Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 61 to 74 of 74
  1. #61  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Yup, nothing to consider here. Just that global terrorist threat which must be defeated, right?
    Now you sound like Tony Blair.

    Some things in life are complicated. Other things are not. Most people can tell the difference. Other people are liberals.

    Nothing the Palestinians are "fighting" for justifies their tactics.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  2. #62  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    Now you sound like Tony Blair.
    God, I wish I did. His speech at Brighton after 9/11 was the most statesman-like speech I have heard since Churchill died.

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    Some things in life are complicated. Other things are not. Most people can tell the difference. Other people are liberals.
    Perhaps. However, the Republican rhetoric has so de-based the word, liberal, that one can no longer use it. It takes many more words to identify myself than it did when I was one of only 800 "Republicans" in Baton Rouge, LA. Republican is also debased but they have done that to themselves. [We had so few Republicans that when he held a primary, it took all of us to man the polls; we had a flying squad to spell us so that we could vote ourselves.]

    Now I have to say that I am a fiscal conservative, a progressive on social justice issues, and a libertarian when it comes to government. It may be accurate but no one seems to understand me.

    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    Nothing the Palestinians are "fighting" for justifies their tactics.
    Again we agree. How many times does that make? [I really think that you agree with me more often than you are willing to admit.]
    Last edited by whmurray; 11/18/2005 at 06:06 PM.
  3. #63  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    Hitler declared war on us in the expectation that japan would then declare war on Russia. (where thngs had already begun to go very badly for him.)

    Japan, now interested in the oil & resources of SE asia -- and having been themselves badly mauled by the Russians in brief war years earlier -- did not want to join germany's russian quagmire.
    probably nobody noticed or cared about this minor tangent -- but I just came across an additional tidbit which further explains Japan's motives for not following Hitler's declaration of war against us, with a corresponding Japanese declaration of war against Russia.

    during the late summer of 1939 Russia's Siberian army commanded by Gen. Zhukov dealt a crushing defeat on the Japanese in an obscure little war that badly shook the Japanese army.

    That battle began on August 20, 1939.

    Hitler announced his Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact with Russia on August 23, 1939 -- while the Japanese military disaster still raged.

    The Japanese from then on understood that Germany was an ally to Japan only in so far as it advanced Germany's interests -- and that Japan had to act accordingly.

    Had Germany successfully crushed Russia, Japan would gladly have shared in devouring its carcass -- but Japan did not want to directly involve itself in Hilter's developing russian quagmire.

    And neither did it want to fight a 2 front war which would include Russia, after it already initiated war against america.
    Last edited by BARYE; 11/21/2005 at 04:10 AM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  4.    #64  
    BAYRE - Japan felt the US imposed sanctions was an act of war by the US, and their bombing of Pearl Harbor was basically the unsigned declaration of war, prior to the Germans'.

    An interesting footnote and often overlooked bit of history is the USSR/Germany pact of non-aggression which gave communist Russia the occupation of eastern Poland (16 days after Germany invaded western Poland).
  5. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #65  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    Things that make you think a little......
    1. There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during the month of January.....In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January. That's just one American City , about as deadly as the entire war torn country of Iraq
    (The murder rate in the US is 5.6 murders for every 100,000 people. With 130,000 troops deployed in Iraq in January 2004, that puts the murder rate (killing our soldiers IS murder) in Iraq at 29.8 for every 100,000 soldiers. This is better? No, it’s just further evidence we should be spending our money saving lives here rather than wasting lives in Iraq .)

    2. When some claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war, state the following FDR...led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did.
    (Couldn’t stay awake in history, huh? In 1940, before Japan had ever attacked us, German U-Boats attacked American shipping on the following dates: Sept. 11- US freighter "Montana" sunk en route to Iceland; Sept. 19 - armed US-Panama freighter "Pink Star" sunk en route to Iceland with cargo of food; Sept. 27 - US-Panamanian oil tanker "I.C. White" sunk en route to South Africa; Oct. 16 - US tanker "W.C. Teagle" sunk and U.S.-Panama freighter "Bold Venture" sunk; Oct. 17 - US destroyer "Kearny" torpedoed and damaged with 11 killed inside Security Zone; Oct. 19 - U.S. freighter "Lehigh" sunk in South Atlantic; Oct. 30 - U.S.-Panama armed tanker "Salinas" torpedoed and damaged; Oct. 31 - U.S. destroyer "Reuben James" sunk inside Security Zone, 115 killed)

    From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.
    (Comparing apples to apples: According to recent Department of Defense statistics, the United States had 291,557 combat related killings in WWII.)

    Truman...finished that war and started one in Korea , North Korea never attacked us.
    ( North Korea attacked our ally South Korea . Interesting to note here, the U.S. went to war in Korea after the U.N. asked us to join a real coalition.)

    From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,334 per year.
    (There were 33,741 combat related killings in the Korean War.)

    John F. Kennedy....started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us.
    (Kennedy took office in 1961. In 1945: First American Dies in Vietnam : Lt. Col. A. Peter Dewey, head of American OSS mission, was killed by Vietminh troops while driving a jeep to the airport. 1957: Terrorist Bombings Rock Saigon : Thirteen Americans working for MAAG and US Information Service are wounded in terrorist bombings in Saigon . 1959: US Servicemen Killed in Guerilla Attack: Major Dale R. Buis and Master Sargeant Chester M. Ovnand die in the Vietnam War when guerillas strike at Bienhoa.)


    Johnson...turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.
    (According to recent Department of Defense statistics, there were 47,424 combat related killings in the Vietnam War.)

    Clinton...went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia never attacked us.
    (Clinton went to Bosnia as part of a NATO force, designed since the 40’s to stop wars in Europe . NATO’s intervention stopped the Balkan conflict. There were zero American combat related killings. And through Clinton ’s entire 8 year term, the DoD reports that only 59 of our brothers and sisters in uniform gave their lives in hostile attacks. Let’s see, three and a half years later, about 2100 have given their life to Bush’s policies.))

    3. In the two years since terrorists attacked us President Bush has liberated two countries,
    Maybe.

    crushed the Taliban,
    I have heard reports of the Taliban trying to mount a comeback.

    crippled al-Qaida,
    (counter terrorism expert Richard Clarke recently said, “al-Qaeda has metamorphosized into a hydra-headed organization with cells that are operating autonomously, like the cells that operated in Madrid recently.” The International Institute for Strategic Studies annual Strategic Survey states that al-Qaeda still has more than 18,000 “graduates” of the terror camps it can call on—and its recruitment has accelerated as a result of the invasion of Iraq.)

    put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot,
    (We have nuclear inspectors in Iran and North Korea ? This is where ignorance is really dangerous. We know North Korea (who we fought a war with) has nuclear weapons, because they have already threatened us with them, and suspect Iran (who attacked our embassy and took Americans hostage) has a nuclear program, but we have no one on the ground to control or verify these threats because we’re in Iraq (who has never attacked us.)
    Last edited by NRG; 11/23/2005 at 12:05 PM.
  6.    #66  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    This is the biggest steaming pile if crap going! Why oh Why do people still post this blatant garbage!!



    laziness?
  7. #67  
    Quote Originally Posted by burnout
    BARYE - Japan felt the US imposed sanctions was an act of war by the US, and their bombing of Pearl Harbor was basically the unsigned declaration of war, prior to the Germans'.

    An interesting footnote and often overlooked bit of history is the USSR/Germany pact of non-aggression which gave communist Russia the occupation of eastern Poland (16 days after Germany invaded western Poland).
    BURNOUT both those points are correct -- and they help us to understand better the motives of the various "players" at that early part of the game.

    By (temporarily) giving Stalin the eastern part of Poland Hitler solidified their detente while further alienating the Soviet Union from its former allies England and France. This solidifies Germany’s eastern frontiers at a time when Hitler wanted to concentrate on defeating those western countries.

    Hitler who had always intended to conquer Russia, knows that he must not fight a 2 front war (though obviously he later violated this obvious strategic logic when he moved against Russia before completing the conquest of Britain).

    Stalin cares primarily about time. Stalin believes his pact with Hitler will give him at least a couple of years with which to complete the reorganization and rearmament of his armed forces (which were still weakened by the purges Stalin had recently executed against his officer corps.) Soviet armament production had already begun to produce WW2's best tank (the T34), and had successfully also begun to field excellently designed fighter aircraft.

    Aside from coveting Poland’s land, and disliking its hostility to communism, Stalin wants to move Russia’s frontiers further to the west – to in effect create a buffer zone in eastern Poland where forward defenses could be built in anticipation of the war that Stalin knew was eventually inevitable with the Germans.

    That 16 day delay in Russia’s occupation of eastern Poland occurred because Stalin would not move Zhukov (and the forces that had just defeated the Japanese) westward until Stalin was certain that the Japanese had accepted his (fairly generous) terms for ending their little war.

    Stalin knew his real problems lay with Germany in the west, and he wanted to resolve things as quickly and with as much finality in the far east, as possible.

    The Japanese had initiated their war with Russia in the belief that Russia’s army was in chaos -– and that its far eastern forces were too far from Moscow to be adequately supplied or controlled. They thought Russia was a sick man ready to plucked. And it initially was.

    Under Zhukov though, Russia rallied and delivered a stunning and humiliating defeat to the Japanese. From then on the Japanese respect for the potential power and capability of the Russian forces grew exponentially and Japan steered clear of provoking them.

    Japan, an island country with few natural resources -– was most interested in consolidating its conquest of China and Manchuria in any case. To that end, it was particularly worried about getting the fuel needed to power its armies and industries –- and Roosevelt’s oil embargo against Japan because of its invasion of China was crippling both Japan’s war effort in China, and its home economy.

    America (then a leading petrol exporter), demanded that Japan leave China in order for oil shipments to be resumed. Japan’s war economy was under serious stress. They either had to effectively “surrender” by complying to this ultimatum -– or double down their bet by unilaterally occupying SE Asia and its oil fields. (There were no oil supplies in available in far eastern Russia –- but obviously Dutch Indonesia had oil in abundance.)

    Japan knew that america would react aggressively to any attempt by Japan to seize the Indonesian oil. They believed that its only chance for success was to preemptively attack the U.S. so as to be able to consolidate its SE Asian conquests before the U.S. could respond. This strategy simultaneously made it imperative that they make a solid peace with the Russians so as to avoid having to worry about a second (Russian) front.

    At the time of japan’s (pyrrhic victory) at Pearl Harbor, Germany had already begun to be ensnared in Russia’s mud and winter -– and had been thwarted in its attempt to quickly conquer the Soviet Union (only miles from Moscow).

    Hitler’s declaration of war against the U.S. after Pearl Harbor was clearly directed at getting Japan to correspondingly declare war against Russia.

    This was, from his point of view, a clever stratagem -– because he knew that the U.S. was still a year or more away from becoming a significant force in the European theater of war. If Japan accepted his bait, it may well have enabled him to succeed in subduing Russia (since it would have forced Stalin to keep the Siberian armies in the Far East to defend against Japan -– rather than being able to redeploy them in the attack that saved Moscow.)
    Last edited by BARYE; 11/22/2005 at 01:18 AM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  8. #68  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    The murder rate in the US is 5.6 murders for every 100,000 people. With 130,000 troops deployed in Iraq in January 2004, that puts the murder rate (killing our soldiers IS murder)
    Websters def of "Soldier"
    1 a : one engaged in military service and especially in the army b : an enlisted man or woman c : a skilled warrior

    Dying is a job hazard, if your job happens to be a warrior (skilled or otherwise)
    FAR CRY FROM MURDER


    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    ( North Korea attacked our ally South Korea . Interesting to note here, the U.S. went to war in Korea after the U.N. asked us to join a real coalition.)
    So if the rest of the world had been on board you would be in support of the war as well?



    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    (Kennedy took office in 1961. In 1945: First American Dies in Vietnam : Lt. Col. A. Peter Dewey, head of American OSS mission, was killed by Vietminh troops while driving a jeep to the airport. 1957: Terrorist Bombings Rock Saigon : Thirteen Americans working for MAAG and US Information Service are wounded in terrorist bombings in Saigon . 1959: US Servicemen Killed in Guerilla Attack: Major Dale R. Buis and Master Sargeant Chester M. Ovnand die in the Vietnam War when guerillas strike at Bienhoa.)
    I am quite certain that google would produce several back dated events in which Iraq has attacked americans as well



    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    (Clinton went to Bosnia as part of a NATO force, designed since the 40’s to stop wars in Europe . NATO’s intervention stopped the Balkan conflict. There were zero American combat related killings. And through Clinton ’s entire 8 year term, the DoD reports that only 59 of our brothers and sisters in uniform gave their lives in hostile attacks. Let’s see, three and a half years later, about 2100 have given their life to Bush’s policies.))
    Apples to Apples? I think not. Clinton could have and should have done something about terrorism. He, however was extremely preoccupied with more important presidential matters
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    I have heard reports of the Taliban trying to mount a comeback.
    Trying to mount a comeback doesn't equal a successful comeback. It just doesn't!
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    (counter terrorism expert Richard Clarke recently said, “al-Qaeda has metamorphosized into a hydra-headed organization with cells that are operating autonomously, like the cells that operated in Madrid recently.” The International Institute for Strategic Studies annual Strategic Survey states that al-Qaeda still has more than 18,000 “graduates” of the terror camps it can call on—and its recruitment has accelerated as a result of the invasion of Iraq.)
    DUH!... I don't think anyone expected them to shake hands and say "ummm... about that whole terrorism thing... You didn't think we were serious did you?"
  9. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #69  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    Websters def of "Soldier"
    1 a : one engaged in military service and especially in the army b : an enlisted man or woman c : a skilled warrior

    Dying is a job hazard, if your job happens to be a warrior (skilled or otherwise)
    FAR CRY FROM MURDER



    So if the rest of the world had been on board you would be in support of the war as well?




    I am quite certain that google would produce several back dated events in which Iraq has attacked americans as well




    Apples to Apples? I think not. Clinton could have and should have done something about terrorism. He, however was extremely preoccupied with more important presidential matters


    Trying to mount a comeback doesn't equal a successful comeback. It just doesn't!

    DUH!... I don't think anyone expected them to shake hands and say "ummm... about that whole terrorism thing... You didn't think we were serious did you?"
    Face it what you posted was BS.
  10. #70  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    This is where ignorance is really dangerous. We know North Korea (who we fought a war with) has nuclear weapons, because they have already threatened us with them, and suspect Iran (who attacked our embassy and took Americans hostage) has a nuclear program, but we have no one on the ground to control or verify these threats because we’re wasting our soldier’s lives in Iraq (who has never attacked us.)
    I may pick a nit or two with your post, but for the most part I agree with what you wrote.

    One thing however: how does "wasting our soldier's lives in Iraq" prevent us from having inspectors on the ground in Iran or North Korea? Are you suggesting that the military resources in Iraq should be withdrawn in order to attack Korea and Iran?
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  11. #71  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    I may pick a nit or two with your post, but for the most part I agree with what you wrote.

    One thing however: how does "wasting our soldier's lives in Iraq" prevent us from having inspectors on the ground in Iran or North Korea? Are you suggesting that the military resources in Iraq should be withdrawn in order to attack Korea and Iran?
    They (dems) always suggest (or rather hint without any real commiment) that our forces could be better used elswhere.
  12. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #72  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    I may pick a nit or two with your post, but for the most part I agree with what you wrote.

    One thing however: how does "wasting our soldier's lives in Iraq" prevent us from having inspectors on the ground in Iran or North Korea? Are you suggesting that the military resources in Iraq should be withdrawn in order to attack Korea and Iran?
    Not very many Nuclear inspectors in the military, and if there are any nuclear material inspectors serving in the armed forces I doubt that they are engaged in combat in Iraq.

    Where is that glorious body called the UN, or the Internation Atomic Energy Commision (or what ever they are called these days) and why are they not doing the inspections
  13. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #73  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    I may pick a nit or two with your post, but for the most part I agree with what you wrote.

    One thing however: how does "wasting our soldier's lives in Iraq" prevent us from having inspectors on the ground in Iran or North Korea? Are you suggesting that the military resources in Iraq should be withdrawn in order to attack Korea and Iran?
    You are right it does not. But it would help in the fact if we had inspectors we would have something to back it up with. And the wasting part should be deleted out. I was thinking more along the lines of armed escorts for the inspectors.
  14. #74  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    You are right it does not. But it would help in the fact if we had inspectors we would have something to back it up with. And the wasting part should be deleted out. I was thinking more along the lines of armed escorts for the inspectors.
    good save. took a while to come up with, but good nonetheless
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Posting Permissions