PSX5Central
Non Gaming Discussions => Off-Topic => Topic started by: Halberto on January 30, 2005, 01:49:11 AM
-
so far 17 have died from attacks at polling stations.
I just thought of something... say that this election falls through, the person elected will probably be shot and killed by insurgents anyway. We\'re going to be in Iraq for a year or more I think, and its not going to end up pretty.
-
I don\'t really see a pretty ending to this... just get out of the country and cut the losses. There\'s no way we can restore law and order there anyway (and democracy for that matter).
-
They were running a commercial in Iraq that showed the U.S. troops driving away. Giving the message that if they voted then our troops will leave.
-
Originally posted by Halberto
so far 17 have died from attacks at polling stations.
I just thought of something... say that this election falls through, the person elected will probably be shot and killed by insurgents anyway. We\'re going to be in Iraq for a year or more I think, and its not going to end up pretty.
try at least 5 - 7 yrs...iraq must have a fully realized military and police force intact before..the u.s. can even consider leaving...
thing is now is that the american citizens are saying that maybe this war was a mistake..:rolleyes:....this war was a mistake from the jump...in the very beginning there was ZERO support for going into iraq from the amer. public...then bush kept pushing the issue..y\'know it was kinda like how you hear a song on the radio that at first you don\'t like, but as the radio station keeps playin it for weeks on end, then you start to like it....the same applies here.
Now the amer people are back at square one where they felt we shouldn\'t have went to war in the first place...talk about sheep...the prez and others can easily cultivate one\'s mind into thinking this was the right thing to do....except i didn\'t fall for his bulls**t...
so in a sense yea hal these elections are pretty much worthless,..because if these insurgents can easily pick high ranking iraqi officials with ease, who\'s to say that within days of having a newly elected prez, that he won\'t be assassinated? bush & co. tried to play s**t down like you could just walk down the street in iraq when he couldn\'t be further from the truth...he only spoke about the situation in iraq truthfully only after getting vibes from his cabinet that the amer public was becoming deeply concerned with what was happening in iraq...
yea it\'s rant,..after seein those pics unknown pm\'d me, i\'m a little amped....
-
Yes, let\'s give up now.
After all, America\'s democracy sprang into life overnight without violence or strife, and we knew exactly what we were doing from the start.
-
Western culture is much more favorable to democracy then middle-eastern culture.
-
Zero support from the start? You have to be kidding.
Anyway looks like the elections were more successful than most you nay sayers thought.
-
Originally posted by Weltall
Yes, let\'s give up now.
After all, America\'s democracy sprang into life overnight without violence or strife, and we knew exactly what we were doing from the start.
i\'m not sayin we give up..we can\'t possibly pack up and leave now. it baffles me how people think this is a war for freedom when initially it was the battle for the dreaded wmd\'s :rolleyes:...you can\'t force western views and values in the heart of the middle east simply because you felt you had a personal agenda..or felt that iraq was unfinished business....
ultimately i hope everything turns out ok for the u.s. and the iraqi people. hopefully we can still bring honor to those whose lost their lives..( iraqi and coalition forces)...in a war in which imo didn\'t have to be fought in the first place..
-
just a random note. Has nothing to do with the elections, but more about the negativity surrounding the war.
i was watching a show on PBS and a guy had a good point. We\'ve been very negative about the war because we see every mistake, ever bad thing that has gone on because of the media (not that thats a bad thing). If we got to see all the bad things that went on in WWII, we would have thought we were losing. And there was one battle that was so bad for the US that President Roosevelt wouldve been under a lot of critique.
I cant remember what the battle was. Something about sending our troops in an area and them being surrounded by Axis powers and all our guys were slaughtered.
As for the elections. Iv also been hearing more good news about the polls recently. But if the guy elected does get killed, that would kind of send everything to hell IMO. Didnt one of the guys we gave authority to get killed a while ago? So its not impossible.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Zero support from the start? You have to be kidding.
Anyway looks like the elections were more successful than most you nay sayers thought.
sorry giga you\'re wrong on this one...i remember when bush first started poppin\' s**t about invadin\' iraq....trust, there was ZERO support from the amer. public...
as far as the elections are concerned...like i said before what good is it, if there\'s a good chance whoever\'s elected will be killed t\'morrow?...you can vote till the camels come home,..but with no true security, and really no REAL gov\'t in place what does this really prove....NOTHING...i want the iraqi\'s to be able live respectful lives,..but this election was just rushed and flawed and handled irresponsibly...
-
Originally posted by Viper_Fujax
just a random note. Has nothing to do with the elections, but more about the negativity surrounding the war.
i was watching a show on PBS and a guy had a good point. We\'ve been very negative about the war because we see every mistake, ever bad thing that has gone on because of the media (not that thats a bad thing). If we got to see all the bad things that went on in WWII, we would have thought we were losing. And there was one battle that was so bad for the US that President Roosevelt wouldve been under a lot of critique.
I cant remember what the battle was. Something about sending our troops in an area and them being surrounded by Axis powers and all our guys were slaughtered.
As for the elections. Iv also been hearing more good news about the polls recently. But if the guy elected does get killed, that would kind of send everything to hell IMO. Didnt one of the guys we gave authority to get killed a while ago? So its not impossible.
Could you imagine how today\'s mincing, liberal news media would have reported the D-Day invasion?
"6000+ Allied Casualties on June 6th alone! Assault a total failure! Anti-War groups protest useless waste of life!"
-
Originally posted by Weltall
Yes, let\'s give up now.
After all, America\'s democracy sprang into life overnight without violence or strife, and we knew exactly what we were doing from the start.
Yes. Also, America\'s democracy was given to them by another country. American people in no way started this war or revolted THEMSELVES in order to form a democracy. Back then, we had another country come "free" us.
Get it?
-
Originally posted by Weltall
Could you imagine how today\'s mincing, liberal news media would have reported the D-Day invasion?
"6000+ Allied Casualties on June 6th alone! Assault a total failure! Anti-War groups protest useless waste of life!"
That is a good pont.
No matter how positive the news today people like Ted Kennedy will downplay it for his own selfish goal of doing what he can to destroy Bush.
-
Originally posted by Weltall
Could you imagine how today\'s mincing, liberal news media would have reported the D-Day invasion?
"6000+ Allied Casualties on June 6th alone! Assault a total failure! Anti-War groups protest useless waste of life!"
WW2 was an actual war based on actual need to attack. Let\'s not forget that the US had no intention of helping the Jews other than by some ammo and a couple of embargos. Also that the Japanese attacked the US and we declared war on JAPAN not Germany. But then Germany declared war on us.
Anyways. Let\'s also not forget that most of our casualties during WW2 came DURING the war. Not after "major operations have ended" and the "mission was accomplished"
Why does it have to be "liberal news"? Why can\'t it be the media all together. I\'m tired of some neo-cons trying to give the word "liberal" a negative connotation.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Anyway looks like the elections were more successful than most you nay sayers thought.
Yes, only 30+ people were killed today.
-
Originally posted by Ace
That is a good pont.
No matter how positive the news today people like Ted Kennedy will downplay it for his own selfish goal of doing what he can to destroy Bush.
while that may be true to a certain extent concerning Ted Kennedy, the fact remains that the bad news in iraq truly outweighs the positive news,..it\'s just a fact...it\'s like saying your house burned down and you lost everything, your job, your wife is getting twisted by the milkman,..and your loyal german shepherd comes to the side of your leg and pisses on you, yet you say "well uh at least i have 10 dollars in my pocket"....<----that is the situation in iraq...
-
Originally posted by SirMystiq
Yes. Also, America\'s democracy was given to them by another country. American people in no way started this war or revolted THEMSELVES in order to form a democracy. Back then, we had another country come "free" us.
Get it?
Your kidding right???? I know France helped a bit, but you have got to be fucking retarded if you don\'t think the people that were here had nothing to do with setting the States free and then setting up a democracy.
Please by all means Mexico and Canada would love to have someone, of your talented nature so please when you become of legal age take your ass to one of those countries and never come back.
-
Originally posted by clips
while that may be true to a certain extent concerning Ted Kennedy, the fact remains that the bad news in iraq truly outweighs the positive news,..it\'s just a fact...it\'s like saying your house burned down and you lost everything, your job, your wife is getting twisted by the milkman,..and your loyal german shepherd comes to the side of your leg and pisses on you, yet you say "well uh at least i have 10 dollars in my pocket"....<----that is the situation in iraq...
So this whole thing is a waste in your mind??? You obviously watch TV too much, I\'m sorry but there are people over there from your country working their asses off and all you can do is sit here and complain about how bad things are in Iraq. Your not over there so you are almost completely basing your opinion on what you hear and what you see on TV and maybe from some people around you, so in reality you don\'t know too much about whats over there, cuz your not.
Now if you want to tell us how it is, please pack up and fly over there and give us a write up of your adventure.
-
Originally posted by SirMystiq
WW2 was an actual war based on actual need to attack. Let\'s not forget that the US had no intention of helping the Jews other than by some ammo and a couple of embargos. Also that the Japanese attacked the US and we declared war on JAPAN not Germany. But then Germany declared war on us.
Anyways. Let\'s also not forget that most of our casualties during WW2 came DURING the war. Not after "major operations have ended" and the "mission was accomplished"
Why does it have to be "liberal news"? Why can\'t it be the media all together. I\'m tired of some neo-cons trying to give the word "liberal" a negative connotation.
There are apologists today who deny the Holocaust. Some say the Jews lie, and perpetuate this grand scam to illicit sympathy. There are people today, some claim that FDR allowed the Japanese to attack, some claim he secretly provoked them, intentionallym or that we didn\'t fight until our own imperial interests were assaulted. There are those who say that using the atom bomb was nothing short of evil murder.
If WWII were going on today, these would be the statements of MoveOn.org, Michael Moore, the Hollywood left, and liberals in general. Those are the same people who say America deserves worldwide hatred because we are powerful and bullying. They are the ones who decry our President and defend the aims of Islamic terrorism, even if unwittingly.
There are so many people in America who are vocally opposed to this war. I think, more than anything else, this strengthens terrorists, urges them on, because they know if they keep up the bloodbath, enough Americans might turn tail, elect a mincing, fraidy-cat leader who will pull us out, and hand Iraq to Islamofascism on a silver platter, to placate the unwitting collaborators at home and abroad.
To me, the word liberal DOES have a negative connotation. The ideas of liberalism are not really bad, they in fact, do have altruistic intent I believe. The problems lie in that many of those ideas are totally unrealistic, and their implementation tends to create negative consequences because they are mishandled by people who are too short-sighted, or have ulterior motives.
So yeah, liberalism is a negative force. It\'s helping the terrorists in Iraq. Free Speech is being abused as a tool to aid and abet. This is America, however, and you have the right to be wrong. But I think the powerful Left are using that power in a destructive way, one that undermines this country. And I can only hope it\'s because they\'re ignorant, and not because they really do side with the enemy.
-
Originally posted by mjps21983
So this whole thing is a waste in your mind??? You obviously watch TV too much, I\'m sorry but there are people over there from your country working their asses off and all you can do is sit here and complain about how bad things are in Iraq. Your not over there so you are almost completely basing your opinion on what you hear and what you see on TV and maybe from some people around you, so in reality you don\'t know too much about whats over there, cuz your not.
Now if you want to tell us how it is, please pack up and fly over there and give us a write up of your adventure.
sigh...like i said sheep...go back to the foundation of this war...wmd\'s..yea i know it got kinda lost between the mission accomplished s**t and liberating the iraqi people :rolleyes:...c\'mon man of course there\'s alot of positive things happening in iraq..but s**t i don\'t have to take a flight over there to know s**t is bad..i\'m not throwing a negative spin on it..it\'s a fact..and you\'re right i do watch alot of tv..where else am i gonna get the iraqi info from? :laughing:
please don\'t go on a rant about how there\'s other resources other than tv, yea i know this but for the most part what you see on tv is generally what is happening in iraq, whether it\'s on a conservative channel or a liberal channel..i didn\'t say it was a waste..i generally stated imo i felt we didn\'t have to be there in the first place...s**t if you feel so obliged to follow your prez through the gates of hell, take that ass over there yourself and YOU give us a detailed info report.....IF you make it back alive...
-
Originally posted by Weltall
There are apologists today who deny the Holocaust. Some say the Jews lie, and perpetuate this grand scam to illicit sympathy. There are people today, some claim that FDR allowed the Japanese to attack, some claim he secretly provoked them, intentionallym or that we didn\'t fight until our own imperial interests were assaulted. There are those who say that using the atom bomb was nothing short of evil murder.
If WWII were going on today, these would be the statements of MoveOn.org, Michael Moore, the Hollywood left, and liberals in general. Those are the same people who say America deserves worldwide hatred because we are powerful and bullying. They are the ones who decry our President and defend the aims of Islamic terrorism, even if unwittingly.
There are so many people in America who are vocally opposed to this war. I think, more than anything else, this strengthens terrorists, urges them on, because they know if they keep up the bloodbath, enough Americans might turn tail, elect a mincing, fraidy-cat leader who will pull us out, and hand Iraq to Islamofascism on a silver platter, to placate the unwitting collaborators at home and abroad.
To me, the word liberal DOES have a negative connotation. The ideas of liberalism are not really bad, they in fact, do have altruistic intent I believe. The problems lie in that many of those ideas are totally unrealistic, and their implementation tends to create negative consequences because they are mishandled by people who are too short-sighted, or have ulterior motives.
So yeah, liberalism is a negative force. It\'s helping the terrorists in Iraq. Free Speech is being abused as a tool to aid and abet. This is America, however, and you have the right to be wrong. But I think the powerful Left are using that power in a destructive way, one that undermines this country. And I can only hope it\'s because they\'re ignorant, and not because they really do side with the enemy.
even tho..this is well stated...you couldn\'t be more wrong...just because there are some that oppose the war does not mean we want our troops to be pulled out..on the contrary the troops at this point have to stay until real security is fully realized. iraq was not an immdeiate threat to the u.s. yet bush chose to implement a pre-emptive attack on iraq and trust at the time alot of people in the white house thought it was going to be a walk in the park...which it was..saddams forces were defeated pretty quickly..
then it got real ugly real fast in the coming months afterward..bush had already alienated most of the world with his go it alone policy, only to come creeping back to the u.n. for help afterwards..i\'m not gonna go into a whole rant about this...just know that those of us that do oppose the war, only do so knowing that this was not the right war at this time...
as far as wwII is concerned i just know the basics on that scenario in which the u.s. was attacked by the japanese, and thus that was how they were involved in the war. if i was living back then i would\'ve supported the u.s. decision to enter that war to defend itself, plain and simple....
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Zero support from the start? You have to be kidding.
Anyway looks like the elections were more successful than most you nay sayers thought.
Yes but will the electee stay in office or will he be assassinated?
-
i guess these elections are just to set the groundings for the constitution. No one hugely important yet.
But u say 17 were killed, yet millions have voted. Id say things are going smoothly so far.
But arent these people kind of voting blindly? i doubt they know who they are voting for.
-
Originally posted by mjps21983
Your kidding right???? I know France helped a bit, but you have got to be fucking retarded if you don\'t think the people that were here had nothing to do with setting the States free and then setting up a democracy.
Please by all means Mexico and Canada would love to have someone, of your talented nature so please when you become of legal age take your ass to one of those countries and never come back.
Let\'s see. I quoted and obviously sarcastic comment made by weltwall. I capitalized "themselves" in an effort to emphacize the sarcasm of my post.
No, I\'m not kidding (Sarcasm)
From now on I will mark all of my sarcastic remarks. I don\'t think Mexico or Canada are worried about that, it seems to me that all of the people of my "talented nature" are born and raised here and somehow remind me of you.
Get it now?
It was sarcasm. Intended to point out that Weltwall\'s comparison is faulty.
Get it?!
-
Originally posted by Weltall
There are apologists today who deny the Holocaust. Some say the Jews lie, and perpetuate this grand scam to illicit sympathy. There are people today, some claim that FDR allowed the Japanese to attack, some claim he secretly provoked them, intentionallym or that we didn\'t fight until our own imperial interests were assaulted. There are those who say that using the atom bomb was nothing short of evil murder.
If WWII were going on today, these would be the statements of MoveOn.org, Michael Moore, the Hollywood left, and liberals in general. Those are the same people who say America deserves worldwide hatred because we are powerful and bullying. They are the ones who decry our President and defend the aims of Islamic terrorism, even if unwittingly.
There are so many people in America who are vocally opposed to this war. I think, more than anything else, this strengthens terrorists, urges them on, because they know if they keep up the bloodbath, enough Americans might turn tail, elect a mincing, fraidy-cat leader who will pull us out, and hand Iraq to Islamofascism on a silver platter, to placate the unwitting collaborators at home and abroad.
To me, the word liberal DOES have a negative connotation. The ideas of liberalism are not really bad, they in fact, do have altruistic intent I believe. The problems lie in that many of those ideas are totally unrealistic, and their implementation tends to create negative consequences because they are mishandled by people who are too short-sighted, or have ulterior motives.
So yeah, liberalism is a negative force. It\'s helping the terrorists in Iraq. Free Speech is being abused as a tool to aid and abet. This is America, however, and you have the right to be wrong. But I think the powerful Left are using that power in a destructive way, one that undermines this country. And I can only hope it\'s because they\'re ignorant, and not because they really do side with the enemy.
I agree. Why don\'t we just all brand ourselves with a W and join the army?
We should all just agree with whatever some neo-con might think is right and support him without casting doubt.
Right. I\'m sorry "liberalism" is not helping the terrorist. I think that our President sending soldiers in Iraq constantly in order to replace those that are dead help the terrorist by providing them a target to attack and kill. And by doing so they bolster their ego and they fuel their hatred.
They see those Christian missionaries trying to convert their people and they see the American\'s "moralizing"(Christianifying) their own country and only makes them want to defend their religious believes even more.
I don\'t really think you believe all the crap you just said about "liberals" If it wasn\'t for "liberal" thinking we would still be fighting for civil rights, slavery and freedom. Progressives encourage such thinks as technology, healthcare and, again, freedom.
What I don\'t encourage(as a liberal) is a faulty war with faulty logic that has caused us not only priceless lifes of our soldiers but alot of money and alot of pain. We have watched this President take a war of the whole agenda of "terror" and simplified it to Iraq.
If anything "liberalism" has helped shine light on our dim-witted President and has taken alot of American\'s of the shadows.
"The problems lie in that many of those ideas are totally unrealistic, and their implementation tends to create negative consequences because they are mishandled by people who are too short-sighted, or have ulterior motives. "
Short war in Iraq?
WMD?
Mission Accomplished?
Security?
You seem to have described our current government very well.
-
For the record, I agree with Weltalls post. Also for the record, I will also agree that Mystiq would be widely accepted as the smartest person in Canada or Mexico :p
-
Originally posted by SirMystiq
I agree. Why don\'t we just all brand ourselves with a W and join the army?
We should all just agree with whatever some neo-con might think is right and support him without casting doubt.
Right. I\'m sorry "liberalism" is not helping the terrorist. I think that our President sending soldiers in Iraq constantly in order to replace those that are dead help the terrorist by providing them a target to attack and kill. And by doing so they bolster their ego and they fuel their hatred.
They see those Christian missionaries trying to convert their people and they see the American\'s "moralizing"(Christianifying) their own country and only makes them want to defend their religious believes even more.
I don\'t really think you believe all the crap you just said about "liberals" If it wasn\'t for "liberal" thinking we would still be fighting for civil rights, slavery and freedom. Progressives encourage such thinks as technology, healthcare and, again, freedom.
What I don\'t encourage(as a liberal) is a faulty war with faulty logic that has caused us not only priceless lifes of our soldiers but alot of money and alot of pain. We have watched this President take a war of the whole agenda of "terror" and simplified it to Iraq.
If anything "liberalism" has helped shine light on our dim-witted President and has taken alot of American\'s of the shadows.
"The problems lie in that many of those ideas are totally unrealistic, and their implementation tends to create negative consequences because they are mishandled by people who are too short-sighted, or have ulterior motives. "
Short war in Iraq?
WMD?
Mission Accomplished?
Security?
You seem to have described our current government very well.
And you just kinda exemplified the very person I described. Someone who dislikes America, but would rather replace it or transform it with his own idea of a socialist utopia, a neutered Euro-clone, rather than outright destroy it. As it stands, you don\'t like it, but you can\'t find a better place to be.
I mean gee, after all, we have no right to bother terrorists if they don\'t bother us directly. We have to wait until they blow more shit up here. We have to wait until they knock down more buildings. Or buses full of kids. Or maybe set off a dirty bomb or a nuke in the middle of a metropolis.
Of course, even then, we DID provoke them, didn\'t we? We\'re bullies, so we deserve what we get. We should be more compassionate, talk to them, find what they want, and change ourselves to suit their desires. They\'re human beings just like we are. All they do is murder people innocents, and they do it for a good cause. We bomb people for oil.
Sick.
-
Originally posted by Weltall
And you just kinda exemplified the very person I described. Someone who dislikes America, but would rather replace it or transform it with his own idea of a socialist utopia, a neutered Euro-clone, rather than outright destroy it. As it stands, you don\'t like it, but you can\'t find a better place to be.
I mean gee, after all, we have no right to bother terrorists if they don\'t bother us directly. We have to wait until they blow more shit up here. We have to wait until they knock down more buildings. Or buses full of kids. Or maybe set off a dirty bomb or a nuke in the middle of a metropolis.
Of course, even then, we DID provoke them, didn\'t we? We\'re bullies, so we deserve what we get. We should be more compassionate, talk to them, find what they want, and change ourselves to suit their desires. They\'re human beings just like we are. All they do is murder people innocents, and they do it for a good cause. We bomb people for oil.
Sick.
Shut up.
Seriously, you have no idea how I feel about this country and further how I think about this country. I don\'t dislike America. I dislike our short-sighted government that is in power. I do wish for everything to be peace and prosperity but I know that in this world that won\'t happen.
What I won\'t stand for is being lied to and watching our soldiers die daily as a result of a dim-witted decision made by those in power. I won\'t stand for "freedom" when the idea of "freedom" is being shaped and molded by the media and those in government.
I won\'t stand for ignorance and be oblivious to the reasons why America is so hated around the world. Are they right for doing what they did to this country? No. But am I too ignorant and stupid to acknowledge their point of view of the entire situation? No
We DID wait for them to blow shit up here. Only after 9/11 did our bubble burst. What you seem to be implying is that Iraq was a threat and it was. But the threat was mishandled, miscalculated and as a result of that faulty equation we have death, destruction and the neverending stretch of our falling economy.
Your tirade of sarcastic remarks is dull and apologetic. You\'ve seem to have forgotten that Iraq is not the only one that "murder innocent people" That has nothing to do with the whole basis of this war. This war has been subject to frequent goal changes and mishaps and it\'s sad that your high regard for our President and your blinding and dangerous level of patriotism has led you to believe and of the crap you just posted.
-
We know all too well how you feel about this country Mystiq. Where should I start?
Do you even know what being patriotic is? Take your liberal appeasement dribble and leave if you don\'t like it. You have no clue on the principles which made this country and have allowed it to prosper.
-
Dammit Mystic if you want to have an intellegent debate dont open with "Shut up"
-
Originally posted by SirMystiq
Shut up.
Seriously, you have no idea how I feel about this country and further how I think about this country. I don\'t dislike America. I dislike our short-sighted government that is in power. I do wish for everything to be peace and prosperity but I know that in this world that won\'t happen.
Your solution seems to go along the lines of "Ignore the problem. It will go away." Hey, hello, there are people out there who want to bring this country, and everyone in it, to their knees. And if you think that they just recently got this idea, you\'re wrong. Islamic terrorism, as I hope you\'re aware, has been around for decades. And even AFTER they attacked us directly, here in America, we ignored the problem, allowing it to grow and solidify, until they finally turned the WTC into rubble. How much longer would we have ignored it, had Bush not been elected?
I don\'t need to ask you what you say you think about America. Your words say enough.
What I won\'t stand for is being lied to and watching our soldiers die daily as a result of a dim-witted decision made by those in power. I won\'t stand for "freedom" when the idea of "freedom" is being shaped and molded by the media and those in government.
I won\'t stand for ignorance and be oblivious to the reasons why America is so hated around the world. Are they right for doing what they did to this country? No. But am I too ignorant and stupid to acknowledge their point of view of the entire situation? No
You won\'t stand for America\'s idea of freedom. Neither does Al-Qaeda. They\'re doing everything they can to destroy it. You\'re not making it even the slightest bit less difficult for him. You and those like you seek to weaken our resolve. Whether or not you realize how much our enemy loves you for it, I can\'t tell. Again, I hope it\'s ignorance, and not malice, that drives you.
We DID wait for them to blow shit up here. Only after 9/11 did our bubble burst. What you seem to be implying is that Iraq was a threat and it was. But the threat was mishandled, miscalculated and as a result of that faulty equation we have death, destruction and the neverending stretch of our falling economy.
Again, I refer to my statement about D-Day. This war is one of the cleanest and smoothest wars ever fought in the history of the human race. We are fighting an insurgency, and while they are deadly, in the end they are a menace, but not a lethal menace. They do not control any sizable portions of Iraq, and unless we stand aside and let them, there\'s no chance they ever will. I think subduing the terrorists would be so much easier if we didn\'t have to fight such a politically correct war. We have to fight this war in such a way that we offend as few as possible. This is something that compromises our progress more than anything else, and a good deal of that can be blamed on the left of America. It\'s so terrible to torture captured terrorists, but none of you people bat an eyelash when they take innocent civilians and behead them on video. You people blame us for this instead of those with the knives. It shows far more than words whose cause is being supported by the far Left.
Your tirade of sarcastic remarks is dull and apologetic. You\'ve seem to have forgotten that Iraq is not the only one that "murder innocent people" That has nothing to do with the whole basis of this war. This war has been subject to frequent goal changes and mishaps and it\'s sad that your high regard for our President and your blinding and dangerous level of patriotism has led you to believe and of the crap you just posted.
And it\'s equally sad that your dislike for America and what it stands for cannot override your desire to live in the greatest, happiest, most wonderful nation on the face of the earth. There are plenty of places where people like you would be happier living thanks to politics, but for some reason, you wish to stay here in the Great Satan, using the tired old line "I want to change it, not run away".
It\'s bullshit, if I may be frank. You don\'t like it here, and you know that it\'s astronomically unlikely that you or anyone else is going to transform this nation into the bastardized, neutered version you crave, so why not go to a place that IS what you want? There are plenty out there.
-
Originally posted by Weltall
It\'s bullshit, if I may be frank. You don\'t like it here, and you know that it\'s astronomically unlikely that you or anyone else is going to transform this nation into the bastardized, neutered version you crave, so why not go to a place that IS what you want? There are plenty out there.
Best quote ever.
Oh and clips - as for your claim there was zero public support before we went into Iraq - you are absolutely wrong. I supported it along with countless others. You must have been traveling abroad at the time... :rolleyes:
-
Weltall is officially on my badass list now...
But anway, I was watching all the people of Iraq dancing and singing at the voting sites, and it just about brought me to tears. I just thought it was so freakin\' awesome. Such an overwhelming event.
-
Originally posted by SirMystiq
WW2 was an actual war based on actual need to attack. Let\'s not forget that the US had no intention of helping the Jews other than by some ammo and a couple of embargos. Also that the Japanese attacked the US and we declared war on JAPAN not Germany. But then Germany declared war on us.
Did they not teach you history in illegal immigrant school?
The US didn\'t discover about the holocaust until they got there and kept moving deeper and discovering these execution/concentration camps. Hell it wasn\'t until 42 I think when Hitler decided concentration camps wern\'t good enough and went for the all out execution of every Jew. The US simply didn\'t know what was going on in Europe.
Really if you don\'t like the US move to fucking Europe or something. Canada doesn\'t want you either.
-
If WW2 happened today, the media would blame the US and Britain for not helping Germany recover from WWI and that it\'s the US and Britain\'s and France\'s fault that Germany is lashing out against the world.
Liberals = blame-ologists
-
Originally posted by EviscerationX
But anway, I was watching all the people of Iraq dancing and singing at the voting sites, and it just about brought me to tears. I just thought it was so freakin\' awesome. Such an overwhelming event.
I bet Miss Tiq and clips are pissed about that. They miss the good ole days of Saddam Hussein......
-
I think SirMystiq is quite correct on some of what he said about the allies.
I remember reading somewhere that the allies were informed of what was going on in the camps and were asked to send troops there, but the response was that they were there to fight a war. Something like that, and you cant blame them IMO, the first priority was defeating the Germans.
I think all countries who knew of what was going on did what they reasonably could with the information they had.
-
Originally posted by SirMystiq
WW2 was an actual war based on actual need to attack. Let\'s not forget that the US had no intention of helping the Jews other than by some ammo and a couple of embargos. Also that the Japanese attacked the US and we declared war on JAPAN not Germany. But then Germany declared war on us.
Anyways. Let\'s also not forget that most of our casualties during WW2 came DURING the war. Not after "major operations have ended" and the "mission was accomplished"
Why does it have to be "liberal news"? Why can\'t it be the media all together. I\'m tired of some neo-cons trying to give the word "liberal" a negative connotation.
Helping Jews by giving some ammo and embargos? Learn your history. Jumpman is absolutely correct in saying the US didn\'t know about the Holocaust until the end of the war - and by the way you typed that Miss tiq - you make it sound like the US was arming Jews. :rolleyes:.
BTW liberal does indeed carry a negative meaning in many parts of this country.
-
Originally posted by GmanJoe
If WW2 happened today, the media would blame the US and Britain for not helping Germany recover from WWI and that it\'s the US and Britain\'s and France\'s fault that Germany is lashing out against the world.
Liberals = blame-ologists
Gman you are probably right about that except for lumping France in there - nothing is ever France\'s fault - remember?
-
So the final tally is what?
No hanging Chads. Just a couple shot Mohammeds and one blown up Sarif?
-Dan
-
This is why I like being a moderate right now. Moderates accept no blame :)
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Helping Jews by giving some ammo and embargos? Learn your history. Jumpman is absolutely correct in saying the US didn\'t know about the Holocaust until the end of the war - and by the way you typed that Miss tiq - you make it sound like the US was arming Jews. :rolleyes:.
BTW liberal does indeed carry a negative meaning in many parts of this country.
Even though you have profoundly stated and proclaimed your statement to be truth by backing it with your assumptions about by knowledge of history, I happen to have read and researched cases and books about what actually could of happened during those times.
http://www1.ushmm.org/research/library/bibliography/america/right.htm
"Despite a history of providing sanctuary to persecuted peoples, the United States grappled with many issues during the 1930s that made staying true to this history more difficult, among them wide-spread antisemitism, xenophobia, isolationism, and a sustained economic depression. Unfortunate for those fleeing from Nazi persecution, these issues greatly impacted this nation\'s refugee policy, resulting in tighter restrictions and limited quotas at a time when open doors might have saved lives.
Over the years, the American reaction to the Holocaust has developed into a complex investigation among scholars, addressing such questions as: What did America know? What did we do with this knowledge? Could we have done more? If so, why didn\'t we? Scholars have gauged America\'s culpability through the government\'s restrictive immigration measures, its indifference to reported atrocities, and its sluggish efforts to save European Jews. Debates have sparked over key events, including the St. Louis tragedy, the overdue establishment of the War Refugee Board, the role of the American Jewish community, the media\'s coverage of Nazi violence, and the proposed, but abandoned, bombing of Auschwitz. Despite the wealth of resulting literature, it is unlikely that these debates will end. Instead, the topic continues to evolve with the introduction of new documentation and revised hypotheses.
Marrus, Michael Robert, editor. Bystanders to the Holocaust. Westport: Meckler, 1989. (Ref D 810 .J4 N38 1989 v.8, pt. 1-3)
A three-volume collection of articles and essays on the world\'s response to the Holocaust. Focuses, in large part, on the American response, providing numerous pieces (previously published elsewhere) on President Roosevelt, the United States government, the American Jewish community, and the American media. Includes notes and numerous appendices. Part of a larger series titled, The Nazi Holocaust. "
And if you have somehow have become a well known scholar in this field and you know exactly what the US know and didn\'t know then go ahead and state your truths. Otherwise, your claim that the US didn\'t know about the holocaust is pure speculation devised merely to try to assert your own facts.
-
Dammit all that did was question what we knew not IF WE KNEW
-
Originally posted by Weltall
Your solution seems to go along the lines of "Ignore the problem. It will go away." Hey, hello, there are people out there who want to bring this country, and everyone in it, to their knees. And if you think that they just recently got this idea, you\'re wrong. Islamic terrorism, as I hope you\'re aware, has been around for decades. And even AFTER they attacked us directly, here in America, we ignored the problem, allowing it to grow and solidify, until they finally turned the WTC into rubble. How much longer would we have ignored it, had Bush not been elected?
I don\'t need to ask you what you say you think about America. Your words say enough.
You won\'t stand for America\'s idea of freedom. Neither does Al-Qaeda. They\'re doing everything they can to destroy it. You\'re not making it even the slightest bit less difficult for him. You and those like you seek to weaken our resolve. Whether or not you realize how much our enemy loves you for it, I can\'t tell. Again, I hope it\'s ignorance, and not malice, that drives you.
Again, I refer to my statement about D-Day. This war is one of the cleanest and smoothest wars ever fought in the history of the human race. We are fighting an insurgency, and while they are deadly, in the end they are a menace, but not a lethal menace. They do not control any sizable portions of Iraq, and unless we stand aside and let them, there\'s no chance they ever will. I think subduing the terrorists would be so much easier if we didn\'t have to fight such a politically correct war. We have to fight this war in such a way that we offend as few as possible. This is something that compromises our progress more than anything else, and a good deal of that can be blamed on the left of America. It\'s so terrible to torture captured terrorists, but none of you people bat an eyelash when they take innocent civilians and behead them on video. You people blame us for this instead of those with the knives. It shows far more than words whose cause is being supported by the far Left.
And it\'s equally sad that your dislike for America and what it stands for cannot override your desire to live in the greatest, happiest, most wonderful nation on the face of the earth. There are plenty of places where people like you would be happier living thanks to politics, but for some reason, you wish to stay here in the Great Satan, using the tired old line "I want to change it, not run away".
It\'s bullshit, if I may be frank. You don\'t like it here, and you know that it\'s astronomically unlikely that you or anyone else is going to transform this nation into the bastardized, neutered version you crave, so why not go to a place that IS what you want? There are plenty out there.
As others have done before, I will dismiss all of your speculation about my degree of love for this country because I have previously stated that this country means much more to me than you would think. Also, I don\'t see the connection between loving this country and loving the Government. The Native Americans loved this land, but I bet they hate the Government.
The "What if..." game has no substantial basis for your claim on the first election of the president. The 9/11 attacks happened AFTER his "election" and in no way affected the election. Also, it would be pure and simple speculation to claim that a Democrat would not have done the same as a result of such an attack(Not including Iraq) based on your personal opinions and the faults you might see on the "left".
Yes, the terrorist did destroy WTC. Yes, they have been around for decades. Now, connect it to Iraq. It\'s been attempted before but we\'re still waiting for that huge connection. Enlighten me.
I\'m not arguing against some of the actions taking by the President after 9/11. You are trying to connect 9/11 to the war in Iraq and fail to provide any kind of evidence linking the two. The only facts we know is that Osama, the original perpetrator of the attacks, is still alive and that he is still sending his people on missions. He is obviously trying to communicate with the new radical Islamic terrorist and the attacks on our soldier in Iraq are nonstop.
And your rhetoric about America\'s freedom sounds alot like the many speeches made by the President. What exactly won\'t I stand about America\'s freedom that you seem to know about? Do you not think I don\'t love this freedom, this right to type all this right now without fear of retaliation from the Government?
Now, when it has been obvious and stated many times that the major concern for this terrorist is the US\' constant intrusion and influence on their affairs, specially when dealing with Israel. It has been said before that our foreign policy is the primary target and fuel of the hate and attacks against this country as well as others. Also, your constant attempt to label me as a "Osama supporter" is really dull and it makes me sick. If there is anything I would wan\'t in this world above anything else is for all this shit to stop but it won\'t. And just because I won\'t stand by and let lies be thrown at my face and have people like you try to mold and shape what an ideal citizen should be doesn\'t mean I support "our enemies" You have yet to show how people like me "weaken our resolve" Did my actions encourage 9/11, or are you sure it wasn\'t our foreign policy? Do the constant attacks of our soldiers are a result of people like me, or the fact that they are in the middle of hell and can\'t get out?
I will also not adress your assumptions about the "left" and the influence we have on the middle east, because frankly, I\'m tired of allowing people like you use the "left" as scapegoats for the hell hole that is Iraq. I don\'t think that leaving our troops for target practice and retaliation is in any way suppressin the terrorist faction, also I highly doubt that the entire population of terrorist is located in Iraq right now and are not planning another attack. The results of this Iraq war have been minuscle other than the liberation of people that people like you and Giga don\'t care about. It\'s funny to me that you two preach about the welfare of this country when the only obvious result from this war was the liberation of people...from another COUNTRY!! The paradox is amazing.
-
Originally posted by Halberto
Dammit all that did was question what we knew not IF WE KNEW
What\'s the difference? What IF WE KNEW about the holocaust? What IF WE KNEW we could of done more about it?
We never will. It\'s nothing but speculation, therefore it can\'t be used as a fact.
-
Originally posted by SirMystiq
As others have done before, I will dismiss all of your speculation about my degree of love for this country because I have previously stated that this country means much more to me than you would think. Also, I don\'t see the connection between loving this country and loving the Government. The Native Americans loved this land, but I bet they hate the Government.
Easy. How many people would say "I love living at home, but I really hate my parents with a passion?"
I\'m sorry. You can say you love this country all you want, all one has to do is read between the lines to see your real feelings. You don\'t do a particularly good job of masking them.
The "What if..." game has no substantial basis for your claim on the first election of the president. The 9/11 attacks happened AFTER his "election" and in no way affected the election. Also, it would be pure and simple speculation to claim that a Democrat would not have done the same as a result of such an attack(Not including Iraq) based on your personal opinions and the faults you might see on the "left".
Al Gore was one of the first to rail against our \'warmongering\', when we were about to blast the Taliban into fine paste. Therefore, I have serious trouble believing Gore would have gone to war with them. Call me funny for thinking that one. Bush fought back the first time they threw a punch at us. Clinton allowed several, and all he did in retaliation was fire a few missiles at nothing. As we all know, that solved our problems perfectly.
Yes, the terrorist did destroy WTC. Yes, they have been around for decades. Now, connect it to Iraq. It\'s been attempted before but we\'re still waiting for that huge connection. Enlighten me.
I have never cared about Iraq being connected to 9-11. Iraq wasn\'t complying with their weapons ban adequately, so we laid the hammer down. The world\'s better off without Saddam.
I\'m not arguing against some of the actions taking by the President after 9/11. You are trying to connect 9/11 to the war in Iraq and fail to provide any kind of evidence linking the two. The only facts we know is that Osama, the original perpetrator of the attacks, is still alive and that he is still sending his people on missions. He is obviously trying to communicate with the new radical Islamic terrorist and the attacks on our soldier in Iraq are nonstop.
I have no doubt we\'ll get him in the end. What I also know is that we haven\'t experienced a terrorist attack in America since 9-11. So I can\'t fault our methods.
And your rhetoric about America\'s freedom sounds alot like the many speeches made by the President. What exactly won\'t I stand about America\'s freedom that you seem to know about? Do you not think I don\'t love this freedom, this right to type all this right now without fear of retaliation from the Government?
Many of your contemporaries call this government fascist, compare it to Nazi Germany. I\'m willing to bet you share this view. So no, I can\'t believe you love this freedom the way it is. After all, we\'re not giving terrorist news stations equal time, fucking freedom of the press. :(
Now, when it has been obvious and stated many times that the major concern for this terrorist is the US\' constant intrusion and influence on their affairs, specially when dealing with Israel. It has been said before that our foreign policy is the primary target and fuel of the hate and attacks against this country as well as others. Also, your constant attempt to label me as a "Osama supporter" is really dull and it makes me sick. If there is anything I would wan\'t in this world above anything else is for all this shit to stop but it won\'t. And just because I won\'t stand by and let lies be thrown at my face and have people like you try to mold and shape what an ideal citizen should be doesn\'t mean I support "our enemies" You have yet to show how people like me "weaken our resolve" Did my actions encourage 9/11, or are you sure it wasn\'t our foreign policy? Do the constant attacks of our soldiers are a result of people like me, or the fact that they are in the middle of hell and can\'t get out?
You want this shit to end with this nation being humbled. Liberal actions did encourage 9-11, by not punishing anyone for prior attacks. They were testing our mettle for years and we didn\'t do a damn thing. We let them think we were softees. And now, you and yours are being subversive, weakening America\'s will and resolve, by railing against this war and making us out to be the bad guys. The reason the insurgency exists is to fill our airwaves with grisly scenes, because they know people like you will use them to tell us how wrong we are for being over there. You people are their mouthpieces. Their tools.
I will also not adress your assumptions about the "left" and the influence we have on the middle east, because frankly, I\'m tired of allowing people like you use the "left" as scapegoats for the hell hole that is Iraq. I don\'t think that leaving our troops for target practice and retaliation is in any way suppressin the terrorist faction, also I highly doubt that the entire population of terrorist is located in Iraq right now and are not planning another attack. The results of this Iraq war have been minuscle other than the liberation of people that people like you and Giga don\'t care about. It\'s funny to me that you two preach about the welfare of this country when the only obvious result from this war was the liberation of people...from another COUNTRY!! The paradox is amazing.
That whole paragraph just doesn\'t make sense at all. I think you need to restate it with a little more clarity. Or just don\'t state anything at all.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Learn your history. Jumpman is absolutely correct in saying the US didn\'t know about the Holocaust until the end of the war
Unlearn your history; becuase that is categorically false. The British knew about the mass extermination of Jews as early as the summer of 1941. The had managed to decode some German radio communications and were hearing reports of X thousand killed in this village, X hundred killed in that village, etc. This information had been distributed throughout the british government even up to Churchill. The US and Britain shared all intel that they had before and during the conflict, so the US did in fact know.
The problem was that Britain did not want to reveal the fact that were able to crack German codes and they were more concerned with winning a war than worrying about the killing of Jews in some foreign country. Plus Britain and the US did not want to bring it up and seem like they were being biased towards the Jews because Britain/America were somewhat antisemetic countries. Britain also had the support of most Muslim countries and did not want to lose their backing by coming out for the Jews.
I saw a PBS interview about this in one of my US history classes and remember it well. If I can find the rest of my notes I\'ll let you know exactly what the show was.
-
Originally posted by Black Samurai
Unlearn your history; becuase that is categorically false. The British knew about the mass extermination of Jews as early as the summer of 1941.
Really? The Final Solution wasn\'t even thought of until 1942:
The Germans embarked on a policy called the \'Final Solution\' which was decided upon at a conference held in Wannsee, near Berlin, on January 20, 1942:
\'Instead of immigration there is now a further possible solution to which the Fuhrer has already signified his consent. Namely deportation to the East. Although this should be regarded merely as an interim measure, it will provide us with the practical experience which will be especially valuable in connection with the future final solution. In the course of the practical implementation of the final solution Europe will be combed from West to East.\'
Regarding the Einsatzgruppen - that was so early in the war the Allies couldn\'t possibly have known it was part of what is considered the Holocaust, especially in 1941 as the Final Solution wasn\'t even a plan yet.
Instead of watching TV BS, read some books.
-
Even if the Endlösung wasn’t talked about before 1942, there were still mass killings of Jews before that.
One example from Der SS-Staat by Eugen Kogon.
Buchenwald
Year/Deaths
37: 48 (not complete)
38: 77 (not complete)
39: 1235
40: 1772
41: 1522
42: 2898
43: 3516
44: 8644
45: 13056
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Really? The Final Solution wasn\'t even thought of until 1942:
The Germans embarked on a policy called the \'Final Solution\' which was decided upon at a conference held in Wannsee, near Berlin, on January 20, 1942:
\'Instead of immigration there is now a further possible solution to which the Fuhrer has already signified his consent. Namely deportation to the East. Although this should be regarded merely as an interim measure, it will provide us with the practical experience which will be especially valuable in connection with the future final solution. In the course of the practical implementation of the final solution Europe will be combed from West to East.\'
Regarding the Einsatzgruppen - that was so early in the war the Allies couldn\'t possibly have known it was part of what is considered the Holocaust, especially in 1941 as the Final Solution wasn\'t even a plan yet.
Instead of watching TV BS, read some books.
So what you are saying is that when the Einsatzgruppen were ordered to kill all Jews they encountered during the invasion of the Soviet Union in the summer 1941 it was too early in the war to be considered a part of the \'Final Solution\' which was agreed upon in January of 1942?
:rolleyes:
Maybe YOU need to pick up a book. It is time to unlearn some of the bullshit you THINK you know.
-
That is not what I said BS - I said it was too early for the Allies to know of the genocide that would take place after 1942.
The numbers Fastson is quoting pre 1942 are mostly political prisoners or others labeled enemies of the state for reasons other than race - obviously in 1937 WW2 hadn\'t started.
The fact is the Holocaust didn\'t begin in earnest until 1942. Just like other libs on this board you are trying to rewrite history. :rolleyes:
This boils down to your claim that the Allies new of the Final Solution in 1941 - which is absolutely incorrect. They may have heard rumors of killings, but they did not know to what extent. Why do you think the world was so horrified when these camps were liberated at the end of WW2?
You have yet to prove the British positively new of Germany\'s plans to erradicate Jews from Europe prior to 1942. Why? Because they didn\'t know.
Taken from the Simon Wiesenthal Center:
20. Did the Allies and the people in the Free World know about the events going on in Europe?
Answer: The various steps taken by the Nazis prior to the "Final Solution" were all taken publicly and were, therefore, reported in the press. Foreign correspondents commented on all the major anti-Jewish actions taken by the Nazis in Germany, Austria, and Czechoslovakia prior to World War II. Once the war began, obtaining information became more difficult, but reports, nonetheless, were published regarding the fate of the Jews. Thus, although the Nazis did not publicize the "Final Solution," less than one year after the systematic murder of the Jews was initiated, details began to filter out to the West. The first report which spoke of a plan for the mass murder of Jews was smuggled out of Poland by the Bund (a Jewish socialist political organization) and reached England in the spring of 1942. The details of this report reached the Allies from Vatican sources as well as from informants in Switzerland and the Polish underground. (Jan Karski, an emissary of the Polish underground, personally met with Franklin Roosevelt and British Foreign Minister Anthony Eden). Eventually, the American Government confirmed the reports to Jewish leaders in late November 1942. They were publicized immediately thereafter. While the details were neither complete nor wholly accurate, the Allies were aware of most of what the Germans had done to the Jews at a relatively early date.
http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/resources/questions/#8
-
Here is something I found.. interesting.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/europe/november96/holocaust_11-20.html
RICHARD BREITMAN: The general consensus among scholars who have studied the Holocaust is that the allied governments did not really recognize what was taking place until December of 1942, in other words, a year and a half after the German invasion. And even then, some government officials in London, as well as in Washington, continued to express skepticism about atrocity reports that were coming in. The new information, of course, indicates that British intelligence had very clear information about what was taking place in the Soviet Union much earlier than that.
RICHARD BREITMAN: Yes. Between the first decode in mid July of 1941 and the codes changed every day and so some days they broke the code and some days they couldn’t break the code. They couldn’t break it more often than they could break it, but they broke it enough between mid July and mid September of 1941 to discern a pattern, because some of these reports talk about 2200 Jews executed in such and such a village, 4400 Jews executed in this city, I mean one report after another, so that the pattern after a while became clear. In mid September of 1941, the chief of the German Order police sent out a very interesting radio warning that the commanders in the field should send ordinary information and confidential information by radio, but that they should not send top secret information by radio because there was a danger that the enemy might intercept and decode, and he specifically said do not send reports of execution totals by radio, send them by courier instead.
RICHARD BREITMAN: I wouldn’t go that far, no. I would say that Hitler, Himmler, other top officials were extremely determined to kill as many Jews as they could. I don’t think--barring internal political turmoil--that the outside world could have persuaded them not to go ahead. I do think, however, that a serious publicity offensive might have caused problems for them at least in alerting Jews across Europe that this might be their fate and in reducing the level of innocent sort of cooperation with the Nazis, because people were--many people were deported to extermination camps, not knowing what lay ahead of them. And had there been a publicity offensive, it is quite possible that the sweeps that occurred and the deportations that occurred would have been much less efficient.
RICHARD BREITMAN: I think it will add quantitative evidence and details to our knowledge of the Holocaust as it was carried out in the occupied areas of the Soviet Union. And I think it provides qualitatively new evidence about western response to the Holocaust, or lack of response to the Holocaust, and a lot of what has been written in the past about western governments not reacting because they weren’t confident of the information that they were getting now has to be reconsidered and rewritten.
Basically what Black Samurai said.
-
But what could they do? It was deep within the enemy territory. Even announcing to the world about it would mean the Allies broke the Enigma code. And just coz some knew, they weren\'t gonna tell the entire military about it.
All this is moot.
-
Fastson - the general consensus is late 1942. BS is basing his opinion on one PBS inteview. Breitman is also implementing hindsight into his analysis, which of course is much clearer now than the information that was available in 1941. The British had no concrete proof of what was going on until much later than 1941 and he is trying to claim they did, when in fact the Allies did not.
Radio transmissions and intercepted codes were not enough in the opinion of the British to warrant a definative answer. Also his statement regarding the "lack of response" to the Holocaust is absurd. Even if the Allies had known - there was nothing they could have done that they weren\'t already doing.
-
Back on topic:
What if Bush has been right about Iraq all along?
February 1, 2005
BY MARK BROWN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
Maybe you\'re like me and have opposed the Iraq war since before the shooting started -- not to the point of joining any peace protests, but at least letting people know where you stood.
You didn\'t change your mind when our troops swept quickly into Baghdad or when you saw the rabble that celebrated the toppling of the Saddam Hussein statue, figuring that little had been accomplished and that the tough job still lay ahead.
Despite your misgivings, you didn\'t demand the troops be brought home immediately afterward, believing the United States must at least try to finish what it started to avoid even greater bloodshed. And while you cheered Saddam\'s capture, you couldn\'t help but thinking I-told-you-so in the months that followed as the violence continued to spread and the death toll mounted.
By now, you might have even voted against George Bush -- a second time -- to register your disapproval.
But after watching Sunday\'s election in Iraq and seeing the first clear sign that freedom really may mean something to the Iraqi people, you have to be asking yourself: What if it turns out Bush was right, and we were wrong?
It\'s hard to swallow, isn\'t it?
Americans cross own barrier
If you fit the previously stated profile, I know you\'re fighting the idea, because I am, too. And if you were with the president from the start, I\'ve already got your blood boiling.
For those who\'ve been in the same boat with me, we don\'t need to concede the point just yet. There\'s a long way to go. But I think we have to face the possibility.
I won\'t say that it had never occurred to me previously, but it\'s never gone through my mind as strongly as when I watched the television coverage from Iraq that showed long lines of people risking their lives by turning out to vote, honest looks of joy on so many of their faces.
Some CNN guest expert was opining Monday that the Iraqi people crossed a psychological barrier by voting and getting a taste of free choice (setting aside the argument that they only did so under orders from their religious leaders).
I think it\'s possible that some of the American people will have crossed a psychological barrier as well.
Deciding democracy\'s worth
On the other side of that barrier is a concept some of us have had a hard time swallowing:
Maybe the United States really can establish a peaceable democratic government in Iraq, and if so, that would be worth something.
Would it be worth all the money we\'ve spent? Certainly.
Would it be worth all the lives that have been lost? That\'s the more difficult question, and while I reserve judgment on that score until such a day arrives, it seems probable that history would answer yes to that as well.
I don\'t want to get carried away in the moment.
Going to war still sent so many terrible messages to the world.
Most of the obstacles to success in Iraq are all still there, the ones that have always led me to believe that we would eventually be forced to leave the country with our tail tucked between our legs. (I\'ve maintained from the start that if you were impressed by the demonstrations in the streets of Baghdad when we arrived, wait until you see how they celebrate our departure, no matter the circumstances.)
In and of itself, the voting did nothing to end the violence. The forces trying to regain the power they have lost -- and the outside elements supporting them -- will be no less determined to disrupt our efforts and to drive us out.
Somebody still has to find a way to bring the Sunnis into the political process before the next round of elections at year\'s end. The Iraqi government still must develop the capacity to protect its people.
And there seems every possibility that this could yet end in civil war the day we leave or with Iraq becoming an Islamic state every bit as hostile to our national interests as was Saddam.
Penance could be required
But on Sunday, we caught a glimpse of the flip side. We could finally see signs that a majority of the Iraqi people perceive something to be gained from this brave new world we are forcing on them.
Instead of making the elections a further expression of "Yankee Go Home," their participation gave us hope that all those soldiers haven\'t died in vain.
Obviously, I\'m still curious to see if Bush is willing to allow the Iraqis to install a government that is free to kick us out or to oppose our other foreign policy efforts in the region.
So is the rest of the world.
For now, though, I think we have to cut the president some slack about a timetable for his exit strategy.
If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to require some serious penance.
Maybe I\'d have to vote Republican in 2008.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/brown/cst-nws-brown01.html
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
That is not what I said BS - I said it was too early for the Allies to know of the genocide that would take place after 1942.
Of course, how would they know about what was going to happen a year later?
Originally posted by GigaShadow
The numbers Fastson is quoting pre 1942 are mostly political prisoners or others labeled enemies of the state for reasons other than race - obviously in 1937 WW2 hadn\'t started.
The fact is the Holocaust didn\'t begin in earnest until 1942. Just like other libs on this board you are trying to rewrite history. :rolleyes:
The fact of the matter is, Jews were being murdered en masse in the summer of 1941. Britain knew about it and the US knew about it through Britain. I am not trying to rewrite anything you just wish to ignore facts.
Originally posted by GigaShadow
This boils down to your claim that the Allies new of the Final Solution in 1941 - which is absolutely incorrect. They may have heard rumors of killings, but they did not know to what extent. Why do you think the world was so horrified when these camps were liberated at the end of WW2?
No one but the Germans knew about the \'Final Solution\'. The Allies DID know about the genocide. British intelligence heard transmissions of body counts. This is not rumor and innuendo. The world was horrified because no one told them. Just because the world at large was horrified by the news does not mean that the Allied governments did not know beforehand.
Originally posted by GigaShadow
You have yet to prove the British positively new of Germany\'s plans to erradicate Jews from Europe prior to 1942. Why? Because they didn\'t know.
They may not have known of their plans to eradicate Jews from Europe but they did know of the Jews already killed.
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Taken from the Simon Wiesenthal Center:
20. Did the Allies and the people in the Free World know about the events going on in Europe?
Answer: The various steps taken by the Nazis prior to the "Final Solution" were all taken publicly and were, therefore, reported in the press. Foreign correspondents commented on all the major anti-Jewish actions taken by the Nazis in Germany, Austria, and Czechoslovakia prior to World War II. Once the war began, obtaining information became more difficult, but reports, nonetheless, were published regarding the fate of the Jews. Thus, although the Nazis did not publicize the "Final Solution," less than one year after the systematic murder of the Jews was initiated, details began to filter out to the West. The first report which spoke of a plan for the mass murder of Jews was smuggled out of Poland by the Bund (a Jewish socialist political organization) and reached England in the spring of 1942. The details of this report reached the Allies from Vatican sources as well as from informants in Switzerland and the Polish underground. (Jan Karski, an emissary of the Polish underground, personally met with Franklin Roosevelt and British Foreign Minister Anthony Eden). Eventually, the American Government confirmed the reports to Jewish leaders in late November 1942. They were publicized immediately thereafter. While the details were neither complete nor wholly accurate, the Allies were aware of most of what the Germans had done to the Jews at a relatively early date.
Way to completely ignore the last sentence of your own quote.
"the Allies were aware of most of what the Germans had done to the Jews at a relatively early date."
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Fastson - the general consensus is late 1942. BS is basing his opinion on one PBS inteview. Breitman is also implementing hindsight into his analysis, which of course is much clearer now than the information that was available in 1941. The British had no concrete proof of what was going on until much later than 1941 and he is trying to claim they did, when in fact the Allies did not.
I am basing my opinions on the study of many professors who had access to the US\' own records due to the FOIA. I just referenced one interview.
Still, what you are saying about hindsight may be true but that does not mean that the Allies knew nothing before \'42.
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Also his statement regarding the "lack of response" to the Holocaust is absurd.
What statement would that be?
-
Originally posted by Black Samurai
Of course, how would they know about what was going to happen a year later?
But you claim they did!
Originally posted by Black Samurai
The fact of the matter is, Jews were being murdered en masse in the summer of 1941. Britain knew about it and the US knew about it through Britain. I am not trying to rewrite anything you just wish to ignore facts.
The US knew about it? Where are your sources? This is the second time I have asked. Once again you are dodging questions to suite your own claims.
Originally posted by Black Samurai
No one but the Germans knew about the \'Final Solution\'. The Allies DID know about the genocide. British intelligence heard transmissions of body counts. This is not rumor and innuendo. The world was horrified because no one told them. Just because the world at large was horrified by the news does not mean that the Allied governments did not know beforehand.
And you are basing this on what? Once again sources please.
Originally posted by Black Samurai
Way to completely ignore the last sentence of your own quote.
"the Allies were aware of most of what the Germans had done to the Jews at a relatively early date."
Way to ignore the first part of a sentence:
While the details were neither complete nor wholly accurate, the Allies were aware of most of what the Germans had done to the Jews at a relatively early date.
and what date would that be? Sometime in 1942 perhaps?
Originally posted by Black Samurai
I am basing my opinions on the study of many professors who had access to the US\' own records due to the FOIA. I just referenced one interview.
Once again sources please. Secondly, even if we did have some intelligence on the matter, it does not mean our government or the Allies in general accepted it as fact.
Originally posted by Black Samurai
Still, what you are saying about hindsight may be true but that does not mean that the Allies knew nothing before \'42.
It also doesn\'t mean that the Allies knew anything with any degree of certainty. It is pointless to debate this issue since there was nothing the Allies could have done that they weren\'t already doing.
Originally posted by Black Samurai
What statement would that be?
This statement:
RICHARD BREITMAN: I think it will add quantitative evidence and details to our knowledge of the Holocaust as it was carried out in the occupied areas of the Soviet Union. And I think it provides qualitatively new evidence about western response to the Holocaust, or lack of response to the Holocaust, and a lot of what has been written in the past about western governments not reacting because they weren’t confident of the information that they were getting now has to be reconsidered and rewritten.
-
Originally posted by Weltall
Easy. How many people would say "I love living at home, but I really hate my parents with a passion?"
I\'m sorry. You can say you love this country all you want, all one has to do is read between the lines to see your real feelings. You don\'t do a particularly good job of masking them.
Once again, you are assuming my degree of love for this country. You have nothing but assumptions and the only reason my supposed hatred is being brought up is because of your "reading between the lines" You\'re anti-liberal thinking allows you to form such a conclusion because you have been trained to think that all liberals are US-hating, Osama loving and wish to live in Canada. Which really has no basis or fact behind them except your extreme accusations that are entirely based on your own perspective of society. But you insist in "reading between the lines" so read between this:
___________________________________
I LOVE this country but hate the direction the President is taking it.
___________________________________
There I even saved you any kind of right-wing perspective thinking.
Originally posted by Weltall
Al Gore was one of the first to rail against our \'warmongering\', when we were about to blast the Taliban into fine paste. Therefore, I have serious trouble believing Gore would have gone to war with them. Call me funny for thinking that one. Bush fought back the first time they threw a punch at us. Clinton allowed several, and all he did in retaliation was fire a few missiles at nothing. As we all know, that solved our problems perfectly.
Yes, because during the Clinton years we had an attack as extreme as the WTC attack. Also, Al Gore definately saw into the future and witnessed Bush taking a very good stance on Afghanistan then pushing his luck and decided to switch the war on terror to the war in Iraq. As we all know, that solved our problems perfectly.
Originally posted by Weltall
I have never cared about Iraq being connected to 9-11. Iraq wasn\'t complying with their weapons ban adequately, so we laid the hammer down. The world\'s better off without Saddam.
I have no doubt we\'ll get him in the end. What I also know is that we haven\'t experienced a terrorist attack in America since 9-11. So I can\'t fault our methods.
As I recall, we were in the middle of a war in Afghanistan when Iraq, all of a sudden, somehow acquired weapons of mass destruction. Which back in 2001, where said to be nonexistent by Rice and Rumsfeld because the sanctions and deprivation of services had kept the Iraqi Government from building up it\'s army to a potential threat. Also, let\'s not forget that GWB back in 2001 also claimed that the "army shouldn\'t be used for nation building"
The world is better off without Saddam. I agree. There was just a better more resolute way than the rushed war. This war was rushed in an attempt to catch all of American\'s still clinging on to the fear of another terrorist attack. This war has been given many reasons yet none have upheld.
Originally posted by Weltall
Many of your contemporaries call this government fascist, compare it to Nazi Germany. I\'m willing to bet you share this view. So no, I can\'t believe you love this freedom the way it is. After all, we\'re not giving terrorist news stations equal time, fucking freedom of the press. :(
You want this shit to end with this nation being humbled. Liberal actions did encourage 9-11, by not punishing anyone for prior attacks. They were testing our mettle for years and we didn\'t do a damn thing. We let them think we were softees. And now, you and yours are being subversive, weakening America\'s will and resolve, by railing against this war and making us out to be the bad guys. The reason the insurgency exists is to fill our airwaves with grisly scenes, because they know people like you will use them to tell us how wrong we are for being over there. You people are their mouthpieces. Their tools.
Please excuse me while I throw up due to your lame and scary assumptions. All right I\'m done.
I don\'t share that view. I share the belief that unless this contry begins to vote so that our government is once again a balanced one, then the threat of a "hidden empire" by the Republicans is very high. The balance to our government has been tilted to the extreme right in an extreme manner and this is very scary and should panic everybody.
America\'s will and resolved upon other nations, you mean. I support our troops, I support our country, but I don\'t support the direction and stand this country is going and taking respectively. Also, I don\'t ever recall opposing the war in Afhanistan or on terror until it turned into the war in Iraq. I understand that in order to keep a respected country, there must be a strong and defiant positions. In this case, this position is pushing in the wrong directions.
And again, I\'m not going to adress your accusations because there is no basis for them. If I was to say that YOU were helping the terrorist by supporting this war which gives them targets to bolster their ego with, you would do the same.
Originally posted by Weltall
That whole paragraph just doesn\'t make sense at all. I think you need to restate it with a little more clarity. Or just don\'t state anything at all.
I will also not adress your assumptions about the "left" and the influence we have on the middle east, because frankly, I\'m tired of allowing people like you use the "left" as scapegoats for the hell hole that is Iraq.
Explanation in simple terms: I\'m tired of people like you trying to blame the left for all the shit that your elected President has got this country into.
I don\'t think that leaving our troops for target practice and retaliation is in any way suppressing the terrorist faction, also I highly doubt that the entire population of terrorist is located in Iraq right now and are not planning another attack.
Explanation in simple terms: Terrorist see Americans in the middle of an anti-American part of the world. Terrorist kills American then runs off into the land they live on. Terrorist groups are happy and wish for more. Get it?
The results of this Iraq war have been minuscle other than the liberation of people that people like you and Giga don\'t care about. It\'s funny to me that you two preach about the welfare of this country when the only obvious result from this war was the liberation of people...from another COUNTRY!! The paradox is amazing.
Explanation in simple terms: What good has come from the war in Iraq that benifits this country? Anti-Americanism has risen, terrorist have targets far away from home and there is no obvious and factual benefit to this country in general. And you and Giga have made yourselves clear that if it doesn\'t benefit this country then " F\'em" Why did you care about those in Iraq? Why above all the others, care about their "freedom" and their happiness? <
What\'s so hard to understand?
Also, terrorst are not attacking our freedom. That is what FoxNews tells you. Terrorist see our troops making themselves at home in Iraq and hate them for it. They are fueled by the thoughts of the western world taking over what they believe to be rightfully theirs and wish not to have their own religion and view points attacked. That is why they hate this country, not our "freedom" because our "freedom" to them is against their believes and ideals.
-
Couldn\'t be more wrong.
-
Originally posted by SirMystiq
I don\'t share that view. I share the belief that unless this contry begins to vote so that our government is once again a balanced one, then the threat of a "hidden empire" by the Republicans is very high. The balance to our government has been tilted to the extreme right in an extreme manner and this is very scary and should panic everybody.
Panic everybody, including the many who elected him.
-
Originally posted by Bozco
Panic everybody, including the many who elected him.
As absurd as it might sound, the way the government was established was specifically made to avoid problems such as the ones that could possibly come up because of such an unbalance of power. This not only opens up the path for a dictatorship like government, but it leaves the government open for abuse of power.
WASHINGTON — With House Republicans settling on new committee assignments, most of the chatter on Capitol Hill has centered on a few key changes among the chairmanships and whether the Republican leadership is trying to bring its more independent members to heel.
"If you don\'t toe the line you\'re gone — consolidation of absolute power," one Democratic congressional aide, who asked not to be identified, told FOXNews.com.
Democrats call the developments "a purge" of more independent-minded chairs that will make the next Congress even more difficult for the minority party.
"They are moving to quash any differing opinions within their own party," Democratic Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said in a statement.
Headlines about two GOP replacements have fueled speculation about whether the outgoing chairmen are being punished or whether the leadership just wants to remind Republicans in the new 109th Congress that they are all on the same team.
"You sort of have to remind folks that you are only as strong as you are perceived to be out there," said Greg Crist, spokesman for House Republican Conference Committee Chairwoman Deborah Pryce, R-Ohio.
This means, in part, showing a unified stance on limited spending. Republicans were criticized by fiscal conservatives, as well as deficit-hawk Democrats, for wild spending in the last Congress.
Sources say Rep. Chris Smith (search), R-N.J., was the first casualty of the new "unity." As chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee, Smith pressed for increased spending on the Veterans Administration (search) budget, putting him on a different page from party leadership, with whom he has tangled before.
Smith is being replaced by Rep. Steve Buyer (search), R-Ind., who is considered more fiscally conservative, and has shown a proclivity toward cutting back spending on VA health care, according to veterans\' advocates.
"We felt strongly and still feel strongly about Chris Smith," said Rick Weidman, director of government affairs for Vietnam Veterans of America (search). "That he\'s being punished for being too pro-veteran in the Congress while we are at war is breathtaking."
House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., had no comment on Smith, who was also taken off the committee, but did post on his Web site a statement about Buyer, a Persian Gulf War veteran.
"I\'m confident under Steve\'s leadership, those who faithfully fought to defend our freedoms will continue to have access to quality health care," Hastert said.
Weidman is not so sure, saying that the leadership thinks too much money is already going into VA health care. "Mr. Buyer is exactly the opposite [of Smith] — he\'s very partisan. Based on his past, this [committee] is likely to be more of a partisan entity in the next Congress."
Even staunch conservatives say they were taken aback by Smith\'s removal. "Smith is derided by the leadership as a \'liberal\' who is in organized labor\'s pocket, but his voting record is moderately conservative," wrote columnist Robert Novak, who called Smith a "tireless supporter of veterans."
Laura Zuckerman, spokeswoman for Buyer, said her boss would not comment on Smith, but would say that he and Smith have genuine "disagreements" over handling the VA system.
"He and Congressman Smith have a lot of different views about the VA, on where the Congress sees the VA in the future," she said.
A Republican committee aide who did not want to be named said the leadership had done no wrong. "Our opponents were using Smith to advocate against our policies," the aide said. "No one has discounted veterans, or questioned his loyalty or desire to help veterans, we just had a fundamental disagreement on how to approach that."
Meanwhile, it looks like Rep. Joel Hefley (search), R-Colo., will not be asked to stay on in his post as chairman of the House Standards of Official Conduct Committee (search), sources say. Leadership aides have maintained that per House rules, Hefley’s three-term limit as chairman had expired.
But critics say he is being punished for leading three admonishments last fall against House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (search), R-Texas, who was found by the ethics committee to have crossed the line of appropriate conduct. His political action committee, Texans for a Republican Majority, is currently the target of a criminal probe in Texas.
"Such a mean-spirited and vindictive act by House leaders can only further diminish public confidence in Congress by painting it as hopelessly politicized and self-dealing," said a recent public statement by eight government watchdog groups calling themselves the Congressional Ethics Coalition (search).
They and others say the speaker should waive the rules so that Hefley can stay on and oversee the remaining investigations, or else the power of the committee will be "decimated." Hefley has said he would accept the waiver.
Jonathan Grella, spokesman for DeLay, said Democrats had manufactured the ethics flap and that the GOP was determined to proceed with its agenda "undeterred."
Crist said he found it "mind-boggling" that Democrats would ask them to bend the rules. "I find it extremely hypocritical."
The leadership is also replacing term-limited Appropriations Chairman Bill Young, R-Fla., with Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif. He beat out two contenders, including Rep. Ralph Regula, R-Ohio, who was next in line to Young, according to seniority.
"[Lewis] is a good guy, highly thought of, but it was clear from the selection process that whoever was selected for the Appropriations chairmanship was going to be expected to toe the line," said the Democratic congressional aide. Calls to Republicans on the Appropriations Committee were not returned.
Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, said it\'s the leadership\'s right to whip members into shape. "They are doing what leaders do, they make sure [committee chairmen] serve them well, for their interests and for the interests of the party," he said. "For those who think [chairmen] are there to serve only in the interests of the American people — get real."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,145202,00.html
Many Republicans have come out and accused their own party of trying to fill their ranks with like thinkers. Those that will only support and follow a certain list of guidelines that would only increase their hold of power. This is what I\'m talking about. The government is being replaced with those that share the same beliefs and ideals and that is not good for this country or it\'s government.
When you are surrounded by a group of likethinkers, somebody isn\'t thinking.
-
Originally posted by GmanJoe
I bet Miss Tiq and clips are pissed about that. They miss the good ole days of Saddam Hussein......
like i said before..i want the iraqi people to be ablr to live respectful lives....will they?...of course at some point in time, but at what cost?...the prez already asked for another 83 billion for the war..i\'m not against it, you gotta do what you gotta do for the troops...but why have so many lost sight on what this war was about from the jump? WMD\'S...you don\'t even hear bush mention any of that :rolleyes:...but i guess as long as we "liberated" the iraqi people all is forgiven...the amer public is like sheep..you pump enough s**t in their head they will start to believe it...
say what you want, i still feel the decision to go to war in iraq was a faulty one...no one ever challenged the fact that we would fail in iraq...ultimately we will win this war...point is saddam wasn\'t a threat that needed to be dealt with at that time...s**t what i do remember at that time was n.korea stating they was gonna bring death to the united states...in which bush responded..."uhm we\'ll deal with n.korea diplomatically" :rolleyes: :laughing:
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Best quote ever.
Oh and clips - as for your claim there was zero public support before we went into Iraq - you are absolutely wrong. I supported it along with countless others. You must have been traveling abroad at the time... :rolleyes:
oh so i guess just because YOU and a few other people supported it transforms into overwhelming support for the war?...no giga, i remember fully that on both stations..CNN & FOX, that they showed polls in which their was very little support for the war when bush announced he would invade...not until colin powell went to the u.n. to show clips of chemical trailers and such did the amer people decide to come on board...oh and those trailers that was on the clip, turned out NOT to be equipment used for chemical weapons....i forgot what it was actually used for, but it most certainly wasn\'t used for chemical weapons....
-
Did you not say zero public support? Did you not say that?
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Did you not say zero public support? Did you not say that?
damn giga, do you have to be so technical? :p maybe i should have stated practically zero support..
-
Originally posted by clips
damn giga, do you have to be so technical? :p maybe i should have stated practically zero support..
Really?
If U.N. inspections fail to turn up evidence of Iraqi weapons programs, almost half of respondents said they would oppose war. Only 41% would favor war, and 10% said they don\'t know whether they would favor or oppose.
Is 41 percent almost zero according to you?
That is an LA Times poll as well - pretty liberal newspaper as well.
http://www.latimes.com/la-na-iraqpoll17dec17,0,7613324.story
-
actually 41% of 1 rounded off would be zero. ;)
-
damn you giga!...i like to state facts based on common sense and events that people know without a doubt, that what i claim tends to be true...that said i really hate researching s**t and i should\'ve known when debating with you i was gonna have to do a little googling..anyway here\'s another poll regarding support for the iraqi war before we went....yea it\'s from CBS but either i didn\'t look hard enough, or i just couldn\'t find another poll site without it bein too opinionated......
anyway the numbers are a wee bit smaller in this poll,and it breaks it down a little further.. just the same i suppose...the point i was tryin to make anyway was that most americans didn\'t support the war and favored more inspections....
http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=9&q=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/06/opinion/polls/main524496.shtml&e=9901