Nobby's assh'ole is brighter than you are, SR.
Edited, Sep 22nd 2007 12:08pm by bodhisattva
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- iraq report is in, let the spinn begin
iraq report is in, let the spinn beginFollow
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
If only it wasn't raining...
Pretty sure I read that CIA reports de-classified and released several years ago demonstrate that we did know of the **** plan to exterminate the Jews in 1941 or thereabouts. Also, if you're going to lean so heavily on this "protecting the kurds" argument, perhaps you'd like to explain why we're not taking the same noble stance in Africa where the exterminations are much more overt and horrific.
Excuse me? Germany was conducting co-ordinated and clear "assaults" on the borders of the US? Seriously...?
Remember. I'm specifically talking about why we got involved in the European conflict during WW2 rather then just telling Britain and France to deal with their problems themselves.
And, as Bodhi so efficiently stole, we got involved in the European theater because we declared on Japan (they did, sort of, attack us. A little) causing Germany and Italy to declare on us.
Ok. But what's in it for us? Iraq did invade Kuwait, right? Iraq failed to comply with the terms of the cease fire it agreed to after that invasion. Sure. It didn't actively invade anyone else, but I think you're missing the point here. Had someone acted to stop Germany prior to it taking over 3/4ths of Europe, maybe WW2 would not have been such a big deal either. We can't say what would have happened. Also, there's a difference here in terms of conventional versus unconventional warfare.
Wow, it's like you're in a time machine. Yep, Iraq invaded Kuwait, but the response to that was a different war. And naturally you're going to bring up the Sudetenland argument - which was a somewhat appropriate comparison when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Now it's just silly.
And I'll grant you there is a difference between conventional and non-conventional warfare. Too bad Iraq was incapable of the latter... unless you're not referring to the invisible WMDs and are referring to guerilla warfare - links to Iraq for those were pretty tenuous as compared to links to other Middle Eastern/Western Asian nations. Why Iraq then?
There was no overt threat, not even a massing of troops to threaten Iraq's neighbors, while I'm all for pro-active actions those have to be backed up by something, some evidence, otherwise it's a thought-police-action and I have a very hard time justifying killing people just for the way they think when no action backs up those thoughts.
I was going to address some other flaws (such as the fact that you've listed only actions made by the "other side" rather then actual benefits like "world peace", "a stable europe", "increased US presence in the region", etc...), but I came across this very interesting excerpt from a book written in 1953 called Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace
I thought we were talking about reasons to engage in the conflict. World Peace as a benefit would imply that something was threatening that - like an action by the "other side". Do you really want to go with the "a stable Europe" argument? Because, you know, it really wasn't (that pesky Cold War thing kind of jacks up your argument) and given how well we've done with our stabilizing efforts in other regions that goal is pretty much laughable.
An increased US presence in the region? We were just coming off of a pretty severe isolationist jag (which is further evidenced by your link), at that point in history we weren't really interested in furthering our presence, we just wanted to be left alone which we have been severely criticised for as that was, in large part, the reason for the delay of entry in the first place.
Regarding your link, the only similarity is that neither Iraq nor Germany was interested in trying to attack/conquer the US.
The rest of it just shows that you're really cherry-picking or that you're just somewhat dense. Who declared on who in Europe aside (which makes the argument largely academic) Germany had rolled over and conquered several nations and showed no sign of slowing. Even if we didn't know about the genocide (which we did) the fact that our allies were being conquered would have been quite enough.
Yes, Iraq invaded Kuwait. But the Visigoths sacked Rome! we should be taking out Romania! Do you really want to hold on to past bad acts as future indicators? Think about that very carefully before you answer.
gbaji wrote:
Which we didn't actually know about at the time (supposedly). Also, it would be interesting to compare the number of Kurds who'd been killed by Saddam during the 15 years or so prior to our invasion.
Seems pretty similar then.
Seems pretty similar then.
Pretty sure I read that CIA reports de-classified and released several years ago demonstrate that we did know of the **** plan to exterminate the Jews in 1941 or thereabouts. Also, if you're going to lean so heavily on this "protecting the kurds" argument, perhaps you'd like to explain why we're not taking the same noble stance in Africa where the exterminations are much more overt and horrific.
Quote:
Quote:
to protect our borders from co-ordinated and clear assault by identifiable threats,
Excuse me? Germany was conducting co-ordinated and clear "assaults" on the borders of the US? Seriously...?
Remember. I'm specifically talking about why we got involved in the European conflict during WW2 rather then just telling Britain and France to deal with their problems themselves.
And, as Bodhi so efficiently stole, we got involved in the European theater because we declared on Japan (they did, sort of, attack us. A little) causing Germany and Italy to declare on us.
Quote:
Quote:
to assist allies who had been or were imminently threatened to be overcome by force.
Ok. But what's in it for us? Iraq did invade Kuwait, right? Iraq failed to comply with the terms of the cease fire it agreed to after that invasion. Sure. It didn't actively invade anyone else, but I think you're missing the point here. Had someone acted to stop Germany prior to it taking over 3/4ths of Europe, maybe WW2 would not have been such a big deal either. We can't say what would have happened. Also, there's a difference here in terms of conventional versus unconventional warfare.
Wow, it's like you're in a time machine. Yep, Iraq invaded Kuwait, but the response to that was a different war. And naturally you're going to bring up the Sudetenland argument - which was a somewhat appropriate comparison when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Now it's just silly.
And I'll grant you there is a difference between conventional and non-conventional warfare. Too bad Iraq was incapable of the latter... unless you're not referring to the invisible WMDs and are referring to guerilla warfare - links to Iraq for those were pretty tenuous as compared to links to other Middle Eastern/Western Asian nations. Why Iraq then?
There was no overt threat, not even a massing of troops to threaten Iraq's neighbors, while I'm all for pro-active actions those have to be backed up by something, some evidence, otherwise it's a thought-police-action and I have a very hard time justifying killing people just for the way they think when no action backs up those thoughts.
Quote:
Quote:
Your turn.
I was going to address some other flaws (such as the fact that you've listed only actions made by the "other side" rather then actual benefits like "world peace", "a stable europe", "increased US presence in the region", etc...), but I came across this very interesting excerpt from a book written in 1953 called Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace
I thought we were talking about reasons to engage in the conflict. World Peace as a benefit would imply that something was threatening that - like an action by the "other side". Do you really want to go with the "a stable Europe" argument? Because, you know, it really wasn't (that pesky Cold War thing kind of jacks up your argument) and given how well we've done with our stabilizing efforts in other regions that goal is pretty much laughable.
An increased US presence in the region? We were just coming off of a pretty severe isolationist jag (which is further evidenced by your link), at that point in history we weren't really interested in furthering our presence, we just wanted to be left alone which we have been severely criticised for as that was, in large part, the reason for the delay of entry in the first place.
Regarding your link, the only similarity is that neither Iraq nor Germany was interested in trying to attack/conquer the US.
The rest of it just shows that you're really cherry-picking or that you're just somewhat dense. Who declared on who in Europe aside (which makes the argument largely academic) Germany had rolled over and conquered several nations and showed no sign of slowing. Even if we didn't know about the genocide (which we did) the fact that our allies were being conquered would have been quite enough.
Yes, Iraq invaded Kuwait. But the Visigoths sacked Rome! we should be taking out Romania! Do you really want to hold on to past bad acts as future indicators? Think about that very carefully before you answer.
Archfiend bodhisattva wrote:
Nobby's assh'ole is brighter than you are, SR.
Edited, Sep 22nd 2007 12:08pm by bodhisattva
Edited, Sep 22nd 2007 12:08pm by bodhisattva
He uses bleaching cream.
Like a tiger stalking its prey, I patiently lie in wait for the inevitable "So what if the foundation stone of my entire line of reasoning was in fact untrue and clearly showed my ignorance of the subject, I still hold the rest of my argument to be valid and well thought out" gbaji response.
Silent, poised, ready to pounce before Celcio can even respond!
Silent, poised, ready to pounce before Celcio can even respond!
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
You know, I go through all this trouble to manouver things for maximum effect and Bodhi's just waiting in the bushes like an 11-year old with a handful of eggs waiting to ruin Halloween.
Jerk.
And get your hands off my eggs.
Jerk.
And get your hands off my eggs.
Celcio wrote:
Jerk.
Please do.
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
Archfiend bodhisattva wrote:
Celcio wrote:
Jerk.
Please do.
Mmmmm Eau d'esperation.
I reek of gin and bitter defeat.
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
Not to mention redundancy - I'd run a search for how often you've mentioned gin and bitter defeat but I think there's a limit on the number of results returned.
Besides, less sidetracking, more stalking tiger.
Shh!
Besides, less sidetracking, more stalking tiger.
Shh!
Did I ever tell you about the time I took that girl home...
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
Archfiend bodhisattva wrote:
Did I ever tell you about the time I took that girl home...
Yes, but you never mentioned what you did with all the parts afterwards.
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
you people are a lesson in humanity.
we deserve what we get.
we deserve what we get.
pfft
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
shadowrelm wrote:
you people are a lesson in humanity.
we deserve what we get.
we deserve what we get.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
shadowrelm wrote:
you people are a lesson in humanity.
we deserve what we get.
we deserve what we get.
It means we represent everything that's good about humanity!
Thanks, shadow!
Jophiel wrote:
shadowrelm wrote:
you people are a lesson in humanity.
we deserve what we get.
we deserve what we get.
But I wanted to dress like an indian!
Archfiend bodhisattva wrote:
Did I ever tell you about the time I took that girl home...
And she put a burlap bag on her head and chased you through the park? Yes, about a million times.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Gbaji,
You lose credibility when you make comparisons to WWII and this current war. Then, you sit back and wonder why no one will take you seriously. Protip: Don't do it.
In other words, quit being a cnut.
You lose credibility when you make comparisons to WWII and this current war. Then, you sit back and wonder why no one will take you seriously. Protip: Don't do it.
In other words, quit being a cnut.
Archfiend bodhisattva wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
to protect our borders from co-ordinated and clear assault by identifiable threats,
Excuse me? Germany was conducting co-ordinated and clear "assaults" on the borders of the US? Seriously...?
Remember. I'm specifically talking about why we got involved in the European conflict during WW2 rather then just telling Britain and France to deal with their problems themselves.
Kudos, you fail at such a basic and fundamental level that it boggles the mind.
Do a quick google search, **** Germany and Fascist Italy declared war on the United States, not vice versa. Thanks for showing up gbaji.
Missing the point. Germany did not attack us. It was not going to attack us. We could have easily simply sat out the entire conflict, or at worse dealt with Japan and ignored Europe entirely.
The point I'm trying to get you thick headed folks to see is that the US had no specific reason to get involved in Europe during WW2. We really didn't. Saying "But Germany declared war on us!!!" isn't sufficient. We could have easily just not messed with them, only worried about Japan, and made an agreement "in the interests of peace".
Need I remind you all that we were also at a state of war with Iraq. We had a cease fire agreement, but we were still "at war" with that country. How is the fact that we were at a state of war in 1941 with a country (Germany) that had never attacked us directly and had no plans to attack us directly any different then the fact that were were at war in 2003 with another country (Iraq) who also had not attacked us directly nor did it plan to attack us directly magically two different sets of criteria? You all love to mock the WW2 comparisons, but can't seem to actually refute any of the comparisons I'm making.
I'll ask again: What benefit did the US gain from deciding to actively involve itself in the European theater of WW2? In what way did it have any more moral or legal grounds for that involvement then it did with Iraq in 2003? Compare and contrast. Don't just assume because the assumption fits what you've heard or already believe.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Guilt by association Gbaji. Japan attacks us. Germany and Italy are their pals. Guilt by association buddy 
So, according to your comparison. you're saying that even though we were still "at war" with Iraq, and that they hadn't attacked us, we should have just sat out the conflict.
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
Quote:
How is the fact that we were at a state of war in 1941 with a country (Germany) that had never attacked us directly and had no plans to attack us directly any different then the fact that were were at war in 2003 with another country (Iraq) who also had not attacked us directly nor did it plan to attack us directly magically two different sets of criteria?
When did congress declare war on Iraq?
Wow! Talk about missing a headline!
Gbaji, you have got to be fUcking kidding me.
They did, they repeatedly attacked US supply ships with civilians on them.
Total bullsh*t. There was no way you could've done that. The reason why Germany declared war on the US was becuase they had a pact with Japan that Japanw ould attack Russia on its Eastern front, while Germany would attack the US.
There was no way you could've "dealt with Japan" without getting involved with Germany. You are such an ignorant tool, it's insane...
Germany attacking your civilian ships? Ivading and bombing your closest allies? Genociding and setting-up camps of murder on an industrial scale?
Do you also realise the US was not, in 1940, in the prominent position it is today? It was not the world's only super-power, and could not have survived and prospered without allies.
Only ignorant simple-minded dumb-asses like you could be so blind as to think that the US "really had no reason to get involved with Germany during WWII"
Because one was a weak country with a dying government that posed a threat to no one, and whose case was being dealt with by the UN.
The other was a conflict in which one side was brutally murdering and conquering millions of people, creating the greatest war machine ever seen, on the verge of having an atomic bomb, attacking your civilians ships, allied to a country that bombed your naval base, and which declared war on you!
And you still can't see the fUcking difference?
The benefit of living in a stable world where they could prosper by trading with their allies, thereby ensuring the greatest period of economic boom and political power in your country's History.
Twunt.
Are you joking?
Legally, one conflict was a world war where you responded to being declared war on, your ships being attacked, your alleis getting invaded and carpet-bombed, and your naval bases being sunk.
The other conflict was being dealt with by the UN, and the offending country was a threat to no one, with no real military power.
See a difference?
Morally, I won't degrade myself to explaining you the difference.
Twunt.
Edited, Sep 27th 2007 9:59am by RedPhoenixxx
gbaji wrote:
Germany did not attack us.
They did, they repeatedly attacked US supply ships with civilians on them.
Quote:
We could have easily simply sat out the entire conflict, or at worse dealt with Japan and ignored Europe entirely.
Total bullsh*t. There was no way you could've done that. The reason why Germany declared war on the US was becuase they had a pact with Japan that Japanw ould attack Russia on its Eastern front, while Germany would attack the US.
There was no way you could've "dealt with Japan" without getting involved with Germany. You are such an ignorant tool, it's insane...
Quote:
The point I'm trying to get you thick headed folks to see is that the US had no specific reason to get involved in Europe during WW2. We really didn't.
Germany attacking your civilian ships? Ivading and bombing your closest allies? Genociding and setting-up camps of murder on an industrial scale?
Do you also realise the US was not, in 1940, in the prominent position it is today? It was not the world's only super-power, and could not have survived and prospered without allies.
Only ignorant simple-minded dumb-asses like you could be so blind as to think that the US "really had no reason to get involved with Germany during WWII"
Quote:
How is the fact that we were at a state of war in 1941 with a country (Germany) that had never attacked us directly and had no plans to attack us directly any different then the fact that were were at war in 2003 with another country (Iraq) who also had not attacked us directly nor did it plan to attack us directly magically two different sets of criteria?
Because one was a weak country with a dying government that posed a threat to no one, and whose case was being dealt with by the UN.
The other was a conflict in which one side was brutally murdering and conquering millions of people, creating the greatest war machine ever seen, on the verge of having an atomic bomb, attacking your civilians ships, allied to a country that bombed your naval base, and which declared war on you!
And you still can't see the fUcking difference?
Quote:
What benefit did the US gain from deciding to actively involve itself in the European theater of WW2?
The benefit of living in a stable world where they could prosper by trading with their allies, thereby ensuring the greatest period of economic boom and political power in your country's History.
Twunt.
Quote:
In what way did it have any more moral or legal grounds for that involvement then it did with Iraq in 2003?
Are you joking?
Legally, one conflict was a world war where you responded to being declared war on, your ships being attacked, your alleis getting invaded and carpet-bombed, and your naval bases being sunk.
The other conflict was being dealt with by the UN, and the offending country was a threat to no one, with no real military power.
See a difference?
Morally, I won't degrade myself to explaining you the difference.
Twunt.
Edited, Sep 27th 2007 9:59am by RedPhoenixxx
Why RedPhoenixxx remains a Scholar, and Gbaji remains a Sage is beyond my understanding.
Gbaji is to the Republican Party like SR is to the Democratic Party.
Edited, Sep 27th 2007 6:36am by Rimesume
Gbaji is to the Republican Party like SR is to the Democratic Party.
Edited, Sep 27th 2007 6:36am by Rimesume
Amen brother, amen.
Recent Visitors: 238
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (238)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- iraq report is in, let the spinn begin
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC