Interesting Tidbit of Knowledge.

[Jason Tate]

Tomorrow marks the day that we will have been in Iraq longer than we were in all of World War II.

[tambam]

Very interesting...

[PJ1336]

does that mean iraq gets to drop two a-bombs on us? thay have to be mid-level cities though. maybe like boston and san diego.

[Jason Tate]

We were able to defeat all of Nazi Germany, Mussolini, and the entire Japanese empire in less time.

According to a recent poll conducted by the University of Maryland:

* 71% of all Iraqis now want the U.S. out of Iraq.
* 61% of all Iraqis SUPPORT insurgent attacks on U.S. troops.

[Trainsaw]

http://threeworldwars.com/overview.htm

[tambam]

I don't blame them. I don't think Americans would be very happy if someone just invaded their country for three years.

[PaulsRightNut]

does that mean iraq gets to drop two a-bombs on us? thay have to be mid-level cities though. maybe like boston and san diego.

hahaha i was thinking kinda the same thing

[Trainsaw]

I don't blame them. I don't think Americans would be very happy if someone just invaded their country for three years.

you know that's an amazing concept that the most of America cannot grasp. Everyone thinks that Iraqi's think that we're their saviors by getting rid of Saddam and showing them our way of life, but surprisingly that isn't the case, but try to tell that to some people

[youcomebeforeyo]

you know that's an amazing concept that the most of America cannot grasp. Everyone thinks that Iraqi's think that we're their saviors by getting rid of Saddam and showing them our way of life, but surprisingly that isn't the case, but try to tell that to some people

Well I think to a degree that's true however I believe probably most Iraqi's are happy to be rid of Saddam but it's what they've gotten instead that has made them so unhappy.

[Trainsaw]

Well I think to a degree that's true however I believe probably most Iraqi's are happy to be rid of Saddam but it's what they've gotten instead that has made them so unhappy.

i'll agree there is a significant amount more who welcomed us getting rid of Saddam than showing them our way of life.

[cal1082]

---If the point you are trying to make with this thread is simply about how long we were in Europe after WWII you'd be 110% wrong considering how long Germany was occupied.

---If your point is we were able to defeat countries like Germany, Japan, & Italy in the time we've spent in Iraq you'd be right, but you'd want to compare our defeat of Iraq's military with that of all the previous countries listed (a little over a month). Just goes to show you how hard it is to fight a guerrilla war, and we were fortunate to not have to face a huge insurency in Europe after WWII.

[crit]

I just got that email too.

[Jason Tate]

---If the point you are trying to make with this thread is simply about how long we were in Europe after WWII you'd be 110% wrong considering how long Germany was occupied.

---If your point is we were able to defeat countries like Germany, Japan, & Italy in the time we've spent in Iraq you'd be right, but you'd want to compare our defeat of Iraq's military with that of all the previous countries listed (a little over a month). Just goes to show you how hard it is to fight a guerrilla war, and we were fortunate to not have to face a huge insurency in Europe after WWII.
Awwwww .... look at the little war hawk, isn't he cute?

[tambam]

you know that's an amazing concept that the most of America cannot grasp. Everyone thinks that Iraqi's think that we're their saviors by getting rid of Saddam and showing them our way of life, but surprisingly that isn't the case, but try to tell that to some people

Exactly.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

to compare iraq to wwII in pretty much anyway seems ridiculous to me
in wwII we went in and carpet bombed places
now were running around with machine guns trying to find individual people
i wonder why its taking longer
i agree that the situation in iraq is a bad one, but it seems like a bit of a stretch to compare it to wwII

[cal1082]

Awwwww .... look at the little war hawk, isn't he cute?

Your lack of a decent response or telling me where I'm mistaken speaks volumes.

I could label you many things and tell you the family I have in Iraq and what they've told me and perhaps you might understand. Or perhaps you'd just be a dick........I'm guessing the latter though.

I'm going to support what I think is right for a better world (you can disagree), but the idea of you calling me a war hawk really pisses me off considering the loved ones I have over there. You'd need more than the 3-inches between your legs to call a soldier thats been over there a "war hawk". I can assure you my brother-in-law would much rather be with his 2 kids than guarding Iraqi Officials and if you labeled him a war hawk for believing that what we are doing is the right thing he'd show you what an American Army Ranger can do.

I wish we could put unappreciative people like you over there and perhaps you'd realize how lucky you are here, and what those soldiers are doing for us there. You'd rather bitch and moan and post negative news articles about a select few soldiers, or a military mistake in which civilians unfortunatley die. I've visited your website for over 6 or 7 years and can think of 3 or 4 negative news posts invovling our soldiers...........unfortunatly I can't think of one good news article you've posted about them.

**probably not the best idea to be a condesinding prick right after Thanksgiving when you've been with family**

[Jason Tate]

Your lack of a decent response or telling me where I'm mistaken speaks volumes.

I could label you many things and tell you the family I have in Iraq and what they've told me and perhaps you might understand. Or perhaps you'd just be a dick........I'm guessing the latter though.

I'm going to support what I think is right for a better world (you can disagree), but the idea of you calling me a war hawk really pisses me off considering the loved ones I have over there. You'd need more than the 3-inches between your legs to call a soldier thats been over there a "war hawk". I can assure you my brother-in-law would much rather be with his 2 kids than guarding Iraqi Officials and if you labeled him a war hawk for believing that what we are doing is the right thing he'd show you what an American Army Ranger can do.

I wish we could put unappreciative people like you over there and perhaps you'd realize how lucky you are here, and what those soldiers are doing for us there. You'd rather bitch and moan and post negative news articles about a select few soldiers, or a military mistake in which civilians unfortunatley die. I've visited your website for over 6 or 7 years and can think of 3 or 4 negative news posts invovling our soldiers...........unfortunatly I can't think of one good news article you've posted about them.

**probably not the best idea to be a condesinding prick right after Thanksgiving when you've been with family**
Hahahahahahahahaha. Dude, you're such a fucking moron. I stopped actually responding to your posts like 4 months ago. You're worthless. You've been brainwashed into your little mindset that you'll never get out of. I no longer care to prove you wrong - instead, I laugh at you.

Seriously.

Your family is over there for horse shit reasons. Killing people, and potentially dying, for NOTHING. The fact that this doesn't make you mad -- sickens me. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

[tambam]

Hahahahahahahahaha. Dude, you're such a fucking moron. I stopped actually responding to your posts like 4 months ago. You're worthless. You've been brainwashed into your little mindset that you'll never get out of. I no longer care to prove you wrong - instead, I laugh at you.

Seriously.

Your family is over there for horse shit reasons. Killing people, and potentially dying, for NOTHING. The fact that this doesn't make you mad -- sickens me. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

I agree with the last part. I feel that this war is totally useless at this point, and that people that aren't civilians really need to get out. People are dying for absolutely no reason. Nobody wants Americans there anymore. The civilians are just as terrified as they were before this. I should know, I was born in Iraq and more than half of my family still lives there. They want their country back, they want to rebuild on their own. They don't want Americans shoving anything else down their throats. This whole thing is absolutely useless.

[notoaststereo]

thats pretty crazy

[Trainsaw]

its also pretty crazy that WWII is thought of being the most romantic war, while this war is going to be remembered as a huge mistake

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

Hahahahahahahahaha. Dude, you're such a fucking moron. I stopped actually responding to your posts like 4 months ago. You're worthless. You've been brainwashed into your little mindset that you'll never get out of. I no longer care to prove you wrong - instead, I laugh at you.

Seriously.

Your family is over there for horse shit reasons. Killing people, and potentially dying, for NOTHING. The fact that this doesn't make you mad -- sickens me. Whatever helps you sleep at night.


it seems like you still respond to his posts
and it seems like no matter what the reasons, his family could get a bit of your respect
not trying to get into the middle of everything

[cal1082]

Hahahahahahahahaha. Dude, you're such a fucking moron. I stopped actually responding to your posts like 4 months ago. You're worthless. You've been brainwashed into your little mindset that you'll never get out of. I no longer care to prove you wrong - instead, I laugh at you.

Seriously.

Your family is over there for horse shit reasons. Killing people, and potentially dying, for NOTHING. The fact that this doesn't make you mad -- sickens me. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Again......I only wish you appreciated what you have and could recongize the good that the soldiers do.

Sickens me you are not grateful for what the soldiers do for us. You are the exact reason that many people believe that the left are against our troops. I hold a higher hope out though that the democrats in this country to seek success in Iraq and hope to build a better country.

[Trainsaw]

Again......I only wish you appreciated what you have and could recongize the good that the soldiers do.

Sickens me you are not grateful for what the soldiers do for us. You are the exact reason that many people believe that the left are against our troops. I hold a higher hope out though that the democrats in this country to seek success in Iraq and hope to build a better country.

I think its gonna be hard to get sucess in Iraq, we're trying to change a nations lifestyle and government to one of a Western civilization. We're either gonna have to police the country for numerous years or just give up. But these people want their way of life not ours.

[tambam]

Again......I only wish you appreciated what you have and could recongize the good that the soldiers do.

Sickens me you are not grateful for what the soldiers do for us. You are the exact reason that many people believe that the left are against our troops. I hold a higher hope out though that the democrats in this country to seek success in Iraq and hope to build a better country.

I don't think that's going to work. Iraq has the potential to be a good country, but not as long as the Americans are still there. I don't mean to sound ungrateful, but that's just how I see it. Like I said before, I don't think Americans would like it if someone marched into their country and invaded because they didn't think that the States were up to their standards. Same with Iraq. I mean, I don't know why people don't see it that way.

[tambam]

I think its gonna be hard to get sucess in Iraq, we're trying to change a nations lifestyle and government to one of a Western civilization. We're either gonna have to police the country for numerous years or just give up. But these people want their way of life not ours.

Exactly, I completely agree.

Just because Iraq doesn't operate like a Western civilization's would doesn't mean it's all wrong. If people think that way, then while we're at it, why not march into every country that doesn't operate like the West? You just can't do that. I mean, let these people be. The U.S. needs to realize that their way isn't the only way and that some people are happy living differently. They want their own way, and they should get it.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

I don't think that's going to work. Iraq has the potential to be a good country, but not as long as the Americans are still there. I don't mean to sound ungrateful, but that's just how I see it. Like I said before, I don't think Americans would like it if someone marched into their country and invaded because they didn't think that the States were up to their standards. Same with Iraq. I mean, I don't know why people don't see it that way.


what standard was Sadaam's Iraq up to?
screw our standard, there is no standard that is low enough for that
now if you think that other things were a higher priority than Iraq i might agree with you
but to act like ours was the only standard that Iraq was not up to is ridiculous

[tambam]

what standard was Sadaam's Iraq up to?
screw our standard, there is no standard that is low enough for that
now if you think that other things were a higher priority than Iraq i might agree with you
but to act like ours was the only standard that Iraq was not up to is ridiculous

I'm not talking about Saddam. I'm saying that Iraq should have the option to rebuild their own country the way they see fit without American's breathing down their neck. I know Saddam's Iraq was wrong and I'm glad Americans got him out, but they've over-welcomed their stay and the majority of the Iraqi people don't want them there anymore.

[Trainsaw]

what standard was Sadaam's Iraq up to?
screw our standard, there is no standard that is low enough for that
now if you think that other things were a higher priority than Iraq i might agree with you
but to act like ours was the only standard that Iraq was not up to is ridiculous

Different morals, different ways of thinking. Ofcourse Saddam's rule was disgusting and should have been stopped, but that's the way we think. Perhaps people there don't see it that way and didn't mind keeping him around, though i'm sure they're glad he's gone they might not want our system. We have a great way of living here and yes it would be nice if the rest of the world shared the same view, but you can't push that way of life onto someone who doesn't want it, and that's our problem with Iraq and why we're still there.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

I'm not talking about Saddam. I'm saying that Iraq should have the option to rebuild their own country the way they see fit without American's breathing down their neck. I know Saddam's Iraq was wrong and I'm glad Americans got him out, but they've over-welcomed their stay and the majority of the Iraqi people don't want them there anymore.

agreeable

[tambam]

Different morals, different ways of thinking. Ofcourse Saddam's rule was disgusting and should have been stopped, but that's the way we think. Perhaps people there don't see it that way and didn't mind keeping him around, though i'm sure they're glad he's gone they might not want our system. We have a great way of living here and yes it would be nice if the rest of the world shared the same view, but you can't push that way of life onto someone who doesn't want it, and that's our problem with Iraq and why we're still there.

Actually, a lot of people in Iraq are glad that he's not in power anymore. They hated him as much (if not more) than anyone else does.

But I pretty much agree with you. :-)

[Trainsaw]

Actually, a lot of people in Iraq are glad that he's not in power anymore. They hated him as much (if not more) than anyone else does.

Yeah i'd say they're happy he's gone, obviously no one was defending his statue lol, but i'm sure there are still some who prefer he was in power

[tambam]

Yeah i'd say they're happy he's gone, obviously no one was defending his statue lol, but i'm sure there are still some who prefer he was in power

Yeah. They're crazy, though. And I think the only reason they're protesting his capture is out of fear, for the most part. And maybe also because he did some good for the people who prefer he was in power. But they're obviously delusional and selfish and don't understand how horrible he was to the majority.

[Trainsaw]

is he still set to be hung at the end of Aug?

[Jason Tate]

Again......I only wish you appreciated what you have and could recongize the good that the soldiers do.

Sickens me you are not grateful for what the soldiers do for us. You are the exact reason that many people believe that the left are against our troops. I hold a higher hope out though that the democrats in this country to seek success in Iraq and hope to build a better country.

You're such a little bitch. Stop putting words in my fucking mouth you asshole. My best friend's a marine.

[tambam]

is he still set to be hung at the end of Aug?

So now it's the end of August? I thought maybe it would be happening by Spring. I don't know why they put up with him and his stupid appeals. We all know what he did. It's pathetic.

[Trainsaw]

So now it's the end of August? I thought maybe it would be happening by Spring. I don't know why they put up with him and his stupid appeals. We all know what he did. It's pathetic.

shit well i didn't mean Aug, i ment Dec, but i'm gonna go look this up now...

[tambam]

shit well i didn't mean Aug, i ment Dec, but i'm gonna go look this up now...

Well, on wikipedia, I read that the earliest date for the execution would be sometime in the Spring. But hey, it's wikipedia. Not always reliable.

[Trainsaw]

Well, on wikipedia, I read that the earliest date for the execution would be sometime in the Spring. But hey, it's wikipedia. Not always reliable.

yeah i don't think it matters too much of a date right now, with numerous appeals he could probably die in prision

[cal1082]

I think its gonna be hard to get sucess in Iraq, we're trying to change a nations lifestyle and government to one of a Western civilization. We're either gonna have to police the country for numerous years or just give up. But these people want their way of life not ours.

What aspects are you talking about though when it comes to change to a western civilization?

Representative government.........free market.......etc........? Or are you talking more specifics?

[tambam]

yeah i don't think it matters too much of a date right now, with numerous appeals he could probably die in prision

Yeah, no kidding. I wonder how many appeals he gets before they tell him to shut up and just hang him. I really hope they do so soon. He should have been gone the day they found him, in my opinion.

[Jason Tate]

What aspects are you talking about though when it comes to change to a western civilization?

Representative government.........free market.......etc........? Or are you talking more specifics?
Shouldn't you already know this plan? I mean, "mission accomplished" right?

[cal1082]

I don't think that's going to work. Iraq has the potential to be a good country, but not as long as the Americans are still there. I don't mean to sound ungrateful, but that's just how I see it. Like I said before, I don't think Americans would like it if someone marched into their country and invaded because they didn't think that the States were up to their standards. Same with Iraq. I mean, I don't know why people don't see it that way.

Then I would be on the other side of it that said I would like it if someone marhed into my country and invaded it because we had a dictator like Saddam that killed thousands, crushed political opposition, and limited speech.

[Trainsaw]

What aspects are you talking about though when it comes to change to a western civilization?

Representative government.........free market.......etc........? Or are you talking more specifics?

Mostly in general of forcing our way of life onto them. A lot of the people in the middle east despise the United States, including Iraqi's. So I could see why they wouldn't want to become "America Jr" using the term loosely. I know we're not trying to make them adapt to everything about our lifestyle etc, but I wouldn't think they would be too thrilled to have much in common with us.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

Then I would be on the other side of it that said I would like it if someone marhed into my country and invaded it because we had a dictator like Saddam that killed thousands, crushed political opposition, and limited speech.


i wouldn't go as far to say that
but thats just me
it sounds good, but in reality if someone came marching down my street from the united states of wherever, id probably throw something at them.

[tambam]

i wouldn't go as far to say that
but thats just me
it sounds good, but in reality if someone came marching down my street from the united states of wherever, id probably throw something at them.

No kidding.

[tambam]

Then I would be on the other side of it that said I would like it if someone marhed into my country and invaded it because we had a dictator like Saddam that killed thousands, crushed political opposition, and limited speech.

I'm sure they were happy about getting rid of Saddam at first. But now it's more like, "Uhm, when can we have our country back?" I'd definitely be asking the same thing.

[cal1082]

Mostly in general of forcing our way of life onto them. A lot of the people in the middle east despise the United States, including Iraqi's. So I could see why they wouldn't want to become "America Jr" using the term loosely. I know we're not trying to make them adapt to everything about our lifestyle etc, but I wouldn't think they would be too thrilled to have much in common with us.

What do you mean though, beacause what you are saying in bold is very, very general.

I mean in terms of trying to set up a representative government and an open market........yes you could say we're bringing them that part of our life. But those are two very broad apsects.

[cal1082]

i wouldn't go as far to say that
but thats just me
it sounds good, but in reality if someone came marching down my street from the united states of wherever, id probably throw something at them.

Perhaps, and it's hard for either one of us to know our reactions not being in the situation. I can only speculate that if I lived under rule of someone like Saddam I would wish for an overthrow.

It's kind of like speculating if you were alive in Georgia in the 1820's if you'd own a slave. Or if you would have goose-stepped with the Nazis in the early 40's. You'd hope your answer would be no but you really cant say.

[falloutdrea19]

god that is ridiculous...we shouldn't even be in iraq to begin with..

[sateendreem]

Do you know why president Dubya doesn't want to attack North Korea? Because they actually have weapons of mass destruction!

As for Saddam I heard that when elections came around a while ago the choices were either Saddam or death... That would have been an easy decision.

[open mind]

Then I would be on the other side of it that said I would like it if someone marhed into my country and invaded it because we had a dictator like Saddam that killed thousands, crushed political opposition, and limited speech.

it could be argued that we've done alot of what saddam did.........we've killed god knows how many people, and crushed politicians we didn't like, thereby limiting free speech.

[sateendreem]

it could be argued that we've done alot of what saddam did.........we've killed god knows how many people, and crushed politicians we didn't like, thereby limiting free speech.

I agree, but with one stipulation... The way Saddam ruled kept the terrorists out of Iraq... Now they roam about freely and terrorize others because Saddam isn't in power anymore.

[justinevans]

We were able to defeat all of Nazi Germany, Mussolini, and the entire Japanese empire in less time.

According to a recent poll conducted by the University of Maryland:

* 71% of all Iraqis now want the U.S. out of Iraq.
* 61% of all Iraqis SUPPORT insurgent attacks on U.S. troops.

technology was also a lot different.

[justinevans]

Do you know why president Dubya doesn't want to attack North Korea? Because they actually have weapons of mass destruction!

As for Saddam I heard that when elections came around a while ago the choices were either Saddam or death... That would have been an easy decision.

Maybe or the fact they realized they fucked up with Iraq and that should probably continue with Diplomatic talks.

[justinevans]

oh and by the way Tate, we're still in Germany, Japan, Korea, etc...Japan barely even has an army anymore.

[justinevans]

Tomorrow marks the day that we will have been in Iraq longer than we were in all of World War II.

Physically or monetarily...

American pilots flew in WW2 once the war began, just under Canada and the RAF.

[cal1082]

oh and by the way Tate, we're still in Germany, Japan, Korea, etc...Japan barely even has an army anymore.

that's why i didnt understand the thread or the point to the thread.

[sateendreem]

Maybe or the fact they realized they fucked up with Iraq and that should probably continue with Diplomatic talks.

I agree with you on that one. It just seems as though (Obviously) Dubya has made a zillion mistakes with our country and the biggest fuck up of all is what he's done in Iraq. It's hard to stand united when our leader is an idiot!

[justinevans]

that's why i didnt understand the thread or the point to the thread.

the problem among all of us is that we normally omit anything that doesn't support our argument.

[justinevans]

I agree with you on that one. It just seems as though (Obviously) Dubya has made a zillion mistakes with our country and the biggest fuck up of all is what he's done in Iraq. It's hard to stand united when our leader is an idiot!

most of our leaders have made mistakes.

[sateendreem]

most of our leaders have made mistakes.

Yeah, but that bad?

[justinevans]

Yeah, but that bad?

15 presidents continued to allow slavery?

[cal1082]

it could be argued that we've done alot of what saddam did.........we've killed god knows how many people, and crushed politicians we didn't like, thereby limiting free speech.

I really disagree on that because there was one thing I was amazed at. If you'll remember Al Sadr about a year or so after Saddam was ousted was a very powerful person in Iraq. I forgot the estimated number of supporters off hand, but at the time he was a major player.

Al Sadr was also running attacks on our troops with his supporters. We try to kill him a number of times and end up cornering him in a mosque where amazingly enough he decides diplomacy is the way to go.

Point I'm making is that the US allowed him to participate in the diplomatic process despite the things he had done. He is still active in Iraq and has his supporters depsite what all he has done.

That's the opposite of crushing politicians we didnt like.

[sateendreem]

15 presidents continued to allow slavery?

Yeah that bad (Didn't even come to mind... Sorry!)

[justinevans]

Yeah that bad (Didn't even come to mind... Sorry!)

27 presidents didn't allow women's rights

[sateendreem]

27 presidents didn't allow women's rights

I guess I'm used to women's rights being ignored... Being that I am one, but that doesn't make your point any less valid (Not to mention the fact that you're a guy pointing it out)

I never said I know everything about politics... At least I never meant to imply it.

[Love As Arson]

I have always found it interesting that World War II is seen as a "good" war.

[sateendreem]

I have always found it interesting that World War II is seen as a "good" war.

Although no war is good it DID end the killing of Millions of Jewish People... We only went in on the war because Japan bombed Pearl Harbor though... It's your call

[Fedaykin]

I have always found it interesting that World War II is seen as a "good" war.
It's almost certainly due to the fact that being attacked by a nation state (japan) brought us into a war with other nation states (germany and russia, at the time among others). Within days of being attacked, the president declared war. Preivious to our joining, the war in europe had already been raging for 1-2 years. The facts of this war are so different. On Sept. 11, we weren't attacked by a nation, but by individuals. We went into this war (in Iraq) months after those attacks, and with no clear connection established between those individuals and the country we are in. The was no war there previous to our shock and awe invasion. What's interesting to me, is that people always think the wars will be short. In WWII, they thought it would be over to have the soldiers home for christmas. Previous to our 'shock and awe' bombardment, we thought our 'mission' would be 'accomplished' in under 1 month. Vietnam was supposed to take a year. In WWI, the Germans thought they could take Europe and Paris in less than 6 months. Even back in the Classical Age, the Athenians thought they could defeat Sparta in under 1 year; btw the Peloponnesian Wars lasted over 30 years. Point? War is never short, and even for the victors never won

[Love As Arson]

The common factor in each of the wars you have mentioned is that they have been the expression of America's imperialistic desires. Certainly the attack on Pearl Harbor was an impetus, but it was already under discussion within government due to the desire for American to be dominant in the pacific and in Europe.

[Trainsaw]

I have always found it interesting that World War II is seen as a "good" war.

I always thought it was seen in more of a romantic light than anything, you know i guess the closest thing that we have to a "Good vs Evil" battle

[open mind]

I really disagree on that because there was one thing I was amazed at. If you'll remember Al Sadr about a year or so after Saddam was ousted was a very powerful person in Iraq. I forgot the estimated number of supporters off hand, but at the time he was a major player.

Al Sadr was also running attacks on our troops with his supporters. We try to kill him a number of times and end up cornering him in a mosque where amazingly enough he decides diplomacy is the way to go.

Point I'm making is that the US allowed him to participate in the diplomatic process despite the things he had done. He is still active in Iraq and has his supporters depsite what all he has done.

That's the opposite of crushing politicians we didnt like.

saddam was technically a politician.

[Justin_stacy]

I have always found it interesting that World War II is seen as a "good" war.

I think the impression of it being a "good" war or "moral," if I may use such a term, war, stems from the general opinion that an evil or villainous side was clearly recognizable; where as that is not true for most wars (WWI). The held view is that it was a war of good vs. evil, civilization vs. barbarism.

Now of course that is a foolish belief as little more then capability separate the intentions of communist Russia and fascist Germany, but I still thank that is the way most people view the war and why people are able to romances about it, as stated before me.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

before i say this, im not saying that george bush hasnt made plenty of mistakes.

but...its easy for me to see how situations like this happen. when presented with the sadaam situation, many people looked back and saw what happen when hitler was in germany. they saw how the world appeased him, and the negative effects that followed. to keep that from happening again, it seems like a good idea to take sadaam out, however, you cant really go into a country take out their existing government and then fly home and tell them to fix it. so here we are, old government gone, leaving is bad, staying is bad. at first i really did think that the comparisons to vietnam were a bit of a stretch. but now, unfortunately it seems like thats where we are headed if we arent already there yet.

[tambam]

I agree, but with one stipulation... The way Saddam ruled kept the terrorists out of Iraq... Now they roam about freely and terrorize others because Saddam isn't in power anymore.

I agree completely.

[ResideInMyMind]

how long were we in vietnam?

[Lueda Alia]

I wonder what the "plan" is at this point.

[sateendreem]

I agree completely.

Thank you... A lot of people can't see that

[ResideInMyMind]

I agree, but with one stipulation... The way Saddam ruled kept the terrorists out of Iraq... Now they roam about freely and terrorize others because Saddam isn't in power anymore.

im pretty sure it was proven that sadaam's regime sponsored terrorism. not that i dont agree with your point, because i do, im just saying...

[sateendreem]

im pretty sure it was proven that sadaam's regime sponsored terrorism. not that i dont agree with your point, because i do, im just saying...

That's what I love about this forum... I am not offended about your opinion because under God or whatever we all have the right to our own opinion!

As for what you said... You are buying into the president Dubya's whole we went into Iraq ::Insert latest reason here:: thing.

[tambam]

im pretty sure it was proven that sadaam's regime sponsored terrorism. not that i dont agree with your point, because i do, im just saying...

True, but it still kept a shitload of other terrorists from barging into Iraq whenever they pleased and blowing themselves up along with a number of other people. I know it sounds crazy, but there was a certain amount of order while he was still in power. I'm not supporting Saddam or anything of the such, but it's an accurate point.

[thejetstolehome]

That's what I love about this forum... I am not offended about your opinion because under God or whatever we all have the right to our own opinion!

As for what you said... You are buying into the president Dubya's whole we went into Iraq ::Insert latest reason here:: thing.

it's not under god. it's under our constitution.

[thejetstolehome]

how long were we in vietnam?

10-12 yrs. i think.

[sateendreem]

it's not under god. it's under our constitution.

That too...:-)

[thejetstolehome]

That too...:-)

to me, constitution > god.

that's just me, though.

[sateendreem]

to me, constitution > god.

that's just me, though.

I'm not a Christian, though

[tambam]

to me, constitution > god.

that's just me, though.

Exactly, since we know that the constitution actually exists. ;-)

[thejetstolehome]

I'm not a Christian, though

:shrug: i used to be catholic.

Exactly, since we know that the constitution actually exists. ;-)

haha that's part of it but not all of it.

[justinevans]

The common factor in each of the wars you have mentioned is that they have been the expression of America's imperialistic desires. Certainly the attack on Pearl Harbor was an impetus, but it was already under discussion within government due to the desire for American to be dominant in the pacific and in Europe.

World War 2 happened because of Germany's imperialistic desires.

[ResideInMyMind]

Exactly, since we know that the constitution actually exists. ;-)

good call.

[Jason Tate]

World War 2 happened because of Germany's imperialistic desires.
WW2 happened because of how harsh the world came down on Germany after WW1.

[Justin_stacy]

about time you get one right....

[Lueda Alia]

WW2 happened because of how harsh the world came down on Germany after WW1.
He speaks the truth.

[justinevans]

WW2 happened because of how harsh the world came down on Germany after WW1.

The Nazi Party came to power in Germany by democratic means, although after acquiring power they eliminated most vestiges of Germany's democratic system. The reasons for their popularity included their renouncement of the Treaty of Versailles (particularly Article 231, known as the "Guilt Clause"), which had placed many restrictions on Germany since the end of the World War I, staunch anti-communism, the Dolchstosslegende and promises of stability and economic reconstruction. They also appealed to a sense of Germanic identity, superiority and entitlement, which would play an important role in starting the war, as they demanded the integration of lands they considered to be rightfully belonging to Germany. Hitler was also portrayed by himself, his party, and his book Mein Kampf as an almost otherworldly savior for the German people.

Imperial Japan in the 1930s was largely ruled by a militarist clique of Army and Navy leaders, devoted to Japan becoming a world colonial power. Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931 and China in 1937 to bolster its meager stock of natural resources and extend its colonial control over a wider area. The United States and the United Kingdom reacted by making loans to China, providing covert military assistance, pilots and fighter aircraft to Kuomintang China and instituting increasingly broad embargoes of raw materials and oil against Japan. These embargoes would potentially have eventually forced Japan to give up its newly conquered possessions in China or find new sources of oil and other materials to run their economy. Japan was faced with the choice of withdrawing from China, negotiating some compromise, developing new sources of supply, buying what they needed some where else, or going to war to conquer the territories that contained oil, bauxite and other resources in the Dutch East Indies, Malay and the Philippines. Believing the French, Dutch and British governments more than occupied with the war in Europe, the Soviets reeling from German attacks and that the United States could not be organized for war for years and would seek a compromise before waging full scale war, they chose the latter, and went ahead with plans for the Greater East Asia War in the Pacific.

The direct cause of the United States' entry into the war with Japan was the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. Germany declared war on the United States on December 12, 1941.

So I do agree to an extent it had to do with the coming down after world war I, but that had nothing to do with a master race and lands they felt were theirs long ago.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

So I do agree to an extent it had to do with the coming down after world war I, but that had nothing to do with a master race and lands they felt were theirs long ago.


those ideas came from hitler, who was able to rise to power due to the harsh treatment after the war.

[justinevans]

those ideas came from hitler, who was able to rise to power due to the harsh treatment after the war.

alright, I guess I stand corrected then.

[Love As Arson]

World War 2 happened because of Germany's imperialistic desires.
I never said otherwise. However, US intervention in the war was both a result of Japan's attack and the desire to be the dominant power, which severely conflicted Germany's plans.

[justinevans]

I never said otherwise. However, US intervention in the war was both a result of Japan's attack and the desire to be the dominant power, which severely conflicted Germany's plans.

yeah, however, Germany was trying to get us involved for awhile. They had talks with Mexico.

[Love As Arson]

And it was of little consequence to the US for years. Only when its interests became an issue did intervention occur.

[thejetstolehome]

yeah, however, Germany was trying to get us involved for awhile. They had talks with Mexico.

that was WWone.

[Fedaykin]

The common factor in each of the wars you have mentioned is that they have been the expression of America's imperialistic desires. Certainly the attack on Pearl Harbor was an impetus, but it was already under discussion within government due to the desire for American to be dominant in the pacific and in Europe.
I agree except with the Peloponnesian War, which was not merely imperialist as both Hans Van Wees notes in Greek warfare: myths and realities and also as Lawerence Tritle writes in his definitive work entitled The Peloponnesian War. Unlike American wars, the Ancient greeks fought for a variety of reasons, last of which was economics. Economics has always been the base motivation for American imperialism and in this capitalist society it always will be, but for the ancient greeks - especially the Ancient Athenians as Tritle and Van Wees point out - the economy and imperialism came far behind other concerns.

[Love As Arson]

The Peloponessian War has it roots in Sparta's fear of powerful Athens becoming even more powerful, along with economic factors, such as the economic sanctions placed upon Megara by the nation-state.

[Fedaykin]

puh-lease
read the two books I cited, then get back to me
As the afforementioned acredited accademic I cited - Lawerence Tritle -notes in his book entitled The Peloponnesian War, in 469 BCE the First Peloponnesian War began with the battle of the eurymedon river. Sparta did not begin to fear athens until the peace of Kallias in 449 and no economic sanctions were placed on Megara until 433, the same year Sparta's allies finally voted to declare war against Athens - note that Sparta's allies pushed for war and sparta was ever reluctant. allies like corinth wanted retribution for athens' attack on corcyra supporting the revolutionaries there. Sparta never feared athens until the establishment of its empire by Perikles in 431, accordingly Sparta never attacked attica prior to this year. In fact, between 433 and 431 sparta sent five seperate delegations to athens seeking to end their conflict peacefully.

[Love As Arson]

Read the accounts of Thucydides. They corroborate what I have said.

[catscradle]

WW2 happened because of how harsh the world came down on Germany after WW1.

this is not true. WW2 started because of the desire for autarchy on the side of the axis powers and japan. In order for this idea of a self sufficient state to work both sides would have to acquire great deal of land to sustain their populations. Hence the formation of the Great East Asian co-prosperity sphere and the berlin-rome axis and the axis idea of mittleuropa, which spawned the idea of the drive to the east. The treaties, reparations, and depression that occurred during the inter war years were not as big of contributing factors as one would think. In the early twenties germany even experienced a very nice recovery, which soon ended with the onslaught of the great depression. i'd rather not get into the many reason why these aren't the reasons for WW2 b/c i could make a thesis paper out of it and that would just be a drag. The overriding reason for WW2 was most definitely grounded in autarkic prinicples of the axis powers and japan. why do you think pearl harbor happened? it happened b/c we cut off the oil to japan. No oil = no machinery, which leads to no expansion of empire.

[we are cured]

During the 1920s Germany exhibited a false recovery, based on short term miscalculations of real money in the economy.

The government tried to create jobs and projects due to rising unemployment, but did so without the real money necessary. As more people became unemployed, income tax collections dwindled and forced the government to rely on subsidized project profits, but it still couldn't overcome the tariffs enacted by the allied powers.

When the depression hit, the United States sought loan repayments that could not be satisfied. Germany at this time was your modern day credit equivalent of a deadbeat dad with 300,000+ in credit card debt, another 500,000 in hospital bills, etc. So you see, the depression was only the icing on the cake. Germany was theoretically fucked from the moment the big four signed the treaty.

At that point the Japanese empire realized they had the best possible situation unfold right before them - another threatening world power diverts focus from their growing 'empire', which enabled autocratic principles to go relatively unchallenged for most of the 30s.

[Fedaykin]

Read the accounts of Thucydides. They corroborate what I have said.
The fact that you would accept Thucydides' account at face value and discount a modern scholars' work shows your ignorance on this subject. I've read Thucydides' so-called History of the Peloponnesian War (though a better translation would most certainly be The War Between the Peloponnesians and Athenians) and while it is a good read, it lacks much in the way of archaelogical evidence to support its theories. He held unconscious biases — for example, to modern eyes he seems to underestimate the importance of Persian intervention in the war. Furthermore, Thucydides' account of the war begins in 433 and completely leaves out 469 BCE and the First Peloponnesian War which began with the battle of the eurymedon river. As Robert W. Connor noted in his incredible work Thucydides, thatthe History is better understood as a piece of literature than an objective record of the past. This view is embodied in his description of Thucydides as "an artist who responds to, selects and skillfully arranges his material, and develops its symbolic and emotional potential" rather than providing sources -archaelogical or otherwise - for his conclusions. Some of the speeches are probably fabricated according to his expectations of, as he puts it, "what was called for in each situation" (1.22.2) <- that there is a cite from his own Histories, where he admits he fabricated information as he saw fit! Furthermore, Thucydides died while still working on the History, since it ends in mid-sentence and only goes up to 410 BCE leaving six years of war uncovered.
Thucydides almost never names his informants and alludes to competing versions of events. He discusses the thoughts of the generals who died on the Sicilian Expedition whom he would have had no chance to interview. Instead it seems likely that, as with the speeches, Thucydides is looser than previously thought in inferring the thoughts, feelings, and motives of principal characters in his History from their actions, as well as his own sense of what would be appropriate or likely in such a situation.

[Plodbax]

We were able to defeat all of Nazi Germany, Mussolini, and the entire Japanese empire in less time.

According to a recent poll conducted by the University of Maryland:

* 71% of all Iraqis now want the U.S. out of Iraq.
* 61% of all Iraqis SUPPORT insurgent attacks on U.S. troops.


Hahahaha That Make me lol

[Plodbax]

Well I think to a degree that's true however I believe probably most Iraqi's are happy to be rid of Saddam but it's what they've gotten instead that has made them so unhappy.


Actualy He did a hell of a lot for that country and many of them actualy thought he was very good for there country, Which in a lot of cases he was aparantly

[Fedaykin]

Actualy He did a hell of a lot for that country and many of them actualy thought he was very good for there country, Which in a lot of cases he was aparantly
you are one smart cookie eh? "many of them actualy thought he was very good for there country"
Tell that to the folks who got hit by a sarin gas attack authorized by Saddam in 1988 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988): Over the span of two days in March, the ethnic Kurd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurd) city of Halabja (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja) in northern Iraq (population 70,000) was bombarded (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack) with twenty chemical and cluster bombs, which included sarin. An estimated 5,000 people died. (see Halabja poison gas attack (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack)) It is estimated that sarin is more than 500 times as toxic as cyanide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanide). its effects include:

bleeding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood) from the nose and mouth
coma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coma)
convulsions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convulsion)
death (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death)
difficulty breathing
disturbed sleep and nightmares (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nightmare)
extreme sensitivity to light
foaming at the mouth
high fevers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fever)
influenza (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza)-like symptoms
loss of consciousness
loss of memory
nausea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nausea) and vomiting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vomiting)
paralysis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paralysis)
post-traumatic stress disorder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-traumatic_stress_disorder)
respiratory problems
seizures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seizure)
uncontrollable trembling
vision problems, both temporary and permanent

BTW you're 15 fucking years old, haven't you learned the difference between there and their? "aparantly" not!

[IAPAI]

---If the point you are trying to make with this thread is simply about how long we were in Europe after WWII you'd be 110% wrong considering how long Germany was occupied.

---If your point is we were able to defeat countries like Germany, Japan, & Italy in the time we've spent in Iraq you'd be right, but you'd want to compare our defeat of Iraq's military with that of all the previous countries listed (a little over a month). Just goes to show you how hard it is to fight a guerrilla war, and we were fortunate to not have to face a huge insurency in Europe after WWII.

I forgot that The Allied Forces in WWII consisted only of USA.

[Plodbax]

you are one smart cookie eh? "many of them actualy thought he was very good for there country"
Tell that to the folks who got hit by a sarin gas attack authorized by Saddam in 1988 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988): Over the span of two days in March, the ethnic Kurd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurd) city of Halabja (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja) in northern Iraq (population 70,000) was bombarded (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack) with twenty chemical and cluster bombs, which included sarin. An estimated 5,000 people died. (see Halabja poison gas attack (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack)) It is estimated that sarin is more than 500 times as toxic as cyanide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanide). its effects include:

bleeding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood) from the nose and mouth
coma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coma)
convulsions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convulsion)
death (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death)
difficulty breathing
disturbed sleep and nightmares (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nightmare)
extreme sensitivity to light
foaming at the mouth
high fevers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fever)
influenza (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza)-like symptoms
loss of consciousness
loss of memory
nausea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nausea) and vomiting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vomiting)
paralysis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paralysis)
post-traumatic stress disorder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-traumatic_stress_disorder)
respiratory problems
seizures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seizure)
uncontrollable trembling
vision problems, both temporary and permanent

BTW you're 15 fucking years old, haven't you learned the difference between there and their? "aparantly" not!


I never said that it was total right did I now?
He did a lot of horibal shit.
But if did every thing so teribaly why on earth did he still have people folowing him?
Why did one man still have an entire army folowing his every comand?

[Fedaykin]

I never said that it was total right did I now?
He did a lot of horibal shit.
But if did every thing so teribaly why on earth did he still have people folowing him?
Why did one man still have an entire army folowing his every comand?
Why did people follow Hitler? Why did people follow Stalin? Why did people follow Genghis Khan? They were seeking Power or Money or they were scared if they didn't follow their leaders they would be killed! Just because a leader has amassed a large following doesn't justify their ideals. By your logic, if people follow you then you must be doing something right. This would justify the followers of Charles Manson or of the members of the Heaven's Gate Cult: by having a following you have gained some credit to validate your position? Don't think so. BTW is english your second language? Because you have got to be the absolute worst speller I have ever seen. "But if did every thing so teribaly why on earth did he still have people folowing him?" That sentence makes no sense whatsoever. Ever hear of proofreading? Spell check?

[Plodbax]

Why did people follow Hitler? Why did people follow Stalin? Why did people follow Genghis Khan? They were seeking Power or Money or they were scared if they didn't follow their leaders they would be killed! Just because a leader has amassed a large following doesn't justify their ideals. By your logic, if people follow you then you must be doing something right. This would justify the followers of Charles Manson or of the members of the Heaven's Gate Cult: by having a following you have gained some credit to validate your position? Don't think so. BTW is english your second language? Because you have got to be the absolute worst speller I have ever seen. "But if did every thing so teribal why on earth did he still have people folowing him?" That sentence makes no sense whatsoever. Ever hear of proofreading? Spell check?



yes i know that i can not spell for shit i have acknolaged that i long time ago. Hitler stalin and genghis khan all had many people behind them to help suport them, Where are Sadams people? Or are we all too "dumb" to find them?

[konstantine94]

Thanks for posting this Jason, it's really interesting.

[Plodbax]

Why did people follow Hitler? Why did people follow Stalin? Why did people follow Genghis Khan? They were seeking Power or Money or they were scared if they didn't follow their leaders they would be killed! Just because a leader has amassed a large following doesn't justify their ideals. By your logic, if people follow you then you must be doing something right. This would justify the followers of Charles Manson or of the members of the Heaven's Gate Cult: by having a following you have gained some credit to validate your position? Don't think so. BTW is english your second language? Because you have got to be the absolute worst speller I have ever seen. "But if did every thing so teribaly why on earth did he still have people folowing him?" That sentence makes no sense whatsoever. Ever hear of proofreading? Spell check?



BTW, People folowed hitler becuase, When you think that you are doing right you dont see the outside world, you only see what is in front of you, if you believe that what you are doing is right all you see is others doing wrong, thus they must be punished for not conforming with you, this still happens in modern society (Bullying ect)

[Fedaykin]

BTW, People folowed hitler becuase, When you think that you are doing right you dont see the outside world, you only see what is in front of you, if you believe that what you are doing is right all you see is others doing wrong, thus they must be punished for not conforming with you, this still happens in modern society (Bullying ect)
What is your point? I initially responded by responding to your post when you said Saddam "did a hell of a lot for that country and many of them actualy thought he was very good for there country, Which in a lot of cases he was" but we established he wasn't actually very good for the hundreds of thousands of civilians he tortured and murdered. Next you claimed that "He did a lot of horibal shit.
But if did every thing so teribaly why on earth did he still have people folowing him? Why did one man still have an entire army folowing his every comand?" and I responded by giving various reasons why people followed him and I also pointed out that just because people are following you it doesn't necessarily mean you are a good leader or are doing good things. Now you say, "Where are Sadams people? Or are we all too "dumb" to find them?" WTF? Who said anything about that? Maybe it was previosuly in this thread but it seems to me Saddam's people are the ones we've been fighting since we've invaded! Then you also answered your own question about why people follow their leaders, because "When you think that you are doing right you dont see the outside world" which is one reason I'll admit, though I think power, money and fear are better reasons and the reason you stated is more of an effect of bein a follower not necessarily a reason to follow but in either case if you knew the question and a satisfiable answer, why ask it. What's your point?

[Love As Arson]

The fact that you would accept Thucydides' account at face value and discount a modern scholars' work shows your ignorance on this subject.
Modern historians derive many of their observations of the war from Thucydides. His methods are still used for by historians.
As Robert W. Connor noted in his incredible work Thucydides, thatthe History is better understood as a piece of literature than an objective record of the past. This view is embodied in his description of Thucydides as "an artist who responds to, selects and skillfully arranges his material, and develops its symbolic and emotional potential" rather than providing sources -archaelogical or otherwise - for his conclusions. Some of the speeches are probably fabricated according to his expectations of, as he puts it, "what was called for in each situation" (1.22.2) <- that there is a cite from his own Histories, where he admits he fabricated information as he saw fit! Furthermore, Thucydides died while still working on the History, since it ends in mid-sentence and only goes up to 410 BCE leaving six years of war uncovered.
Thucydides almost never names his informants and alludes to competing versions of events. He discusses the thoughts of the generals who died on the Sicilian Expedition whom he would have had no chance to interview. Instead it seems likely that, as with the speeches, Thucydides is looser than previously thought in inferring the thoughts, feelings, and motives of principal characters in his History from their actions, as well as his own sense of what would be appropriate or likely in such a situation.
The first book talks at length about the causes Peloponessian war and is generally agreed upon to be a reliable, unbiased account. To the extent to which it lives up to our current standards of histiography, it holds up fairly well. Certainly it carries literary aspects, as do many historical works of the time, however, to characterise the whole of the work as literature is a fundementally flawed assessment, which cannot be reconciled with fact.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

it seems that at least one child was left behind

[captainhampton]

I never said that it was total right did I now?
He did a lot of horibal shit.
But if did every thing so teribaly why on earth did he still have people folowing him?
Why did one man still have an entire army folowing his every comand?

because of what happened when you didn't follow Saddam.

seriously man, you can't be for real.

[Lueda Alia]

it seems that at least one child was left behind
Hahahahaha that made me laugh a lot.

[justinevans]

it seems that at least one child was left behind

haha I haven't read anything else except for that.

[ClapClapSnap]

it seems that at least one child was left behind
Hahahah! Amazing.

[Fedaykin]

Modern historians derive many of their observations of the war from Thucydides. His methods are still used for by historians.

The first book talks at length about the causes Peloponessian war and is generally agreed upon to be a reliable, unbiased account. To the extent to which it lives up to our current standards of histiography, it holds up fairly well. Certainly it carries literary aspects, as do many historical works of the time, however, to characterise the whole of the work as literature is a fundementally flawed assessment, which cannot be reconciled with fact.
its inyeresting that you are the one to be talking about reconciling with fact. Thucydides admits he makes up dialogue: the authors I presented actually use archaelogical evidence. Why don't you refute Tritle or Van Wees as I've done for Thucydides? Oh that's right, you can't

[Jason Tate]

its inyeresting that you are the one to be talking about reconciling with fact. Thucydides admits he makes up dialogue: the authors I presented actually use archaelogical evidence. Why don't you refute Tritle or Van Wees as I've done for Thucydides? Oh that's right, you can't
Because Tritle isn't even important enough to warrant a Wikipedia page and Van Wees is a Dutch male skeleton racer.

[Fedaykin]

Because Tritle isn't even important enough to warrant a Wikipedia page and Van Wees is a Dutch male skeleton racer.
Because as everyone knows, Wikipedia (which isn't even excepted by any of my professors as a credible source worth citing) is the bastion of all things scholarly and academic. No way you've read anything by either of them.