In Late Memory

[Firis]

Re: In Late Memory

we only need that foot hold to kill Obama... I mean Osama... but that is a shallow part

 

[Arseface]

Re: In Late Memory

We established democracy. And until they can defend themselves, leaving would be a bad idea. Wouldn't want voting to be hindered by threats of exploding trucks hurdling through the building. But it's in the works, we are training them, and more and more they are doing the policing instead, and more and more we are leaving it to them. Same with the military.

Could you clarify that for me?

I meant that.... Damn I'm going to have to explain the whole thing.

America has always had an enemy. From birth they were fighting the imperialist British, then each other for a bit, then black people were all out to get them (I*'m not too flash with early American history). Then it was Germany for a bit. Then black people again. Then Germany for a bit more. Then the USSR and communism came along. Through all of those stages the government has used propaganda and fear to get it's jobs done. Then the USSR went away for a bit and America didn't have an enemy. Until 2001 that is. Semtember 11 put the enemy in the Middle East with a Muslim flag and a bomb strapped to it. That's how the Patriot Act got through. Not a single congressman (I think. Who ever needs to vote to pass bills over there) could be found who had read the thing through properly at the time of vote. Alan Shore from Boston Legal puts it best, "Al Queda's coming! Get me my pen!"

Not as an answer to this but some insight on me:
I'm anti-war, but considering we're already at war, I should also mention that I'm anti-defeat. If we're going to fight a war, we should go all out, take the spoils, and say no when they ask us to help them rebuild. That's my opinion anyway. It's war, it's supposed to be ugly and horrible and gawd-awful, not "okay we win, want some help?"

But if we can make it any more bearable we should.

We weren't fighting the people. We were fighting the regime and its supporters. We destroyed their country (or at least added to what Saddam did) with the aim of helping them out of their rutt and gaining an ally in the process. It may just be my good sportsmanship showing, but it would be wrong to not help them get up after we saved them.

DON'T start. I've seen enough dem vs rep arguments too know that both sides of the argument will trickle down to refined stupidity at work turning otherwise half-decent posters into monkeys flinging their poo at each other. It's not worth the dumb remarks.

We said the same thing about religion and we're managing to be civil about it.

 

[Arseface]

Re: In Late Memory

The more awful war is, the more seriously it is thought about. To me, it feels like "oh, war? Okay, no big deal" when it should be "War? Isn't there anything we could do instead?" While some may feel that way, most don't think of war as some horrible thing, just as a waste of tax dollars.

That is because most people have been desensitized to it. War is a serious thing no matter how easy we try to make it for the participants. People will always suffer from it and it would be utterly inhumane to prolong or magnify it for any more than is absolutley necessary.

Also, wouldn't it be cheaper to be in and out of a country in a matter of months utilizing everything we can instead of pushing it for years using just enough? Just a thought to expand on my earlier statements.

But there are other costs to think about. Running a war is expensive, particularly a war waged on the other side of the world, and one must deduct not only the cost of the war in it's entirety, but keeping troops at home in case of some surprise attack (which would also be cheaper then sending them anywhere), running the economy, running the government, etc. Then there's the fact that I'm sure no one really took the Iraqis as a serious threat. I'm sure the Yanks did all they could in the matter, counting all those factors. Don't send 10000 troops when 1000 will do.

Agreed. I wasn't talking about the Iraqis, I meant whomever we are at war with on any given day. Germany could be used as an example. Sure, the people aren't guilty of anything, but political will is driven by the people. If the entire population knows that a war would stop just short of total annihilation, the odds are that they will pressure the leaders to avoid it at all costs.

In Germany's case you have to take into account the fact that they were at the height of the Great Deppression when Hitler was voted in. And the people only really get a say with their vote. Anything that happens in between elections is really out of their hands.

This is a little different. While it is possible to have a civil political discussion, starting off with "kill Obama" eliminates the already small chance of civilty.

It sounded like an innocent pun to me. I didn't detect any political bias.

 

[Tsuyu]

Re: In Late Memory

It really didn't against Germany.

Yes it did. The Allies and USSR attacked Germany from two fronts - the Allies(including America) attacked from one side, USSR alone from the other.

Without the aid from the Americans, the Allies would've had much of a harder time on their front and the conflict there would've been prolonged, and cost a helluva more in terms of casualties on both sides.

 

[Minorthreat]

Re: In Late Memory

It sounded like an innocent pun to me. I didn't detect any political bias.

Yeah but don't surprised, Homeland security has kicked in doors for just saying something like that in jest or not.

 

[Firis]

Re: In Late Memory

yeah it was a pun... I dont think Obama will be as bad as everyone is thinking... its just hos name is so irresistably teasable

 

[Skotekal]

Re: In Late Memory

Wow, you guys have more info spilling out you than Mountain Dew in a shaken freshly open bottle... But at least you guys are having a fun arguement... Which I can't join in on because I don't know very much about it.

And I completely forgot about the terrorist aspect. Sort of like setting you foot on a landmine, isn't it? Once you put it down, you can move it. But can't you leave other countries to what they should do? Why waste time, effort and money on something that doesn't really concern you? Wait, Osama was involved with this wasn't he? Forgot about him too... But I thought he was in Afghanistan... Or at least his forces were...

 

[Arseface]

Re: In Late Memory

Yes it did. The Allies and USSR attacked Germany from two fronts - the Allies(including America) attacked from one side, USSR alone from the other.

True, but the USSR could easily have coped alone. Perhaps they may have even pushed into France. Their military strength could have had them occupying all of mainland Europe, maybe even the British Isles.

Without the aid from the Americans, the Allies would've had much of a harder time on their front and the conflict there would've been prolonged, and cost a helluva more in terms of casualties on both sides.

Not necessarily true. The USSR would have still reached Berlin and conquered Germany. The western allies only pushed in from the west to save Stalin the trouble of liberating France (which would have ended badly for the French) and to keep him in check.

Aye. One of the main reasons America got involved in the first place was because it wasn't looking so bright. Normally, I'm guessing we wouldn't have cared, but in this case the Allied forces owed a debt to the states, and if they lost, they certainly wouldn't have been able to pay up. Our involvement was aimed to help secure an allied victory for this and other reasons.

Not least because Japan and Germany were in league and they could afford to allocate resources towards Germany towards the end of their pacific campaign.

I suppose this is the part where I say something stupid about how the states are always saving France's/Great Britain's rears, but I couldn't think of a classy way to put it.

Don't forget to put Australia in that list.

And I completely forgot about the terrorist aspect. Sort of like setting you foot on a landmine, isn't it? Once you put it down, you can move it. But can't you leave other countries to what they should do? Why waste time, effort and money on something that doesn't really concern you? Wait, Osama was involved with this wasn't he? Forgot about him too... But I thought he was in Afghanistan... Or at least his forces were...

No one really knows where Osama is, and I doubt he exists. There is a lot of evidence pointing towards to USA setting up 9/11 themselves, not least the whole "they need an enemy" spiel. I dont want to think that they did it, and right now I'm thinking they didn't. But it certainly wouldn't surprise me if it turns out that way.

 

[Tsuyu]

Re: In Late Memory

*sigh*

You're entirely missing my point.

 

[Arseface]

Re: In Late Memory

*sigh*

You're entirely missing my point.

Oh I see what you mean now. Yes the Americans did help out Britain and France alot on the western front.

I thought you were including the USSR and speaking about both fronts >.<

 

[Skotekal]

Re: In Late Memory

He's probably dead. :lol: But I guess they can't exactly back out now...

 

[Skotekal]

Re: In Late Memory

:lol: Killed him in a liquor store...

At least it keeps the troops busy looking I guess. Or not.

 

[Angel]

Re: In Late Memory

I suppose this is the part where I say something stupid about how the states are always saving France's/Great Britain's rears, but I couldn't think of a classy way to put it.

That'll be coz our country is utterly spineless

 

[Skotekal]

Re: In Late Memory

:lol: Too bad it can't keep you out of trouble.

"What is scheduled for today?"

"Hmmm... I think we have to pick on Britain..."

:lol: HA. Laugh. It's funny. Laugh damn it!

 

[Tsuyu]

Re: In Late Memory

Pfft. Spineless or not, at least you guys put up a fight. Sweden just let them trample all over us, and provided them with railways to quickly transport nazi troops into Finland and Norway.

Yeah, we're the best neighbour those countries could ever want, eh?

 

[moonfever]

Re: In Late Memory

Pfft. Spineless or not, at least you guys put up a fight. Sweden just let them trample all over us, and provided them with railways to quickly transport nazi troops into Finland and Norway.

Yeah, we're the best neighbour those countries could ever want, eh?

Woo, really? Neutral has it's flaws, doesn't it?

 

[Tsuyu]

Re: In Late Memory

Woo, really? Neutral has it's flaws, doesn't it?

'Neutral' my butt. The 'neutral' part is just a charade to preserve some sliver of dignity if you ask me. By aiding nazi Germany in such manner, in my eyes, Sweden lost whatever neutrality it had.

Norway, Finland and Denmark all offered resistance to the nazi invaders. Sweden just bent over and took it, and in doing so helped nazi Germany in conquering our neighbours. :getlost:

 

[Walker]

Re: In Late Memory

No one really knows where Osama is, and I doubt he exists. There is a lot of evidence pointing towards to USA setting up 9/11 themselves, not least the whole "they need an enemy" spiel. I dont want to think that they did it, and right now I'm thinking they didn't. But it certainly wouldn't surprise me if it turns out that way.

That. Is. A. Crock.

Pfft. Spineless or not, at least you guys put up a fight. Sweden just let them trample all over us, and provided them with railways to quickly transport nazi troops into Finland and Norway.

Yeah, we're the best neighbour those countries could ever want, eh?

'Neutral' my butt. The 'neutral' part is just a charade to preserve some sliver of dignity if you ask me. By aiding nazi Germany in such manner, in my eyes, Sweden lost whatever neutrality it had.

Norway, Finland and Denmark all offered resistance to the nazi invaders. Sweden just bent over and took it, and in doing so helped nazi Germany in conquering our neighbours. :getlost:

Woo-hoo for being bitter and angry over the disgusting **** your country pulled in the past! (I'm joking, sort of, but yeah, I know the feeling. I'm still ****ed at the south for the **** they pulled with the Civil War, I don't like the "Indian Wars" or the Fillipino Insurrection or the way we dicked around with our stance on the Nazis or maybe throw in some stuff with the War of 1812, or a bunch of other things.

That does kind of suck, though. I don't know that much about WWII in the Scandinavian countries. I know that Finland was ducking and diving and getting invaded by everyone and their mother while trying to maintain some shred of independence; and I know that the Danes got conquered but still helped their Jewish population run like hell; and that's about the limit of my knowledge. I had some vague awareness that Sweden had... well, a lot of Nazi sympathizers, am I right on that?

The Swiss and Spanish seemed to make out okay, though I think the Spanish were a little occupied fighting each other at the time, and one side was getting Nazi support.....


So the Swiss seemed to make out okay with the neutrality bit.

The Swiss I have read about some, and they're a bit... iffy. They did everything they could to maintain their vaunted neutrality; but whatever their wonderful " Alpine Redoubt" plans and whatever economic dealing they were doing; if the Nazis/Germany hadn't gotten taken down I don't think they'd've lasted long after Britain and the USSR.

 

[moonfever]

Re: In Late Memory

'Neutral' my butt. The 'neutral' part is just a charade to preserve some sliver of dignity if you ask me. By aiding nazi Germany in such manner, in my eyes, Sweden lost whatever neutrality it had.

Norway, Finland and Denmark all offered resistance to the nazi invaders. Sweden just bent over and took it, and in doing so helped nazi Germany in conquering our neighbours. :getlost:

That must be hard to think about? a little bit confusing?

 

[Tsuyu]

Re: In Late Memory

That must be hard to think about? a little bit confusing?

Confusing?