the facts. In books and any other historical documentation it is very important to draw a line between factual events, and speculations of reason. France stated the reasons they tried to get a treaty. Anyone who thinks they know more about another person's intentions than that person is, well, they just shouldn't do that to say it nicely. Their actions were in line with their words, I have no reason to think anything else. Looking at words and actions is a good way to determine a persons intentions.
Considering your last statement (which I couldn't understand), this one is bizarre. The idea that Japan was going to fight to the death, and would never have given up without the bomb is entirely speculation. There is strong evidence that it was not the bomb that caused them to surrender, and I would have to say that the bulk of historians do not believe the bomb was the key factor. It appears to be the concensus that it was pure politics that caused the surrender.Quote:
In regards to us losing or winning if we had not dropped the bomb. Japan was not going to surrender. The entire country was against it, even after the second bomb was dropped. The ruler decided to surrender, despite the wishes of his country. With that kind of determination, short of killing every person in Japan, it would be very difficult to win. Surrender was dishonorable to them.
And that's the key. There certainly were Japanese people who wanted to fight to the very end. There were plenty who would have killed themselves when they lost. However, there were plenty who didn't believe they could ever win, and had thought the war was futile from the start. One of the major believers in that was Yamamoto himself, who publicly asserted that if the US didn't simply surrender after that first strike, then Japan would surely lose. Of course, he was dead long before the bomb was dropped.
Therefore, to say that the Japanese suddenly changed their minds from "fight to the death" to "surrender now" just because of the bomb, is crazy. Both views were held by different factions within the government, and every event caused one or the other to gain sway. At some point, the latter group got sufficient influence that the emporer switched to their side, and the war ended. Did the bomb have anything to do with this? Yeah, probably. Did the fact that they didn't have a chance have anything to do with it? Of course. The loss of their navy? Absolutely.
So what was the major tipping factor? By most accounts that I have read, they recognized that Russia was about to enter the war against them. They knew they were going to lose eventually, and simply decided that if they surrendered right then, they could surrender to the Americans, who would not ask too much, versus being required to surrender also to the Russians, who would immediately gobble up all the territory they could. The surrender was thus strongly influenced by a decision to take the best alternative.
In this they proved correct. America made a separate peace, in direct violation of a treaty with Russia (the Russians were pissed), and the Japanese and Russians are still disputing ownership of some land (currently in Japanese hands), which would be irrevocably Russian had Russia been a party to the peace talks.
I don't. :pQuote:
I think most people here come to this part of the forum to ... have a good constructructive argument
If they did none of us would helping each other by now. EVERYONES WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING... EXCEPT ME! Just needed to clear that up.Quote:
I hope that these things don't polarize people on this forum
Japan had actually offered surrender pre big-boy, just not unconditional surrender. One of the major sticking point was that they wanted to keep their emperor.
The drugs are bad quote wasn't really aimed at your Iraq views but rather the whole illuminati/world wide conspiracy of centralisation thing. I think the symptoms some perceive as signs of the illuminati are caused by the fact that everyone wants more money and power and those who already have it are better placed to gather it => a centralising effect around a (fairly large) minority of individuals.
I think Iraq stinks to high heaven and I'm damn sure we didn't go in there because we wanted the Iraqis to have democracy out of some benign brotherhood of man thing. We went in there because we wanted to secure key resources for the future and stabilising the country as a democracy was just one of the means to that end - sadly a misguided one. I'd stop short of calling that a conspiracy though. Rather I'd blame it on the all too human traits of greed and teh ability to ignore anything inconvenient to our views once we've made our minds up.
Well, I wasn't going to continue on here because it seemed to be more opinions getting stated that evaluation of the facts, but I thought that clarification on some things I stated that wasn't understood would be important.
The statement about words and actions was made because it seemed to me that, in general, there was the thought that an action and a reason for the action were given as fact, but, in my experience, looking at documents from 30 years ago, and then looking at documents incrementally up to today, we see the same or similar presentation of facts (such as events or statements that people made) however, what changes is the reasons that people give for those facts. 30 years ago people speculated (but stated as facts) the reasons that Japan surrendered, and reasons that Hitler did things that he did. Later, the same facts were presented, but the reasons for those facts changed. The culture of the people at a given time affects the perspective of the people evaluating the facts. If we were to have the advantage of going to interview people in Japan during WWII, we could gain a perspective of events that were occuring at that time. Wait 20 years and interview people about the same set of facts and the perspective will have changed a bit. Interview people now, and you get a different perspective. Add to that the difference of culture for various countries in the world and you get a wider variety of views about the same set of facts, thus where our coversation is today. So, my point is that the views and perspectives of the events are different than the events themselves. That is why I stated that the actions of the French, and the statements of the French government of the time, are the facts, to speculate about how or why other that what is historically documented is speculation. This statement was meant to encompass all the posts that relate to this statement. I didn't want to make a list of all the posts that fall within this statement, just point out that it was occuring. My statements are based on people I have spoken to that were in WWII, interviews of people that were involved in the decision making of WWII, statements made and things written by Winston Churchill, and others that were actually involved at the time. I, rightly or wrongly, give those much more weight than history books written by historians that try to speculate about reasons. They are, in my opinion, people acting like sports announcer for a sporting event that is a recording of the original game.
But by the same token one could argue that listening to the likes of Winston Churchill about the second world war would be akin to listening to the likes of George W. Bush about why he attacked Iraq.... it is a somewhat biased viewpoint.... now I will go and iron my hands for even passingly comparing Winston Churchill to Bush..... :sick:Quote:
Originally Posted by Krenshau
But you see what I am saying. Time does add a certain amount of perspective to events. Perspective that is possibly lost in the heat of war. I don't know whether Japan was going to surrender or not, but I do know that the concept of Japan "fighting to the death" was no different from "Britain fighting to the death" - "We will fight them on the beaches....We will never surrender... etc.". I would feel there would come a point when the homeland has been overrun that defeat would have to be accepted, though guerilla units would surely continue to operate (as were set up in Britain incase of invasion). However the cost in lives would be massive. There is a lot wrong with Nagasaki and Hiroshima, but war is hell, and I have to say that it was probably the right move at the time given the state of the war. People have condemed Bomber Harris for the bombing campaign on German citys, and even know most Brits feel a little bit guilty when the name of Dresden is mentioned, bombing a city off the face of the earth is hardly something to be proud of, however it was a war that we didn't ask for, and when your backed into a corner you cannot afford to be chivilrous, you hit them as hard as possible.
As for the French, again I see a lot of distorted history about this. In particular the US have a very low opinion of the French for surrendering so quickly, but in actual fact they were overran and outclassed, as were the British troops at the start of the war. The shock tactics used were revolutionary and took the allied generals by suprise (who were the good old stick in the mud - war of attrition sort of Generals). Hitlers biggest problem was that he didn't/couldn't follow through and press his advantage, giving the British time to regroup and organise itself. The Battle of Britain was his last attempt at winning the war, after that he was fighting a defensive war all the way back to his bunker.
That is my view of the second world war, and by many accounts it is an accurate view, as told by time, not by people on the ground at the time. Do you agree with this view, or do you have a different opinion based upon your interviews?
I agree with much of what you said. I guess by biggest point of disagreement is not so much the events of the war, more the perspectives of the intentions, and so forth. I think that over time some things can be revealed that aren't known at the time, but in order to have an accurate understanding of the intentions, the view of the people during the events are the most important.
I want to try to keep this on track, so the reason that I presented that information was because of exactly something that was referenced to in this post.
I remember growing up a lot of discussion about the Vietnam war. My Dad was in Vietnam, and some of my friend's Dads had been in Vietnam. One of the things that was discussed a lot was the tactics used in the war. They would take a hill, clear it, then leave. This allowed the enemy to come back and easily take that ground again. This was a circle, and a really ignorant tactic. However, the enemies fighting style was well suited for the environment. Many times, from what I was told, the Americans would just be shooting into the trees and not know where the enemy was exactly. America didn't adapt its tactics to the enemy. The French didn't have the tactics and knowledge ( I presume) to defeat the Germans. Now, in Iraq, we (America) use traditional urban warfare methods developed in the 80's and 90's (to the best of my memory), which is why we are not doing well. We clear a neighborhood, and leave. This allows the enemy to come back. The same thing is being done in Afghanistan. On a more broad scale we do things like we see in Somalia where we attack a base, it brings the anger of the international community, and we leave. This allows the enemy to return. I think if the rest of the world would wake up and see that instead of pitching a fit about us going around killing terrorist, they might do better to say, let's join America. Let's not just let the Americans set up bases in all of these countries, let's have the U.N. set up bases in these countries. So, then, we would have the international community working together to be a quick response military force that could do as a team what America is doing alone now. Instead of an American plane going into Somalia and taking out a training camp, perhaps it could have been an Egyptian plane ( I don't know much about Egypt it just came off the top of my head). This would be the world united against these extremist that want to behead anyone that doesn't cover their females head and recite things from the Koran. However, in my idealistic yet pessimistic perspective, it seems to me that the world wants to get rid of the aggressive Muslims, but doesn't want to do the killing needed to stop them. Thus my talk about how we (Americans), rose to the occasion, though admittedly late, and we didn't try to negotiate with our (collective) enemy, we just killed them. This is, in my view, how we (the nations of the world) should deal with Muslim extremist. Let me rephrase that, this is how we should deal with Muslim extremist that go around killing and oppressing people. I would go so far as to allow them to want to kill and oppress people, they just can't actually do it.Quote:
The shock tactics used were revolutionary and took the allied generals by suprise (who were the good old stick in the mud - war of attrition sort of Generals).
From a more broad perspective, rightly or wrongly, we (the American population) want to help people. That is why we originally supported the war in Afghanistan, and then Iraq. Now, we see that what we are doing isn't helping, and could be making it worse. How to fix the problem is being highly debated. I can see how some people just want to get out of Iraq. Maybe if we go that will help. I personally don't think that way. I think that the reason we are not doing well (putting it mildly) is because we used the same stupid tactics we did in Vietnam. If we can fight this war like we did in WWII, then, and only then, do I see us having a chance. To clarify, when I say we should fight this war like we did in WWII. I am not saying to employ the same tactics, I am saying that we should think less about doing more with less troops, and think more about bringing peace and security to the neighborhoods all around Iraq by killing the enemy, securing the area, leaving a well supported amount of troops to patrol an assigned section, and not giving the enemy a chance to come back in. We should do this until the country can do it itself. By we I mean the international community. If 20 countries committed 10,000 troops we would have 200,000 troops in the country. That would be more than enough to get Iraq back to being self sufficient and free from violence. We should not tolerate any members of the government to make the mistake of trying to negotiate with the warlords. If they want to do things the old way, then we should get out. If they think they can do a better job of dealing with an enemy by talking them down, then we shouldn't even be there. Plus, I would leave them with this question, "How affective were you at talking Saddam out of power?" I think that if we leave any other time than that, you will see Saudi Arabia sending in people to help the Sunnis, Iran to help the Shiite(sp?) and the whole place to will get a 1000 times worse. My original post was just to say, "How can the other nations in this world, that were involved in WWII, not see that?" The enemy has to be stopped.
It's not a bad idea...if it worked. Unfortunately, WWII will show you that it doesn't work...and never has.
One of the major obstacles facing the Germans in the Russo-German portion of WWII, was that they had taken a huge amount of territory, and had to detail several divisions in a vain attempt to do exactly what you are suggesting. They also failed with the occupation of France, as they had to have several divisions fighting the insurgents in that country, though they were less well equipt than modern insurgencies.
This was also why England eventually gave up in America. They simply realized that they couldn't provide enough troops to occupy the country at the level necessary to be able to suppress a determined insurgency. The US lacks sufficient troops to occupy Iraq, so you are correct that it would take the worlds cooperation to do that, but George failed to get the world behind the action, and has subsequently made certain that they have no interest in helping us now. The only countries, aside from the British Commonwealth countries, who are on board at the time, couldn't begin to provide the troops you are talking about without destroying themselves.
Though I guess that all just proves that you agree the war was misguided and mismanaged.
However, what I find really disturbing was the whole bit about Muslim extremists. It's one thing to talk about those who are willing to kill others. I'm ok with that part. However, you never leave it there, but always add in the bits about reciting from the Koran, oppressing people, covering women, etc. I've got bad news for you. All of those things are characteristics of large portions of the US!!! The evangelical and christian fundamentalist movements, which have gotten real traction in the US in the last decades, want almost exactly the same things, except that they want people to be reciting the bible instead of the koran, and they want a different style of covering for women.
I don't agree with muslim fundamentalists for the reasons you share. However, I see just as geat, and an almost identical threat building within this very country.
Whenever anyone says "get rid of aggressive muslims", I wonder what that would leave: Nice, docile, muslims. You don't suppose that the rest of the world might not start thinking that getting rid of aggressive Americans might be a good idea, too. Maybe we can get rid of every group that wants to push its ideas on others. I can't help but wonder why we decided to start with this particular group. I keep pointing out that the majority (by number) of terrorist attacks within the US have been from right wing groups, not muslims, but only liberals seem to notice that fact.
By the way, the tactics used by the Germans was developed by the British. As you pointed out, they were stick-in-the-mud generals, which is why they were surpsised when they encountered tactics they had themselves developed.