Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 762
| Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2004 6:57 pm Post subject: History's Verdict...Summer of 1944 vs. Summer of 2004 | |||
History's Verdict
History has a way of becoming an "event". We tend to forget all the day to day happenings of history and encapsulate history with simple terms like "D-day". D-day was a significant event changing the course of WWII, however, there were many mistakes before and after that cost thousands upon thousands of lives. I feel that if we had the media of today covering the events surrounding D-day, the country would be in as much disarray as it appears to be now. Take the time to read this article and ask yourself how you would have felt during the summer of 1944 if we had the same 24 hour news cycle that is available today. Was the outcome of WWII a success in your eyes? |
|||
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 1337
Location: The Collective
| Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2004 2:11 am Post subject: | |||
A good example of how in the short run some things seem to be failures. In fact the M4 Sherman was a war winning tank. It was fast, reliable and easy to maintain. But the best thing about it was its ease of production. Almost 50 THOUSAND of them were made as compared to less than 900 Tigers and 4000 Panthers. The old saying still is true....."Quantity has a quality all its own." A wonderful article.....filled with common sense.....sense that those whos minds are filled with hate will never acknowledge. |
|||
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1010
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2004 6:38 am Post subject: | |||||
|
Apples and oranges with a side of pro-pubbie spin.
The Iraq/WWII analogy that the author attempts to make is flawed simply because the US is the aggressor in Iraq. As such, this piece can be safely and accurately written-off as rah-rah republican propaganda.
I wouldn't have been watching the news, I would have been kicking (and/or killed by) some nazi ass much like tens of thousands of other Canadians serving at the time.
Aside from the tens of millions killed, most certainly. |
|||||
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 1037
Location: Formerly 3333
| Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2004 10:46 am Post subject: | |||
If you take into consideration only what occurred the day the US and our allies began the bombing of Bagdhad, then your assertion would be correct. But, you fail to mention the horrific treatment of Saddam's own people (and his own family) and the mass murder of thousands of Iraqi's, and the threat of WMD's that existed. To think a Saddam Hussein wouldn't obtain and use such weapons in the future, given the chance, is living in pure fantasy. When Saddam ordered the killings of his own, he threw the first stone. The world already knew he was capable of invasion (Kuwait). The US led alliance went in to erradicate the 21st century version of Hitler and free the people of Iraq. That my friend is no "republican rah-rah", it's fact. Footsoldier |
|||
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 1337
Location: The Collective
| Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2004 3:40 pm Post subject: | |||
Might want to check your history a bit. If you want to get super technical, Germany never attacked us directly. We declared war on Japan first after being attacked at Pearl Harbor. We did not declare war on Germany until Hitler declared war on us. (Even though there was an undeclared war going on in the North Atlantic at the time. The US was attacking Axis subs that were trying to stop the flow of arms and food to Britian. So actually we were the agressor.) The point of all this is that the US did the right thing now as then by being the agressor in the name of saving a country and its people from a murdering dictator. Agression has many forms......it depends on the motives. The hate America crowd in the world can screech all they want, but the simple fact is that America has freed [/i]billions of people in the last century. All countries make mistakes, but the freeing of Iraq was just not one of them. So your argument that the article was flawed just because the US was the agressor...is flawed. Its premise that history and the times change perception is correct. |
|||
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1010
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2004 10:29 pm Post subject: | |||
|
Sorry boys, but none of that disputes the fact that the analogy is flawed.
Nazi Germany was a legitimate threat. As evidenced by the apparent lack of WmD's in his possession, Hussien didn't have a pot to piss in nor a window to throw it out of. However, if you want to get technical, perhaps you should investigate US arms sales and US complacency to Iraq during the period in which Hussein commited such crimes against his own people. Lest we forget: 
This, however, is simply hilarious:
Freeing the people of Iraq was not the pretense for the invasion and constantly repeating this same rubbish isn't going to change that fact. |
|||
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 2205
Location: A little bit sideways!
| Posted: Sun Jul 18, 2004 4:10 am Post subject: | |||
I agree about 90% with this. We loved Hussein when he was clipin folks from Iran. We were still pissed about the hostage mess back in '79 and '80. I guess that was why. Revenge and such. But WTF........this crazy analogy with World War Two?? Nuts! ~GoodFella |
|||
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 1337
Location: The Collective
| Posted: Sun Jul 18, 2004 6:17 am Post subject: | |||||
A country that was hostile to the US and actually paid terroists (check out the payments to the suicide bombers) was not a threat? A pot to piss in????? He was raking in millions from the UN oil for food program. You do really need to check your history. Saddam used WMD's on his own people AFTER we kicked his ass in Desert Storm. (and during the Iran Iraq war) Yes we supported him against Iran and yes you can show pics of Rumsfeld with Saddam. And that proves what? You think it would be better if we still supported Saddam? ANY country that has ANY sympathy with terrorist nations IS a threat. Do you honestly think that Saddam did not support terror against the US? Hilarious is the fact that you will not admitt that the right thing was done despite the reasons for it. So do do you think we should give back Iraq? And Saddam? So you think it was ok for the US to be an aggressor nation during WW11 and not now? Thats right Germany was a threat.......not Iraq with a dictator that supported terror......oh yeah......that is not important. |
|||||
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 1037
Location: Formerly 3333
| Posted: Sun Jul 18, 2004 11:49 am Post subject: | |
|
GF... I agree. Trying to compare Iraq with WWII is a stretch (not my idea) however there is a similarity between the two evil leaders with the slaughter of their own innocent citizens. There is also a similarity with their invasion intentions although I doubt Hussein was thinking of taking over the entire Middle East when he invaded Kuwait, while Hitler had world domination in his mind.
When one goes back 20+ years ago, our #1 enemy was Iran and the Iotollah (sp?). We had just seen the release of the hostages the day Reagan took office. Iraq was actually assisting the US during those years. Our dealings with Hussein then were aimed at defusing the situation in Iran. He was the lesser of two evils at that time. Obviously, that changed over the next decade but HE was the one who changed. He was the one who became the agressor. sleK conveniently tosses aside what was going on in history then when he provides a photo showing US officials cozying up to Hussein. He was not a "friend" then, we just had to deal with him because of Iraq. Again I ask..... Is the world a better place without Hussein in power? Is the middle east region better off without Hussein in power? Are the people of Iraq better off without Hussein in power? I don't know anyone who would answer NO to those questions except Hussein himself. Certainly no one on this board would answer "no" to any of those questions either, right? Footsoldier |
|
Joined: 22 Nov 2003
Posts: 14
| Posted: Sun Jul 18, 2004 5:59 pm Post subject: | |
|
JOHN Kerry and JOHN Edwards
When you're as full of CRAP as these guys....YOU NEED TWO JOHNS! 
|
|
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 1964
| Posted: Sun Jul 18, 2004 8:06 pm Post subject: | |||
I LOVE IT!!!!   
|
|||
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1010
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2004 12:07 am Post subject: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Hostility is not grounds for an invasion. Hussein allegedly gave money to the families of suicide bombers. Which is, of course, quite a bit different from your fallacious suggestion that he paid terrorists. Kinda hard to pay a dead guy doncha think? Regardless, you're moving the goal-posts again. Just one post ago you were raving on about the invasion being a war of liberation and now you're suggesting that Iraq is a threat to the US again. Pick a story and stick with it for a change.
It wasn't intended to prove anything. It simply demonstrates that the US is, in fact, partially responsible for the build-up of WmD's that Iraq had possessed.
An irrelevant question and a tired tactic.
Then let me know when the US starts to kick its own ass as you guys are largely responsible for arming terrorist groups around the world.
Define "support". If you mean material support, as in money or arms, prove it. If you mean he snickered to himself when the US was attacked, whoopty-doo.
The old "ends justify the means" argument heh? Is that all you've got left? It must be, as the WmD and "imminent threat" angles certainly didn't pan out very well and the whole "liberation" farce doesn't stand up to even mild scrutiny either.
:yawn:
The US wasn't an aggressor in WWII. The US was responding to a threat. The faulty logic in your previous post intended to frame the US as an aggressor during WWII is laughable.
As before, repeating this same tired tripe over and over again isn't going to make it any more true. You have no evidence that conclusively demonstrates that Iraq supported terrorists in any meaningful way. And an elipsis consists of THREE periods... not 6... not 8... but 3. ***
Is that so? Hmm... perhaps you'd care explain why, throughout the 80's, the US provided 190 million dollars worth of arms to an "enemy" then?
Hmm... Let me reframe the questions in a more accurate and less jingoistic manner:
My answers:
The fact remains that the US had no legitimate reason to invade Iraq and no amount of nationalistic propaganda, like the article linked in the OP, is going to change that. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 1037
Location: Formerly 3333
| Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2004 12:14 am Post subject: | |
|
sleK... rather than reword the questions to YOUR liking, how about answering the original ones that were asked?
I stand by my statement that Saddam was NOT a friend of the US in the late 70's early 80's. Supporting them militarily against Iran was in OUR best interest at the time and that is why we did it. At THAT time, he was the lesser of two evils. However, the lesson that should be learned from this for future reference is that arming a potential enemy against a present danger is not likely to be in our best interest a generation down the road. Footsoldier |
|
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1010
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2004 12:32 am Post subject: | |
|
The answers are still no.
Your turn.
|
|
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1010
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2004 12:40 am Post subject: | |||||
Early 80's? Interesting qualification. Please note that, according to the chart I linked above, the US provided 125 million dollars worth of arms to Iraq in 1988 alone.
Indeed. |
|||||
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 1037
Location: Formerly 3333
| Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2004 3:22 am Post subject: | |
|
"Late 70's and early 80's".......
I was referring to the time Iran held our people hostage. Based on your answers, you would prefer Saddam Hussein be back in power....since you don't believe Iraq, the Middle East, or the world is better off without him. Very Interesting..... and Appalling, I might add. FS |
|
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 762
| Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2004 3:34 am Post subject: | |||||||||
Slek wrote:
Iraq: Intelligence, Facts, and Fantasies
Slek wrote:
Show me where the U.S. was partially responsible for the build-up of WMD's...according to your link they sold Iraq conventional weapons.
Again, show me the proof. Most of this discussion is off topic anyway. I don't think the author of the original article in question was trying to draw a straight line analogy between WWII and Iraq. In my opinion, VDH was making the point that only time allows us to draw complete conclusions about events. Time allows for perspective, whereas looking at day to day activities does not. |
|||||||||
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 1337
Location: The Collective
| Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2004 5:20 am Post subject: | |||||||||||||||
What threat was that? Can you please tell me how Germany was direct threat to the US in 1940? Guess what..........you cant. It may have been a threat to our allies but please tell me how Germany could have harmed us?
To cowards maybye
ALLEGEDLY? If he paid families in return for terrorist acts this is not terroism? You really amaze me! How is that different? Iraq was a threat. Have you seen the new reports that now say that Bush was RIGHT in saying that Saddam was trying to buy yellowcake from Niger???? The story is still the same. Iraq supported terroists. Any nation that supports terror is our enemy and will be confronted. Dont like that policy? Tough shit.
Dispute it with facts then.
Name them please.
Sorry the FACTS bore you. Try answering the question.
If you think my logic is laughable then you do not know the history of it. PROVE me wrong with the historical facts. Roosevelt looked for an incident to provoke war with Germany. I eagerly await your spin on the history of the the run up to the Declaration of war with Germany. |
|||||||||||||||
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1010
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2004 10:27 am Post subject: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Good for you.
Terrorism is on the rise Footie. Please, for the benefit of all, explain how this fact makes the world a better place.
It's appalling that I object to actions that predictably result in an increased threat? Gimme some of what you're smokin' there buddy. And: As expected, you've failed to answer, or more likely purposely ignored, the reframed questions I posed in return. Any particular reason why? How 'bout instead of explaining why, YOU just answer them. For your convenience I'll repost them here:
***
This article claims that "the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague". This article claims:
Iran-Contra ring a bell? How about East Timor?
I wholeheartedly disagree. The entire article is an exercise in fallacy (predjudicial language to be specific) that was clearly designed to attach moral goodness to support for the invasion, denounce democratic candidates in the upcoming election and to pass the accountability buck from the current US administration to intelligence "blunders". ***
:roll:
You're moving the goal-posts again BG. Germany was a threat period.
I repeat, hostility is not grounds for an invasion. If you'd like to dispute that fact, please do so with something more substantial than your trademark twiticisms.
No, it's not. The people who commit the acts are terrorists. Not their mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters etc.
OMG!! He's "trying to buy" stuff! :roll: Keep grasping. What's next? Are you going to condemn Hussein for thinking about aquiring WmD's?
Well, then you best put your ass where your big mouth is, grab your gun and sign up 'cuz you've got a metric asston of "confronting" to do. Good luck.
Your silly example of the US attacking subs in the Atlantic does not make the US an aggressor as you asserted. It makes the US a defender, specifically defending, as you stated, "the flow of arms and food to Britain". And, for the record, I will not address your petty attempts to paint myself or any other critics of the invasion as "Hussein sympathizers" or any other such shit tactics you (repeatedly) try to pull. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 762
| Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2004 6:44 pm Post subject: | |||||||
Pssst...Slek, terrorism was on the rise before any of the actions in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Prove to me that we are largely responsible for arming terrorist groups around the world. While we may have had some shady alliances in some instances, please qualify your use of the word largely. Again I ask you to find some proof that the United States was supplying Iraq with WMD. The links you posted are from a daily english newspaper in Pakistan and from the National Paper for the Nation of Islam published by Louis Farrakhan. Lets look for some more reputable sources.
But did they threaten the U.S. directly? Seems like a simple question. |
|||||||
Joined: 04 Jul 2003
Posts: 1337
Location: The Collective
| Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2004 7:40 pm Post subject: | |||||
It is a simple question.
The US was neutral at the time. Attacking ships on the high seas is an AGRESSIVE act. It is not a silly example. You just refuse to admitt to the facts of history. Germany had no way to attack us from accross the Atlantic. We did not even have an official defense treaty with Britain. Again brush up on history....the country was just as divided then about helping Britain in time as need as (even more so) it is about the war in Iraq now. That is why Roosevelt had to be aggressive in order to provoke an attack on the US. To gain sympathy for Britain. Stick your fingers in your ears and scream "la la la la" but that is EXACTLY what happened. Oh and I have no need to paint you as anything. Your posts are clear enough to define yourself. All that read them understand you and your opinions very well. |
|||||
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1010
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2004 8:51 pm Post subject: | |||||||||||
Absolute bullshit.
I did. Contras and East Timor. Perhaps you'd like to examine arms sales to Saudi Arabia too? Does Saudi Arabia harbour terrorists? Hmm... edit: Qualifying "largely". The US is the largest arms dealer in the world.
I did, that you choose not to acknowledge it is your problem. Regardless, you should take it up with the US senate then as it was their report claiming that "U.S. firms also supplied Iraq with biological materials, including anthrax, botulism and E. coli bacteria." that was cited in the articles. Don't let that stop you from shooting the messenger though. 
And a wholly irrelevant question as well. Don't agree? Then explain the relevance. Last edited by sleK on Mon Jul 19, 2004 10:00 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|||||||||||
Administrator
Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 1010
Location: over yonder
| Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2004 9:52 pm Post subject: | |||
Only if you ignore the context, as you have. As you said yourself, Axis subs were interupting the flow of food and arms to Britain. Thus by engaging the attackers the US came to the aid of Britain, a purely defensive position. A simple analogy for simple minds: You and I are walking down the street. Some random thug grabs you by the lapel and pummels you with right hooks. I grab the thug by the hair and give him a pleasant knee to the nose thereby ending his senseless attack. Does my intervention makes me the aggressor? Your faulty logic certainly says so. Regardless, none of this diminishes the fact that the US is the aggressor in Iraq which, as I stated in my first post, makes the Iraq/WWII analogy flawed as the aggressor in WWII, despite your completely illogical attempts to prove otherwise, was Nazi Germany. If you'd like to argue that the US is not the aggressor in Iraq, then I ask you to provide evidence of the Iraqi aggression that the US is responding to. Understand that tenous links to terrorists won't suffice. Nor will Husseins desire to possess WmD's. |
|||
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 1037
Location: Formerly 3333
| Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2004 11:14 pm Post subject: | |
sLEK wrote: "For your convenience I'll repost them here:
1.) You'll recall that Saddam was in power at the time of the 9/11 invasion of the United States of America. If a bully is making life unsafe, the best answer is to remove the bully, not placate him. 2.) You have no proof that removing Saddam has increased terrorism. There were bombs and gun fire in the streets of the ME long before Saddam was ousted from power. 3.) Ask the families of those who lost loved ones at the hands of Saddam (including his own family) if they think it's safer without Saddam in power. I am amazed at how easily you look the other way at the atrocities Saddam committed while picking the flyshit out of the pepper bowl at the United States every move. Good riddance to a tyrant and murderer. The sooner the new Iraqi government tries him, convicts him, and puts him to death for his crimes against humanity, the better off we'll all be. Footsoldier |
|
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 762
| Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2004 1:36 am Post subject: | |||||
Slek, the article you posted from CNN was about terrorism in 2003. But lets take a look at the actual report from Patterns of Global Terrorism .
These are figures were updated on June 22, 2004. Still think this is "absolute bullshit"? 
This article states that the U.S. is the largest arms dealer in the world...nowhere does it state that the U.S. largely responsible for arming terrorists around the world. |
|||||