[iBabo]

"democrats throwing money at the problem" hasnt solved anything because anytime they have tried, americas imperialist intuition has sucked out the resources needed to get the job done right. case in point: the Great Society by LBJ. had it not been for the vietnam war, the war on poverty would have been won.

America was founded on being taxed and in return getting representation in government. dont fool yourself into thinking that the neo-cons dont want to spend your money... everyone will spend money and have a bigger government, it just depends on what they spend it on. FDR spent it on "New Deal" Initiatives, while GWB spends it on wars... trust me, those bombs are not cheap.. and your paying for them.

as for your comments on what an opposition party is.... i agree with you somewhat, but it goes a little deeper then that... just like how the only reason capitalism succeeds is because of competition, with everyone trying to make a better mouse trap... democracy is the same way.. you need groups cometing for power, so that the "consumer" or in this case, the american citizen, benefits from the best one. what i see here is not that. i see a democratic party that has sold out on its principles, and has become reactionary rather then proactive, and i see a neo-con wing of a republican party taking advantage of that, and highjacking our political system. case in point: the debate happening as we speak about fillabustering judicial nominations. the funny thing is that, even with a crippled democratic party, almost half the country voted against bush, if the dems had organized better, and had a real alternative candidate, things would be very different. what does that tell you about the way people feel the govt is going in these days... almost half voted for the alternative even though it was less organized and crippled. this shows that the need for a REAL opposition party is there, the "market" is there (to put it in your capitalist terms)... we just need someone to come and build a better mouse trap now.

[Eynstyn]

Here's One Example of a Good American.





Finally some good news coming out of Iraq!

This will make you proud

Those of you who might not know, the guy on the left is the Commandant of the Marine Corps, and he is proud to know the guy on the right.

Maybe you'd like to hear about something other than idiot Reservists and naked Iraqis.
Maybe you'd like to hear about a real American, somebody who honored the uniform he wears.

Meet Brian Chontosh.

Churchville-Chili Central School class of 1991. Proud graduate of the Rochester Institute of Technology. Husband and about-to-be father. First lieutenant (now Captain) in the United States Marine Corps.

And a genuine hero.

The secretary of the Navy said so yesterday.

At 29 Palms in California Brian Chontosh was presented with the Navy Cross, the second highest award for combat bravery the United States can bestow.

That's a big deal.

But you won't see it on the network news tonight, and all you read in Brian's hometown newspaper was two paragraphs of nothing. Instead, it was more blather about some mental defective MPs who acted like animals.

The odd fact about the American media in this war is that it's not covering the American military.

The most plugged-in nation in the world is receiving virtually no true information about what its warriors are doing.

Oh, sure, there's a body count. We know how many Americans have fallen. And we see those same casket pictures day in and day out. And we're almost on a first-name basis with the pukes who abused the Iraqi prisoners. And we know all about improvised explosive devices and how we lost Fallujah and what Arab public-opinion polls say about us and how the world hates us.

We get a non-stop feed of gloom and doom.

But we don't hear about the heroes.

The incredibly brave GIs who honorably do their duty. The ones our grandparents would have carried on their shoulders down Fifth Avenue.

The ones we completely ignore.

Like Brian Chontosh.

It was a year ago on the march into Baghdad. Brian Chontosh was a platoon leader rolling up Highway 1 in a humvee. When all hell broke loose. Ambush city. The young Marines were being cut to ribbons. Mortars, machine guns, rocket propelled grenades. And the kid out of Churchville was in charge. It was do or die and it was up to him. So he moved to the side of his column, looking for a way to lead his men to safety. As he tried to poke a hole through the Iraqi line his humvee came under direct enemy machine gun fire. It was fish in a barrel and the Marines were the fish. And Brian Chontosh gave the order to attack. He told his driver to floor the humvee directly at the machine gun emplacement that was firing at them. And he had the guy on top with the .50 cal unload on them. Within moments there were Iraqis slumped across the machine gun and Chontosh was still advancing, ordering his driver now to take the humvee directly into the Iraqi trench that was attacking his Marines. Over into the battlement the humvee went and out the door Brian Chontosh bailed, carrying an M16 and a Beretta and 228 years of Marine Corps pride. And he ran down the trench. With its mortars and riflemen, machineguns and grenadiers. And he killed them all. He fought with the M16 until it was out of ammo. Then he fought with the Beretta until it was out of ammo. Then he picked up a dead man's AK47 and fought with that until it was out of ammo. Then he picked up another dead man's AK47 and fought with that until it was out of ammo. At one point he even fired a discarded Iraqi RPG into an enemy cluster, sending attackers flying with its grenade explosion. When he was done Brian Chontosh had cleared 200 yards of entrenched Iraqis from his platoon's flank. He had killed more than 20 and wounded at least as many more. But that's probably not how he would tell it. He would probably merely say that his Marines were in trouble, and he got them out of trouble. Hoo-ah, and drive on. "By his outstanding display of decisive leadership, unlimited courage in the face of heavy enemy fire, and utmost devotion to duty, 1st Lt. Chontosh reflected great credit upon himself and upheld the highest traditions of the Marine Corps and the United States Naval Service." That's what the citation says. And that's what nobody will hear. That's what doesn't seem to be making the evening news. Accounts of American valor are dismissed by the press as propaganda, yet accounts of American difficulties are heralded as objectivity. It makes you wonder if the role of the media is to inform, or to depress - to report or to deride. To tell the truth, or to feed us lies. But I guess it doesn't matter. We're going to turn out all right. As long as men like Brian Chontosh wear our uniform.

[iBabo]

Brian Chontosh was a good soldier, and for that he deserves his medal, but being a good soldier is far from being a good american. a good american in my opinion would know better then to fuel the imperialism put forth by the bush administration. a good american would not be blinded by the flag, a good american would be a more critical thinker about government policies (in general, not just about this war)

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by iBabo

"democrats throwing money at the problem" hasnt solved anything because...

YOU CAN STOP RIGHT THERE.

Sorry, I wasnt shouting just being assertive. Some people look at children as problems. You ever see what happens to kids of rich people who don't have time for the kids? The kids are spoiled. Money is thrown at them and it always ends up not working.

When you say, even for the sake of a casual shorthand here, it sends up red flags because you ARE a tax and spend, bleeding heart, progressive, liberal, left-wing, pinko democrack. And so you should beware (on your way to revamping the democrack party...heh, heh, heh!) that the phrase "THROWING MONEY AT THE PROBLEM" will not help you at all and even in a casual ass kicking that I might deliver, you will lose automatically by envoking the phrase.

anytime they have tried, americas imperialist intuition has sucked out the resources needed to get the job done right. case in point: the Great Society by LBJ. had it not been for the vietnam war, the war on poverty would have been won.

Why don't you start now tryin to convince me that the great society wasnt an attempt to ameliorate if not distract the american people from the war in viet nam.

America was founded on being taxed and in return getting representation in government.

Are you attempting to say as long as we have representation then no matter how much were taxed, it is ok??? How DOES it feel to be wealthy?

dont fool yourself into thinking that the neo-cons dont want to spend your money... everyone will spend money and have a bigger government, it just depends on what they spend it on. FDR spent it on "New Deal" Initiatives, while GWB spends it on wars... trust me, those bombs are not cheap.. and your paying for them.

How could you not know gwb has cut taxes and wants to cut em some more and had to fight dems (like you??? no, theres no one like you) to cut them? I'm glad you aint runnin for office.

as for your comments on what an opposition party is.... i agree with you somewhat, but it goes a little deeper then that... just like how the only reason capitalism succeeds is because of competition, with everyone trying to make a better mouse trap... democracy is the same way.. you need groups cometing for power, so that the "consumer" or in this case, the american citizen, benefits from the best one. what i see here is not that. i see a democratic party that has sold out on its principles, and has become reactionary rather then proactive, and i see a neo-con wing of a republican party taking advantage of that, and highjacking our political system.

Short term problems will be ironed out over time and the dems will find a clue but as they continue to try they give it their best shot and in turn the GOP does its best to fight them and well serve the US people.

case in point: the debate happening as we speak about fillabustering judicial nominations. the funny thing is that, even with a crippled democratic party, almost half the country voted against bush, if the dems had organized better, and had a real alternative candidate, things would be very different. what does that tell you about the way people feel the govt is going in these days... almost half voted for the alternative even though it was less organized and crippled. this shows that the need for a REAL opposition party is there, the "market" is there (to put it in your capitalist terms)... we just need someone to come and build a better mouse trap now.

It tells me you guys are like in the middle of wanting and needing to sneeze but something just keeps you from that satisfaction and no matter what you try you just can't get over the sneeze 'hump.'

Keep tryin.



I mean it.

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by iBabo

Brian Chontosh was a good soldier, and for that he deserves his medal, but being a good soldier is far from being a good american. a good american in my opinion would know better then to fuel the imperialism put forth by the bush administration. a good american would not be blinded by the flag, a good american would be a more critical thinker about government policies (in general, not just about this war)

Somehow I just don't believe you have a realistic plan for America. Somehow I just dont believe you would know the effects of what your idealism would bring about if you had your way.

Not fueling the "imperialism." Not being blinded by the flag. Critically thinking about government policies.

Sell us on your vision.

I've got the ability to buy. I'll give you an ear. What ya got?

[iBabo]

dude your just ranting now....

first off.. i was quoting you when i said "throwing money at the problem".... hence the quotation marks... secondly.. gwb may have cut taxes, but hes also created the largest national deficit in the history of the nation. stop b!tching about taxes.... they are what fund a fiscally responsible government (of any nature, not just in this time and place) america is one of the least taxed nations in the world and yet your b!tching about it... the only reason its never brought up on the political discussions is because its poltical suicide for any candidate to raise taxes... so we borrow and borrow and borrow... until when? till the dollar loses even more ground to foriegn currency so that countries like china decide that investing in the dollar is not wise, so they switch to something slightly more stable like the euro?

Are you attempting to say as long as we have representation then no matter how much were taxed, it is ok??? How DOES it feel to be wealthy?

no, thats not AT ALL what im saying. the point of that statement was to show that taxation and representation go hand in hand as a founding principle of this nation... dont try to find superflous technicalities and go on ranting about them for no reason because thats not adding to your argument one bit

Short term problems will be ironed out over time

short term problems lead to long term problems.. it took the GOP close to 50 years to reorganize and take power.

as for name calling, im a progressive thinker, you can label that as democrat if you want (or democrack, since apperently were back in the 5th grade) you can call me a pinko-commi socialist for all i care. but were not in 1955, so good luck trying to get me blacklisted for being a communist or whatever you think i am...

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by iBabo

dude your just ranting now....

first off.. i was quoting you when i said "throwing money at the problem".... hence the quotation marks... secondly.. gwb may have cut taxes, but hes also created the largest national deficit in the history of the nation. stop b!tching about taxes.... they are what fund a fiscally responsible government (of any nature, not just in this time and place) america is one of the least taxed nations in the world and yet your b!tching about it... the only reason its never brought up on the political discussions is because its poltical suicide for any candidate to raise taxes... so we borrow and borrow and borrow... until when? till the dollar loses even more ground to foriegn currency so that countries like china decide that investing in the dollar is not wise, so they switch to something slightly more stable like the euro?

You have a point with the euro thing.

no, thats not AT ALL what im saying. the point of that statement was to show that taxation and representation go hand in hand as a founding principle of this nation... dont try to find superflous technicalities and go on ranting about them for no reason because thats not adding to your argument one bit

I'm just giving you valuable feedback.

short term problems lead to long term problems.. it took the GOP close to 50 years to reorganize and take power.

You talkin about from 1800 - 1860? That's 60 years. Or 1933 - 1952? That's 20 years. Or 1960 - 1980? That's 20 years. Oh, that's right were talkin Democrat math.

as for name calling, im a progressive thinker, you can label that as democrat if you want (or democrack, since apperently were back in the 5th grade) you can call me a pinko-commi socialist for all i care. but were not in 1955, so good luck trying to get me blacklisted for being a communist or whatever you think i am...

Actually, I'm hopin you will do your best to convince me. But, as weve already agreed, the opposition party keeps the reigning party on their toes. I want to hear your best stuff because I might agree with it. If I don't then I can rest easy knowing i have the best that's available.

Are you a socialist? If so I aint buyin. If you are a commie, keep it to yourself. I dont wanna know.

I admire progressive thinking. A part of me likes knowing there are people who are passionately committed to advancing society and I also like the sense of freedom that I get when I'm around progressive thinkers. But I am realistic enough to know that when the rubber meets the road the progressive ideas may not be enacted for awhile, if ever.

I live as a conservative. When I go to have fun or I go 'slumming' I enjoy being around progressives.

I wouldn't blacklist you. Maybe PINKO LIST. Hahahaha!

Democrack is a fun new perjorative. Dont take it to heart.

[iBabo]

Originally Posted by Eynstyn

Somehow I just don't believe you have a realistic plan for America. Somehow I just dont believe you would know the effects of what your idealism would bring about if you had your way.

Not fueling the "imperialism." Not being blinded by the flag. Critically thinking about government policies.

Sell us on your vision.

I've got the ability to buy. I'll give you an ear. What ya got?

im a nationalist. i believe in loving your country, and protecting it till your last drop of blood.(in fact, even though i dont believe in the death penalty, i believe the only crime worth being punished by the death penalty is treason) but last time i checked, canada is not invading, and afganistans navy is not on the pacific rim. yes we were attacked, but its ALOT more complicated then "we were attacked so we have to invade every muslim nation, and install friendly governments", we have been medling in their affairs since we found them on a map. and they have been attacking us whenever weve been there, ever since( remember, lebenon in the 80s, remember the hostage situation in iran, etc.). 9/11 was just a manifestation of an evergrowing globalized world, where even terrorism is globalized.

ill be the first to admit that my plans for america (or any country for that matter) are not realistic, in fact i think they are as idealistic as they can get when applied to americas situation, but i see idealism as seeing how you want things to be, and working towards making your ideal situation. youll probably never reach it, but youll definatly get alot closer to an ideal society then if you just sit there and accept the realities and not try to do anything about it. you want me to see you my idea? itll take a lot more time then the political sub-forum on the MacNN forums is worth to be honest... but i might just do my PHD dissertation on it when the time comes(which isnt too far away) ...

im all for the principles this country was founded on. democracy, and freedom. honestly, i love it. my main gripe though is the mostly unregulated capitalist economic system that undermines those principles. im not a marxist by any means, my nationalistic fervors would have no place in marx's book, but im definatly not a capitalist either, atleast not of one as unregulated at americas, because capitalism leads to imperialism, and as a dissenent of a people victim to imperialism and resistance through out their history, i am very anti-imperialistic, and put a peoples right to self-determination high up on my political totem pole.

hope this give you a little bit more insight into my "vision"

[iBabo]

iBabo's vision for the future:

for starters,
bringing american jobs back would be nice, there was a time where one could get a decent (hard work, but decent) job working for GM, or Ford, and they could raise a middle class family like that. the kids, through hardwork and a good public education system could one day rise up the economic ladder, (the american dream i believe they called it)... walmart is the devil.. i dont care how cheap their prices are.

better fund the public education system, both for k-12, and for higher education. an educated population is the best investment in ones domestic economy.
provide an affordable health care system, a healthy population is the other best investment in ones economy.


as for foriegn policy, stop invading countries and setting up shop (bases) there.... itll come back to bite us in the ass, like it did on 9/11
as the sole superpower, take the lead on nuclear nonproliferation. lead by example... right now the US has nuceal weapons armed and ready on a moments notice to strike anywhere in the world, im sorry but thats not gonna do any of us any good. after all, nuclear proliferation is to a great extent our fault... so unless we want to blow up the earth down to the inner core, i suggest we do something about this... instead of setting up a global double standard that just perpetuates hostilities. (and the last thing we want when playing with nuclear weapons are hostilities)
dont spit on the face of international diplomacy by disregarding the UN and appointing someone like Bolten to represent us. cuz, again, that WILL come to bite us in the ass.

these are just some thoughts off the top of my head.. im sure ill think of more by the time i close this safari window.

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by iBabo

im a nationalist. i believe in loving your country, and protecting it till your last drop of blood.(in fact, even though i dont believe in the death penalty, i believe the only crime worth being punished by the death penalty is treason) but last time i checked, canada is not invading, and afganistans navy is not on the pacific rim. yes we were attacked, but its ALOT more complicated then "we were attacked so we have to invade every muslim nation, and install friendly governments", we have been medling in their affairs since we found them on a map. and they have been attacking us whenever weve been there, ever since( remember, lebenon in the 80s, remember the hostage situation in iran, etc.). 9/11 was just a manifestation of an evergrowing globalized world, where even terrorism is globalized.

I see you and I agree on what it means when you pledge allegiance to the flag. It aint the flag itself youre pledging allegiance to, it's what the flag stands for...the nation. I'm patriotic but I know I'm not the typical American conservative.

I don't think gwb plans to invade every muslim nation. I believe he hopes he doesn't have to invade any more islamic nations. But at this point I really dont know how committed he is to the neocon formula. Much has changed since 911. The MAIN reason I hope we "win" (whatever that now means) in Iraq is so we WONT have to invade anywhere else. The US may have it's faults and flaws but NOBODY in the Arab world is so committed to bringing about peace that it would go to war.

Now, try to deny that the US desperately wanted and wants peace and stability in the region. You cant. And why were we in lebanon in the 80's? Peace and stability.

ill be the first to admit that my plans for america (or any country for that matter) are not realistic, in fact i think they are as idealistic as they can get when applied to americas situation, but i see idealism as seeing how you want things to be, and working towards making your ideal situation.

I believe you have a few things a few main points that REALLY define your idealism and if they were realized you'd be a happy camper.

youll probably never reach it, but youll definatly get alot closer to an ideal society then if you just sit there and accept the realities and not try to do anything about it. you want me to see you my idea? itll take a lot more time then the political sub-forum on the MacNN forums is worth to be honest... but i might just do my PHD dissertation on it when the time comes(which isnt too far away) ...

ok. I may not agree with whatever your specifics might be but I am committed to the process of your trying your best to bring about your vision.

im all for the principles this country was founded on. democracy, and freedom. honestly, i love it. my main gripe though is the mostly unregulated capitalist economic system that undermines those principles.

The ol' place wouldn't be half as great as it is without our unregulated capitalist economic system, dont ya think? I'm not a rich man but I like the dream living inside of me that the system is set up for me to be as rich as my brain might conceive.

im not a marxist by any means, my nationalistic fervors would have no place in marx's book, but im definatly not a capitalist either, atleast not of one as unregulated at americas, because capitalism leads to imperialism, and as a dissenent of a people victim to imperialism and resistance through out their history, i am very anti-imperialistic, and put a peoples right to self-determination high up on my political totem pole.

But were your people imperialised by the USA? No. Why? Because that's not what we do. It's funny how smart you are but your fears cloud you to such obvious truths. The USA may want to have access to a country's natural resources but, look around! EVERY country arranges friendships, alliances, deals, agreements and favorable relationships to assure it has the resources and trade it needs. We are no different than your people's country. We just have more clout. EVERY country that we started an adversarial relationship with is now friendly to us. ALL of them are doing well and all of them are self determining. Your FEARS are clouding your vision.

hope this give you a little bit more insight into my "vision"

It does. Thanks for sharing. But I still don't know why I should adopt your vision or any of the points you might want to persuade others to consider.

But that's ok. It's late.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by iBabo

"democrats throwing money at the problem" hasnt solved anything because anytime they have tried, americas imperialist intuition has sucked out the resources needed to get the job done right. case in point: the Great Society by LBJ. had it not been for the vietnam war, the war on poverty would have been won.

America was founded on being taxed and in return getting representation in government. dont fool yourself into thinking that the neo-cons dont want to spend your money... everyone will spend money and have a bigger government, it just depends on what they spend it on. FDR spent it on "New Deal" Initiatives, while GWB spends it on wars... trust me, those bombs are not cheap.. and your paying for them.

as for your comments on what an opposition party is.... i agree with you somewhat, but it goes a little deeper then that... just like how the only reason capitalism succeeds is because of competition, with everyone trying to make a better mouse trap... democracy is the same way.. you need groups cometing for power, so that the "consumer" or in this case, the american citizen, benefits from the best one. what i see here is not that. i see a democratic party that has sold out on its principles, and has become reactionary rather then proactive, and i see a neo-con wing of a republican party taking advantage of that, and highjacking our political system. case in point: the debate happening as we speak about fillabustering judicial nominations. the funny thing is that, even with a crippled democratic party, almost half the country voted against bush, if the dems had organized better, and had a real alternative candidate, things would be very different. what does that tell you about the way people feel the govt is going in these days... almost half voted for the alternative even though it was less organized and crippled. this shows that the need for a REAL opposition party is there, the "market" is there (to put it in your capitalist terms)... we just need someone to come and build a better mouse trap now.

The War on Poverty was a farce. The injection of socialism made the poor poorer and more dependent on the government, not less. And iBabo, Kerry was not a horrible candidate, but he was rejected because the Democratic party forgot Clinton's moderate recipe for success. Even though President Bush was fighting an unpopular war, and even though he is not fiscally conservative, the greater portion of the states preferred his path to Kerry's socialism. It's the same reason why Al Gore did not succeed Clinton, despite the popularity of his two terms.

[iBabo]

NOBODY in the Arab world is so committed to bringing about peace that it would go to war.

you dont go to war to bring peace, you go to war when there is no other choice. the more wars we get involved in (esspecially in the middle east) the more anti-american sentiment there is going to be. you are galvanizing the elements that perpetrated 9/11 by giving their masses a reason to hate us.

Now, try to deny that the US desperately wanted and wants peace and stability in the region. You cant. And why were we in lebanon in the 80's? Peace and stability.

i agree that the us wants stability. because as long as there is a stable and US friendly government, governing regions where we despratly need resources, those resources will be cheaper and easier to get. this was why we befriended the shaw of iran, why the saudis (arguably one of the most anti-democratic country in the region) are our greatest allies in the region. im sorry, but i really dont believe that the US is there to promote democracy. if it were, it would have started with Saudi Arabia (and we both know how unrealistic that is). plain and simple, the neo-cons used 9/11 as an excuse to get rid of people they didnt like in the middle east.

The ol' place wouldn't be half as great as it is without our unregulated capitalist economic system, dont ya think? I'm not a rich man but I like the dream living inside of me that the system is set up for me to be as rich as my brain might conceive.

countries with a more organized (still capitalistic) economy are doing much better then us. case in point: Japan. take away shortterm economic hills and valleys and you have an economy whose perpose is to serve the people.

But were your people imperialised by the USA? No. Why? Because that's not what we do. It's funny how smart you are but your fears cloud you to such obvious truths. The USA may want to have access to a country's natural resources but, look around! EVERY country arranges friendships, alliances, deals, agreements and favorable relationships to assure it has the resources and trade it needs. We are no different than your people's country. We just have more clout. EVERY country that we started an adversarial relationship with is now friendly to us. ALL of them are doing well and all of them are self determining. Your FEARS are clouding your vision.

it doesnt matter who my ansestors were imperialised by, im against the principle of imperialism. i believe in a peoples right to self-determination. what fears are you talking about? yes, every country arranges alliances and the such to get what reseources they want, but not many pursue this through military means. dont fool yourself into thinking that countries weve have adversarial relationships which are self-determining. how many foriegn bases are there in the US? none(and rightfully so). how many US bases are there in foriegn countries? too many to count... in my opinion this undermines a countries right to soverignity.

We are no different than your people's country

you have no idea how different the two countries are.

[iBabo]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Kerry's socialism.

kerry socialism?!? youve gotta be kidding me....please tell me your not serious.

do you honestly think kerry was anywhere NEEEAAARRR socialism? please do yourself a favor and go learn about what socialism is. last i checked, kerry had no plans for nationalizing any industry. im sorry if you think that helping out the working class is considered socialism, but the truth of the matter is that its not. sorry, but not everyone was born with a silver spoon in their mouth like you apperently did.

[budster101]

A "Good American" can shoot straight.

[typoon]

Originally Posted by iBabo

you dont go to war to bring peace, you go to war when there is no other choice. the more wars we get involved in (esspecially in the middle east) the more anti-american sentiment there is going to be. you are galvanizing the elements that perpetrated 9/11 by giving their masses a reason to hate us.

What was WW2? It was a War to bring peace.

What does it matter how many wars we get invovlved in the middle east? There is already a growing anti-American sentiment and it doesn't need us going to war to bring it about. They hate us and our way of life.

[budster101]

Nobody has ever answered the following question when it is given to their idiotic notions.

How long did it take GERMANY and JAPAN to rebound after we kicked their a ss e s?
They all want an instant Democracy or we have failed.
How many died during WWII? Innocents and Bad guys... Was it worth it?

It is here as well.
Let's clean up the friggin world. I am personally sick and tired of the scum of the earth that run countries like, North Korea, Syria, and the like.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by typoon

What was WW2? It was a War to bring peace.

Yep. Lots of good that did. I think I'll go on a drinking binge for sobreity now, or possibly an orgy for abstinence.

World War II was not about peace. It was about defeating the kind of villain they make video games and Saturday morning cartoons about nowadays.

[typoon]

Originally Posted by budster101

Nobody has ever answered the following question when it is given to their idiotic notions.

How long did it take GERMANY and JAPAN to rebound after we kicked their a ss e s?
They all want an instant Democracy or we have failed.
How many died during WWII? Innocents and Bad guys... Was it worth it?

It is here as well.
Let's clean up the friggin world. I am personally sick and tired of the scum of the earth that run countries like, North Korea, Syria, and the like.

I agree. The President's notion that an Election in Iraq qould help bring peace was a bit Naive. I believe it took Germany 4-5 years before they had an election. In Japan I believe it was more like 7 Years.

Was WWII worth it? I think it was. Because if everyone has Appeased the Germans and the other facist countries many of us would probably NOT be here since we don't fit the "Airian" moniker.

[budster101]

My point exactly. It's going to take time, but it is worth it!

[SVass]

Originally Posted by typoon

I agree. The President's notion that an Election in Iraq qould help bring peace was a bit Naive. I believe it took Germany 4-5 years before they had an election. In Japan I believe it was more like 7 Years.

Was WWII worth it? I think it was. Because if everyone has Appeased the Germans and the other facist countries many of us would probably NOT be here since we don't fit the "Airian" moniker.

We entered World War II because we were attacked! We did not enter voluntarily! Was it worth it? Our only other choice would have been to surrender.

Some idiots in Afghanistan attacked us. We responded and destroyed their base of support. How long will it take to establish a functioning democratic society there?

Iraq did NOT attack or threaten us. We attacked them just as we did Cuba long ago! How long did it take us to establish a functioning democratic society there? sam

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Eynstyn

Some are very quick to make rash decisions and don't think before condemning.

That's REALLY funny coming from you.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Eynstyn

The US may have it's faults and flaws but NOBODY in the Arab world is so committed to bringing about peace that it would go to war.

You generalize an entire cultre as violent and against bringing about peace, but then claim you're not quick to condemn.

[typoon]

Originally Posted by SVass

We entered World War II because we were attacked! We did not enter voluntarily! Was it worth it? Our only other choice would have been to surrender.

Some idiots in Afghanistan attacked us. We responded and destroyed their base of support. How long will it take to establish a functioning democratic society there?

Iraq did NOT attack or threaten us. We attacked them just as we did Cuba long ago! How long did it take us to establish a functioning democratic society there? sam

We wouldn't have entered if we weren't attacked. Would that have been the right thing to do? If you look at it early on everyone was surrendering to the Germans. They kept appeasing them where did it get them? In a way the US had already entered WW2. We were sending aid to the British. We didn't enter voluntarily because there were calls for appeasement. If the US had entered earlier the whole conflict could probably have been lessened.

[budster101]

typoon: Too true.

Weren't some people saying we allowed or even planned "Pearl Harbor" so we could jump into the war?
I seem to remember this nonsense as well with 9/11. Oh, "The US Planned 9/11, and there were tanks under the planes filled with explosives, etc.".

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by budster101

typoon: Too true.

Weren't some people saying we allowed or even planned "Pearl Harbor" so we could jump into the war?
I seem to remember this nonsense as well with 9/11. Oh, "The US Planned 9/11, and there were tanks under the planes filled with explosives, etc.".

So, what makes a good American?

[demograph68]

Originally Posted by Eynstyn

So, what makes a good American?

A good consumer, duh.

[SVass]

Originally Posted by budster101

typoon: Too true.

Weren't some people saying we allowed or even planned "Pearl Harbor" so we could jump into the war?

Wacko Republicans accused FDR of allowing Pearl Harbor. sam

[typoon]

Originally Posted by SVass

Wacko Republicans accused FDR of allowing Pearl Harbor. sam

Yes and others said we should do nothing in WW2 since it has nothing to do with us. I don't think it was just republicans during that time that were saying that.

[budster101]

SVass:

What exactly are you saying? That the Republicans of back then are the same as today? By your very statement it cannot be possible. The Democrats back then were more like the Republicans of today.

I will go back to my original statement, PEOPLE, both democrats and repbulicans were saying the same thing. It was in the media... that is my point.

Do you have to always post as if your words were s(L)am dunks? It just isn't so.

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by typoon

Yes and others said we should do nothing in WW2 since it has nothing to do with us. I don't think it was just republicans during that time that were saying that.

The whole USA was against entering the war, prior to pearl harbor.

That psycho Democrat liar FDR (got something against republicans Svass?) promised when he was elected that the USA would never, ever fight any foreign conflict.

[SVass]

Originally Posted by PacHead

The whole USA was against entering the war, prior to pearl harbor.
That psycho Democrat liar FDR (got something against republicans Svass?) promised when he was elected that the USA would never, ever fight any foreign conflict.

Some prominent Republicans supported Hitler both politically and financially. FDR said that he would not start a war. Japan attacked us. Hitler's Germany declared war on us. Republicans accused FDR of everything imaginable. FDR did not start the war.

[LOS ANGELES, May 27 - A federal jury today acquitted Hillary Rodham Clinton's former chief fund-raiser of charges that he underreported the costs of a glittery fundraising event in 2000 to the Federal Election Commission.]

BTW, I learned a new term that you might want to study up on. "Ecological Fallacy" = bush math
http://www.jratcliffe.net/research/ecolfallacy.htm

sam

[Athens]

Originally Posted by demograph68

A good American is a dead American. Muahahaha!!! ( ....whatever... )

Ya I said that one once too

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Eynstyn

A good American is: Loud, culturally OBLIVIOUS, old-fashioned, has lots of debt because he has the best toys. Is willing to fight for what is right in the world. Defends the little guy. Will respond with retaliation out of proportion to any offense. Won't back down because he believes he is the best. Is patriotic. Cherishes and exercises freedom of speech.

Does this define what is means to be a good American? What else?

Until this post I didn't like you much, but that has changed

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by SVass

Wacko Republicans accused FDR of allowing Pearl Harbor. sam

The evidence is unclear as to whether or not FDR allowed Pearl Harbor's attack by orchestrating the conditions which would have effected a sluggard US detection or an anemic defense capability, but he probably had mixed emotions about the attack.

The loss of so many battleships forced a change in naval tactics and strategy. The aircraft carrier which had always served a supportting role now had to lead the Pacific theater naval battle groups. This turned out not to be as great a loss as many Admirals had thought as the battleship was due to fall obsolete to the increased range, firepower, precision, flexibility, reconnaissance of the carrier anyway, though few would have admitted or predicted this at the time. Pearl Harbor just accelerated a natural evolution.

Roosevelt also recognized that England and France could not defeat the Nazi war machine without help and the US would eventually be the only nation standing between Hitler and total world domination. As history showed, it took almost everything the COMBINED allied forces of the US, the United Kingdom, Russia, China and a supporting coalition of many other nations, to defeat Germany and Japan.

Think about what anxiety FDR might have felt in wanting to join the fray sooner rather than later in order to stop these two cancerous forces before their victories gave them enogh momentum to be unstoppable. Then realize the president had campaigned on the basis of remaining neutral and not letting the US get dragged into a war.

The mood in the country was decidedly anti-war and neutrality was such a popular idea that it became our official policy.

Here are some clips from the PBS Video website:

http://pbsvideodb.pbs.org/programs/a...p?item_id=7756

While the Storm Clouds Gather - AMERICA GOES TO WAR: THE HOME FRONT; Volume #97

In this video, America emerges from the hard times of the Depression. Radio provides nightly entertainment as well as news from the foreign war zones in Europe and Asia. Most Americans wish to stay out of the war, but they support the efforts of President Roosevelt, lend-lease, the peacetime draft, and the new defense industry.

Back to Top

Americans used music and the movies to escape reality during the Depression, and continued to do so in 1939. It seemed they did not know or care what was happening in other parts of the world, yet every movie theater showed newsreels of Hitler's progress as he conquered Austria and Czechoslovakia and threatened Poland. England and France vowed to defend Poland, narrowly averting war. To Europeans, Americans appeared to be oblivious, as newsreels showed Americans indulging in frivolous activities.
Back to Top

On September 1, 1939, Hitler defied France and Britain and attacked Poland. England declared war, and France quickly followed suit. World War II had begun. President Roosevelt declared the U.S. intent to stay out of the war. In America, the 1940's began with a sense of optimism, as America tried to mind its own business. Americans viewed newsreels of Japanese savagery toward China with alarm, but firmly believed "it can't happen here."

Back to Top

The prevalence of radio changed the mood of the nation as it brought the events of the world into American homes. Americans no longer had to wait for newsreels to see what was happening. The war took on a sense of immediacy and intimacy that bred sympathy for the British, who desperately needed help. Americans were willing to do what they could to help, short of going to war. The sense of isolationism was stronger than ever -- America first, last, and foremost.

Back to Top

Even isolationists agreed that, given the state of affairs, America should be prepared to defend itself. The state militia was ordered to active duty and Congress approved America's first peacetime draft. Military equipment was found to be obsolete or nonexistent, underscoring how unprepared America was to defend itself, much less fight a war overseas. America began to manufacture munitions and war supplies to build its arsenal. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 ended the great American debate. Isolationism was no longer possible, and America was finally united.

If FDR DID allow pearl harbor to happen it would serve as an example of how deceit and lies can be used by a great leader to do what is best for everyone in the long term.

Even sam can agree that WWII was in the best interests of freedom. Right, sam?

[SVass]

Originally Posted by Eynstyn

The evidence is unclear as to whether or not FDR allowed Pearl Harbor's attack by orchestrating the conditions which would have effected a sluggard US detection or an anemic defense capability, but he probably had mixed emotions about the attack.

The loss of so many battleships forced a change in naval tactics and strategy. The aircraft carrier which had always served a supportting role now had to lead the Pacific theater naval battle groups. This turned out not to be as great a loss as many Admirals had thought as the battleship was due to fall obsolete to the increased range, firepower, precision, flexibility, reconnaissance of the carrier anyway, though few would have admitted or predicted this at the time. Pearl Harbor just accelerated a natural evolution.

Roosevelt also recognized that England and France could not defeat the Nazi war machine without help and the US would eventually be the only nation standing between Hitler and total world domination. As history showed, it took almost everything the COMBINED allied forces of the US, the United Kingdom, Russia, China and a supporting coalition of many other nations, to defeat Germany and Japan.

The mood in the country was decidedly anti-war and neutrality was such a popular idea that it became our official policy....
If FDR DID allow pearl harbor to happen it would serve as an example of how deceit and lies can be used by a great leader to do what is best for everyone in the long term.

Even sam can agree that WWII was in the best interests of freedom. Right, sam?

In reverse order, yes, I agree that our entry was in the interest of freedom. In 1923, Illinois (my home state) officially declared that English would no longer be the official language of Illinois - but American would be.
If FDR (Quoting Truman, I don't answer hypothetical questions-Around 1950, Harry responded about deciding to drop nukes if he had known then what he knew now!) I only know that we did not enter the war voluntarily. If FDR conned the evil ones into attacking us, why couldn't Bush do the same?
The loss of battleships and an admission that they were obsolete in 1941 leads me to ask why Reagan rebuilt one during his administration and why did he resurrect the B-1 bomber from its death from obsolescence. Why are the B-1s being moved to Texas? Can you answer these more modern questions? sam

[bubblewrap]

Because people "feel better" if bombings take place from a manned weapon versus a pushbutton missle. So the B52 and B1 will be around awhile.

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by bubblewrap

Because people "feel better" if bombings take place from a manned weapon versus a pushbutton missle. So the B52 and B1 will be around awhile.

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by SVass

In reverse order, yes, I agree that our entry was in the interest of freedom

Ok. Now were gettin somewhere. Sam is on record saying that the United States' entry into WWII was in the interest of freedom.

Sam is aware that this entry may have been facilitated by lies, deceit and/or otherwise less than honest, open and forthcoming actions and ommissions by Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Sam agrees that the policy of isolationism and neutrality reflected the will of the American people and the official policy of the US gubment. (Nice little Reaganism fer ya) And that even though the will of the people maintained the desire for neutrality in the face of mounting events it was a good thing the US became involved in WWII because it was, quoting sam, "in the interest of freedom."

So aren't you in essence saying that even though FDR may have violated the will of the American people and the spirit and letter of the law by doing so, FDR was justified in using any of the devious methods that he may have used, to get the US involved in the war?

And arent you also saying that the President of these United States sometimes knows whats best for the country?

And, finally, arent you saying that this is exactly what we elect and pay the President to do...to Lie, er, I meant, to LEAD!?!

And, for once sam were in total agreement!

Will wonders never cease?

[bubblewrap]

We conquored German and Japan.(My father helped)
(All be it, we pissed off the Russians in the process)
Why are they not part of the Empire of America?

[budster101]

I guess dropping a bomb from an Aircraft is sooo much more personal than pressing a button on a ship...
Personally, I don't care how the bad guys die. Heck, I'd go and cough on the bastards if it would help... (I'd have to have the cold though, bad breath will only piss them off.)

[SVass]

Originally Posted by Eynstyn

Ok. Now were gettin somewhere. Sam is on record saying that the United States' entry into WWII was in the interest of freedom.

Sam is aware that this entry may have been facilitated by lies, deceit and/or otherwise less than honest, open and forthcoming actions and ommissions by Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Sam agrees that the policy of isolationism and neutrality reflected the will of the American people and the official policy of the US gubment. (Nice little Reaganism fer ya) And that even though the will of the people maintained the desire for neutrality in the face of mounting events it was a good thing the US became involved in WWII because it was, quoting sam, "in the interest of freedom."

So aren't you in essence saying that even though FDR may have violated the will of the American people and the spirit and letter of the law by doing so, FDR was justified in using any of the devious methods that he may have used, to get the US involved in the war?

And arent you also saying that the President of these United States sometimes knows whats best for the country?

And, finally, arent you saying that this is exactly what we elect and pay the President to do...to Lie, er, I meant, to LEAD!?!

And, for once sam were in total agreement!

Will wonders never cease?

A major distortion of what I said! let me first comment trying to wrap the B-52 and B-2 into a defense of the asinine B-1. I worked on a modernization of the B-52 and on the original B-1 and the B-2. I was at the Air Force in the B-1 office in a meeting with the general when the B-1 was cancelled by Carter. I know the performance of all three planes. The B-52 was an excellent workhorse and is now getting old. The B-2 has and will have a similar long useful life. The B-1 is expensive to operate, manpower intensive, and has limited capability. It was another Reagan battleship.

I refused to answer your hypothetical and did NOT agree that FDR lied to the American people or deceived them. Japanese warplanes did attack us at Pearl Harbor. Germany did declare war on us. I never agreed that all of the American people were isolationist. I agree that many were and that FDR said that he would not start a war and he did not.

We do not pay our president to lie or violate solemn treaties. We DO pay our president to protect our cities and pay attention to intelligence warnings, declare alerts, and NOT give performance awards for incompetent intelligence. The current president has a new worry that he is qualified to handle.
http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/features/chamber/61577

sam

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by demograph68

A good consumer, duh.

Bling n' hoes.