Wake Up America

[JiJoMacLE45]

Sorry if this gets a tad long, but I have a few things I just need to get out there and this being a pro-US and pro-military forum, I think this is as good a place as any to post it. As an American, I am sick and tired of listening to these anti-war, yuppie, give peace a chance, liberals. These people have no grip on reality. Where were they less than a year and a half ago on that sunny Tuesday morning that should have forever changed the way we think. The way people are standing up and calling Bush a war-monger and other harsh critiques, it is like they forgot about the more than three thousand people killed that day. Is it going to take a nuclear, chemical, or biological attack for these people to finally realize what we are facing. I do not want war anymore than the next person, however I realize that Saddam Hussien is a serious threat and he needs to be dealt with, hopefully through diplomatic means, but if not, than militarily. What ever it takes. This is the same man who called for a jihad against Americans during the Gulf War. Thankfully it fell on deaf ears, but if I remember correctly, isn't Osama bin Laden and his Al-Qaida network waging a jihad. Are not the Palestinians blowing themselves up all over Israel waging a jihad. WTF, we are at war. It may not be a conventional war where there are drawn out battle lines, but it is a war none the less, one fought in the shadows where our victories remain secret and our defeats cause the deaths of inocent people. How would these Hollywood liberals like Sean Penn and Susan Sarandon and Sheryl Crow feel if terrorists were crashing airliners into their Hollywood mansions or setting off car bombs outside of the Starbucks they are standing in? And then you have these college yuppies going on about how Bush only wants to fight this war for oil. So the f*** what, 10% of the world's oil is in Iraq. Do you know how that would benefit this country. I'm not saying we should invade Iraq for the oil, but do these people realize that if we control that 10% of the world's oil, what that allows us to do with the war on terrorism. No longer do we have to turn our heads to the BS the Saudis pull so we can get their oil. Taking out Saddam starts a chain reaction of events that are only good for our country. Yes, some people are going to die, unfortunetly that is the cost of war. But isn't the cost of freedom and the right to live a safe life worth it. Hundreds of thousands of Americans who have come before us have paid that price so we can live like we do.
Again I apologize for rambling on here, but thanks for listening.

[FallenAngel]

Amen brother!

http://www.click-smilie.de/sammlung/travesmilies/flaggen1/smilie_flagge13.gif

[Vance]

woot

[Bootneck]

Dead on.

Sheryl Crow lost any credibility (if she ever had any) when she tried to explain her sequined "War is Not the Answer" t-shirt at the American Music Awards with this little gem:

"I think war is based in greed and there are huge karmic retributions that will follow. I think war is never the answer to solving any problems. The best way to solve problems is to not have enemies."

Naive? Yes. Idiotic? Yes.

Perhaps another alternative to dealing with the bad guys in the world, other than her brilliant suggestion about not having any enemies, would be to wait for Osama and Saddam to get their karmic just desserts. We just need to be proactive about it and help them, and those like them, move on to the next life.

[JiJoMacLE45]

Right on. A military officer said something close to the following, I can not remember who, but it went something like:

They want to spend eternity in paradise with Allah, we're just making their appointments.

[GSgt. Gilliam]

I agree with everything said thus far pertaining to the need for war, while the comunist liberals attempt in everyway to piss me off and say that peace is the only way... well obviously it hasn't worked yet and i don't see it happening in the future, there will always be scum on this earth and we will just have to keep ridding the world of such foul human beings. Bush is making one major mistake in that he is only going after foreign enemy's when there are people like Tom Dashle, the Clinton's, the Gore's, and many other liberal scum. now c'mon boys let's move in swift silent and deadly and end this bull**** once an forall, hoorah!

G Dubya Bush => :bash: <= Liberal scum of the Earth

[rangerone]

I hear you all. All of those anti-war people are beginning to really piss me off. :fork:

[Kitsune]

Yeah, but is it that simple?
Bush says: "Saddam is a threat, a menace for the free world, we have to disarm him because we fight against terror!"
Now each and any expert agrees that there is virtually NO connection between Saddam and Osama bin Laden! In fact... both are virtual mortal enemies of each other! Saddam is a laizist, his Ba'ath parties ideology is that the people is the most important thing (the iraq people that is) not Allah. Ok, he has started to acting the muslim but only after the gulf war. Osama is a fundamentalist. People of hís kind have always been surpressed in iraq. If Hussein really has weapons of mass destruction he surly won't give those precious things away... at least not to the kinds of Osama.

Next thing: all experts agree also (really they do) that iraq is today much weaker than its neighbours. Hussein has a much smaller army than in earlier times and his country his thoroughly controlled... no flight zones int he north and south and weapon inpectors who can go ANYWHERE. In fact... the kurdish areas in the north of iraq are not even controlled by saddam any more!
To the east of iraq is iran... not controlled by one known dictator but by a group of religious leaders. Iran is much stronger than iraq. Experts are sure they have biological and chemical weapons, some even think they have one or two nuclear bombs already! But why is Iraq the target?

Another thing... iraq is not a coherent nation. There are many different ethinic and religious groups living there now loosely controlled by Hussein. If Hussein and his government is disposed of... it could very much fan the flames of fundamentalism and terrorism. This is most propable if Israel is drawn into the war.
Fact is that it is very possible that in this war people are killed and that afterwards the world is a WORSE place... not a better one! Of course no one knows for sure... why not take a chance?

Fact is also that Hussein isn't a nice man... he is dictator and he systematically eliminates anyone who is a danger to his power. Bush mentioned in his nation speech the methods of iraqi torture chambers... and this may be very well the truth. But how many innocent people can you kill to get rid of him and still call yourself the good guys? ten? a hundred? OK! A thousand? Hmmmm.... Ten thousand? A hundred thousand?
In the last Gulf War the united states killed allgedly between one hundred and two hundred thousand iraqis! Most of them soldiers sure, but many of these are conscripts! And after that the U.S. leadership choose to let Hussein be... there were two revolts against him and both desperately hoped for support (remember the bay of pigs?)... none came! Hussein killed tens of thousand of these to restore his power... as a result there are a LOT of people in Iraq who want to overthhrow Hussein but HATE the americans.
But we will see. I for my part are not convinced that a war is such a good idea. In fact i am glad that i do not have to make that decision. If losses are light and iraq becomes a democratic state, its people living happily ever after this will be another american sucess story. IF.
But if there are nasty street and guerilla fights, if hussein really uses something dirty on the israelis and IDF joins in, if islamic fundamentalism comes to its all time high because of this, if Iraq falls into anarchy and chaos and civil war pehaps for year to come... we could be in serious trouble. IF.
George W. Bush better knows what he is doing.
But i am not so sure of that.

To some of those guys above : There is a lession to be learned in this special ops stuff:

FIRST think, THEN kill...








Death to GSgt. Gilliam courtesy of KSK

[FallenAngel]

yeah...Saddam and Bin Laden are polar opposites. Bin Laden is a Saudi and Saddam doesn't like Saudis.

But Saddam DOES fund the HAMAS group and other Palestinians who are REALLY starting to piss off the Israelis. And, you're right, if the IDF gets involved...the **** is going to hit the fan. the IDF would have to go through Jordan and/or Syria - both of which are backed by Iran.

Also...if the US conquers and occupies Iraq...that could EASILY provide a spring board for an invasion of Iran and the overthrow of that "problem"

Of course...if the Iraqi war doesnt get every Islamic nation in the mid-east ready to gang up on the US...then invading Iran right after conquering Iraq would DEFINATELY do it I think. This is Especially true of the Saudis as most of the populace doesn't like the US at all.

So...do I think war is neccisary? Yes. But I also think that this could get VERY out of hand and end up being a larger war than anyone thinks it might become.

and thats not even touching the N. Korean issue.

PS- Die Liberal pigs Die! http://www.click-smilie.de/sammlung/waffen/waffen041.gif

PPS- to my friends in USMC currently on their way to Kuwait. Semper Fi! http://www.click-smilie.de/sammlung/waffen/waffen089.gif

[JiJoMacLE45]

Kitsune, you seem to be rather informed about this issue and I honestly respect your opinion. The point I was trying to make was that these liberal Hollywood types seem to gravitate towards the anti-war movement without being informed about the situation. They seem to do it because it is the chic thing. They throw their support behind a cause, yet barely know what they are supporting. I honestly believe Sean Penn's 'fact finding trip' to Baghdad borders on treason. What would we have done had Susan Sarandon shown up in Kabul a week after 9/11 saying that the people are really nice and there is no reason for us to go to war. She would have been lynched at the airport when she got home. You on the other hand back up your arguement with facts. I can appreciate that.

However I have to disagree with you. How can you call bin Laden a fundamentalist. Yes, his Al-Qaeda followers might be, but bin Laden himself is not. If he was, he would have been on one of those planes that flew into the Twin Towers. The man has never been a warrior or a true believer, he's a bag man, he holds the money. Plain and simple.
I agree w/ you on the bin Laden=Hussein terror connection, I think the two are seperate entities and should be dealt with as such, just as North Korea should be dealt with in a manner that befits it.

But it has already been proven that Hussein will go to desperate measures. He fired SCUDs into Israel in the Gulf and who is to say that he will not do it again. He contracted Dr. Gerald Bull to build a super gun that could fire shells as far away as Israel. He had a partially completed nuclear reactor before the Israelis took matters into their own hands. He has used chemical weapons against not only Iranians, but against his own population. And like FA said, he has funded a number of other terrorist organizations. Let's remember, these weapon inspections were mandated by the United Nations, not the United States, and still he denies access to certain facilities and refuses to allow interviews with certain people on the inside of his research programs. And this is not the first time he has done it. Hussein is a ruthless dictator, we have dealt with his type before. Allende in Chile, Somozoa(sic) in Nicaragua, Noriega in Panama, and a handful of others. And those were not nearly the threat to our well being as Hussein is.

*Many of our high ranking officers supported going all the way to Baghdad in 1991. When the order was given to stand down, many of those same officers said one day we would have a day of reckoning with Saddam. It appears that day may be closing in.*

Back on topic though, Hussein will do what it takes to stay in power. Intelligence reports have confirmed he has attempted to reestablish contact with Iran. The same Iran he fought a decade long war with just prior to the Gulf War. So it is suffice to say that if he will go about teaming up with Iran, why wouldn't he make a pact with bin Laden.

As far as leaving Iraq to the various ethnic and religious groups, I point to Afghanistan. This has been a country without rule for the past twenty-plus years. We went in, accomplished the task of destroying the Taliban and helping to restore a somewhat coherent government that will take many years to really establish itself, but is in place nonetheless.

Now we come to the Israelis. Look I'm an American and I'm damn proud of it and with all due respect to the US, the Brits, the Germans, etc. there are no tougher, better fighters on the face of the planet than the Israelis. We're talking about a nation roughly the size of New Jersey that has been facing attack from all sides and within since its inception and they have handed all comers their ass every time out. We do not need to play big brother to the Israelis, they can handle their own problems and it is about time we let them. If anything, Israel could be our best weapon against this war on terror. They have the capability, and more importantly, the balls, to protect themselves. It has been us reigning in the leash on them that has kept the cycle of terror going. The Israelis have the right idea, identify the problem and rectify it using whatever means neccesary for protection of state. That is the approach we need to take.

The reason we have a military is to protect us. The military is not around to be the testing ground for some politician's ideas of social change. Its purpose is to defend and protect this nation. We should let it do its job.

And finally, I define a war on terror as any thing, person, nation, or organization that threatens the safety of our great counry. Whether it be one man like Saddam Hussien, an organization like Al Qaeda, or a nation like North Korea. I can point to a number of occasions where we had the opportunity to deal with some of our problems preemptively, but chose to use discretion and diplomacy. Look where that has gotten us. Take Imad Mugniyah for instance. Mugniyah is arguably the most dangerous terrorist in the world. The bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, the hijacking of TWA Flight 847, the bombing of the Khobar Towers, Mugniyah had a hand in all of them. Prior to September 11th, he killed more Americans than any other terrorist. In the summer of 1996, intelligence tracked him to a freighter off the coast of Saudi Arabia, but because we did not want to offend the Saudis, who might I add would have been the 20th Iraqi province had we not stepped in, President Clinton called off the operation and Mugniyah escaped. Recently reports of JSOC SMUs slipping into Pakistan for an attempted snatch and grab of bin Laden called off at the last minute are also around. We need to step up to the plate and begin defending ourselves. September 11th was just a body blow, we could be walking into the knockout punch if we do not become more aggressive in our stance. And as far as other nations alienating us because of this, they can go to hell. These are countries who have adopted the American way of life, yet denounce us every chance they get, but meanwhile it is our money that keeps their economies afloat and our market that keeps their manufacturers employed.

So those are the two cents of this red blooded American. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong. We're all going to find out soon enough.

PS: I doubt it will happen, but I hope Colin Powell has some Adlai type moves up his sleeve for tomorrow. I'd love to see those liberal scum choke on their words.

[snake6264]

America
Love it or Leave It
or Stay the Hell out!!! :bash:

[Trigger]

JiJoMacLE45 - You're my hero! I could not have said things better. The best part is that all the Hollywood Idiots and Tom Daschles of this country will look even worse when the dust settles. As for the protesters, they're a bunch of small minded, easily deceived, misguided children. I'm so proud that we finally have a president that is tired of our country being used as a doormat. We do so much for so many countries only to have talking dung heaps like Nelson Mandela say what he said. 'F' him.

Oh, and for all of you who question why we don't hit Iran, N. Korea, etc.
...be patient. Take a number.

'ding' 'Now serving...Number 2' woot

[Chris]

I am not from america and will never be a pro-warperson (who likes war??) , but in my opinion sometimes this is the only way. Most people here in europe are against the usa because this "world police" pisses them off. I am also a little bit against that, but if you look at the EU and NATO then nothing will ever happen.
What i dont like is this "we are the best, the others suck" attitude most americans seem to have. If this would change then a lot of people will think positive about the usa. No one wants to help a country where everyone thinks they are the best anyway.
After the twin towers attack everyone was shocked, but when i talked to them they said something like "its horrible but its their fault, lets see when they start the war".

If you want to flame me, just do it, i dont care, if you want to talk normally then i will answer.

[Trigger]

Chris, here's the deal with us Americans: we are very competitive, we strive to be the best (well, most of us do). It's not a sign of disrespect to the rest of the world. It's more like locker room trash-talk after a football game when we say or act like we are the best. Not to sound too cocky, but we ARE the best at a lot of things, especially in terms of the military. Otherwise why do so many countries try to emulate us? Why do they ask for our assistance in training? Whose planes do they fly? Who built the oil rigs in Saudi Arabia?
There's a quote by I can't remember who that goes "If not us, then who? If not now, when?" It's a catch-22 with the world police thing. If we do nothing we are heartless and uncaring in the world's opinion, if we jump in and try to make things better, we're the 'bad cop' picking on the defenseless little people and we deserve to have our civilians slaughtered. TO HELL WITH WORLD OPINION! either way we are maligned by the cowards.

"If you can back it up, it ain't braggin'" - Texas Proverb

[Chris]

you are right with the world police problem, the world will never be happy about that, theres always someone complaining about it. I am also very interested in the american military, its probably the best there is, but thats not everything. There are a lot of other countries who are #1 in doing something. A good working economy, health and school system is something to be more proud of than a big army. I dont want to sound if i hate the usa or something like that, i am just nobody who sees this country as the heaven on earth.
A week ago i watched the movie "bowling for columbine", very interesting especially the big part about the NRA and the 11 thousand people getting killed with guns every year. This maybe is a conclusion to the american mentality no one from europe understands.
There is no perfect country out there, but America and the biggest part of Europe are the "best" ones so they should work together to make the earth a better place...
I wonder what happens if all humans would have the same enemy, aliens or whatever, would they all ever work together?

[JiJoMacLE45]

Thanks for the support Trigger. It looks like our boy Colin Powell is making his case. Let me just drop some tidbits I came across today.

*In 1992, Ayman al-Zawahiri, the number two man in Al-Qaeda, is believed to have visited Baghdad for a meeting with Iraqi intelligence*

*In 1993, Iraqi Mukhabart(sic) intelligence officers traveled to Afghanistan and provided poision gas training for Al-Qaeda.*

*Mamdouh Salim, who is awaiting trial for the 1998 East African Embassy bombings, was the Al-Qaeda liasion to Iraq. Salim is also believed to be bin Laden's top procurer for weapons of mass destruction.*

Chris, tell me how we asked for it. By being the ones who turned the tide of WWII and essentially prevented all of Europe from becoming part of Germany. Whenever the United Nations calls for military action, who seems to be the one putting the most troops in theatre and what nations seems to do the most dying to restore order so another nation can have peace. We stepped in to aide South Korean during the Korean conflict and still keep over 30,000 troops in the region. We led the charge in the Gulf War when the UN decried Iraqi's invasion of Kuwait. We were the first in in Somalia when the UN called for relief effors. Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, East Timor, the list goes on of the times we have answered the world's 911 call. Call us the aggressor if you will, that is fine but remember you probably would be speaking from part of Deutshland(if you not already are) had not the US led the charge.

Tell me what we did to earn the attacks on the Khobar Towers, the USS Cole, the US Embassy in Kenya, the US Embassy in Tanzania, the Pentagon, the World Trade Center.

I'll tell you something, I'm a police officer and most of the time the people in my precint could give a crap about me, except when they need me.
The US is like the world's police department. Most people could care less about us and frankly do not like us, but as soon as trouble starts, who gets the call? We do. And as long as we are the United States we will be there to answer that call and we will put up with the BS and the posturing and the name calling. Because like all good cops, we don't run from danger and we don't turn our backs on those in need.

[Trigger]

1. Chris, I'm not trying to exaggerate things, but the things you mentioned that make certain places 'the best' (health, education, etc.) are right here in the U.S. If I'm wrong then why are people doing anything and everything to come to this country legally and illegally? Why do all these countries' young people come here for school? Why do KINGS from other countries come here for surgery?
2. 'Bowling for Columbine' is a film by a man who hates America and wants to take away the freedoms we have enjoyed for over 200 years. The number of people killed by guns would be doubled if guns were outlawed because the law abiding citizens would be the only ones unarmed.
3. JiJoMacLE45 - we've got your back.

[Chops]

Trigger

The US is not the only country committed. The country where I live, the United Kingdom, and my home country, Australia, have both committed both men and machines.

Cheers

Chops

[JiJoMacLE45]

And believe me it's appreciated. They say you find out who your true friends are when your facing a dilemma and our true allies, the UK and the Australians have stepped up to the plate. The UK and US are like brothers. The UK was the big brother who always used to pick on the little brother, than one day the little brother got bigger and stronger and taught the big brother a lesson. Sure they have had their disagreements, but mess with one of the them and the other one will be right there to watch the other's back without fail.

[Kitsune]

Well... one thing is clear:
The U.S. want this war and so I think it will happen. Powell did a very good job today. But I think he could have proven the connections between Al Qaida and New Zealand if he wanted.
Al Qaida and Iraq have only one thing in common: Both hate the U.S. ! There are some connections? You will find connections from Al Qaida to Syria, Jordan, Libya, Saudi Arabia, The Emirats even Kuwait!
Al Qaida people stayed in Baghdad? They coudl be found in all of the above plus Afghanistan (Yes still they are there), Pakistan (ally of the U.S.), Indonesia, most countries of europe (including Great Britain) and so on...
Osama bin Laden offered in 1991 to the United States to form a international muslim brigade to go to Baghdad and dispose Hussein (did you know that? Its true.) Powell conveniently omitted that.

So it looks as if wars coming...

Do not get me wrong. While war isn't a pretty thing there is a time when one has to fight. But is that such a case? Sorry but i doubt it.
I am not convinced that something good comes out of this. To make a stable and democratic country out of Iraq... that takes more than firepower (that americans have). It takes time and patience. And that is what the U. S. of A. do not have. The americans want results... easy and FAST.
JiJo mentioned Afghanisthan. You got rid of the Taliban. OK. (Let's forget the fact that the americans along with their pakistani allies supported them in the first place in the early nineties. Without this support there wouldn't have been taliban. Knew that? Its true.)
Good. And know? Look at afghanisthan: Now the nation having the most soldiers there is... germany. ("Not our brothers, You can't depend on them, after all we have done for them, not like the brits". did you know that financial help from germany after 9/11 excceded british?). And the german do most of the humanitarian work as well... along with the austrians.( Must be our soft heart.)
The americans? Gone... most of them... to greener pastures. Nowadays more and more afghan man are again wearing beards, more and more afghan women wear the burkha again. The government of Karzai? Afghans think that its an american puppet regime and in fact it has No control over the country. When the ISAF boys are gone their days could well be numbered soon. All the while Gulbuddin Hekmatyar is building his power... he is an islamic fundamentalistic leader. Perhaps the next american problem.
Another point: to achieve the fast victory (courtesy of Air Force but more so courtesy U.S. Dollar) the americans allied with the warlord Abduraschid Dostum (he had the most fighters) and even back into the eighties it was said that he is a very BAD guy. Brutal and everything. Perhaps another problem.
It may be a sad truth but "enduring freedom" did not resolve anything. Al Qaida is alive and kicking, afghanisthan far from being secure (remember the soviets conquered it easily. Mujahedin resistance started after more than a year of calm) and the U.S.A. are seeking another fight. And if one asks some of you guys anotheer after that... and so on. Pick a number said one. In any case most of the soldiers stationed in afghanisthan when the **** hits the fan over there will be european boys.

You overestimate yourself. Even U.S. power has limits. Believe it . Its true.

Somebody here called Clinton a "communist-liberal pig" or something. But he brought the U.S. finances in order. Bush produces a budget-deficit of more than 300 billion $ this year AND again next year ! America could face a serious economic crisis if this goes on. And it will goe on if the americans want to make war on everyone from iraq to north korea. Wether this has any chance of stopping international terrorism... it might even fan the flames.

This may sound to pessimistic. Well. Ok. Things may turn out better. True. And then I am just the too careful european who thought too much.
But be warned. It COULD happen.

In any case... when the body bags are flown in, America will wake up. I hope it doesn't come to that.











"Great Britain is not a nation. It's an U.S. aircraft carrier!"

German Proverb

[JiJoMacLE45]

You'll also find Al-Qaida in the United States, a cell was broken up in Buffalo and lets remember how long those 19 terrorists were inside of the United States before they boarded planes on September 11th. Does that mean we airdrop the 82nd Airborne into northern NY?

You mention that the largest number of troops currently in Afghanistan are German. Well no kidding, we're gearing up for a war in Iraq. But when the fighting in late 2001 and early 2002 was going on, who led the charge? It seems like every recent newspaper article I read about firefights in Afghanistan or the capture of Al-Qaida in the region involves US soldiers, either SOF or conventional. We may not out number the Germans, but we seem to be producing equal if not better results. We've done the most fighting, we've done the most dying. Take the Gulf War for example, sure their were a gaggle of nations who participated in the conflict, but who was out front leading the charge?

Your also right, we financed the Taliban, we dumped money into bin Laden's private army during the mujahideen's war with the Soviets. But at the time, the Soviets were the bigger threat. We even had Saddam on our payroll during his war with the Iranians. But at that time, the Iranians were the bigger threat(even though we supplied arms to them as well; to be honest our government boggles my mind sometimes). We we're even allied with Ho Chi Minh during WWII, but the Japanese were the bigger threat. Now Saddam is the bigger threat and must be dealt with accordingly. He is at least a threat that we can see. Maybe we do not have greatest foresight, I'll give you that but right now I do not see us squaring off against the Russians or the Japanese.

As far as terrorism goes, I honestly do not think we will ever eradicate it. There is no way to deal with terrorists except to kill them. You can not reason with someone who is willing to die for their cause, so you can only oblige their wishes to move on to the after life on your own terms.

Prior to our military action, who led the major relief efforts in Afghanistan? No one, because there was none. This is nearly a year and a half after the first shots were fired and it is because of our lead that there even is a humanitarian effort existing in Afghanistan. Maybe it is not a long term answer, but at least for the time being it will have to do.

As far as patience, we spent a half century teetering on the brink with the USSR, but had the common sense to keep from firing the first shot. And I do not seem to remember many European nations complaining when our tanks were on the line to keep the Soviets out of western Europe.

As far as Clinton goes, sure things on the homefront may have been okay, but it was his assinine foreign policy that brought us to this point today. Had the man had a shred of testicular fortitude he would have dealt with bin Laden properly, by putting shooters on the ground to find and eliminate the threat. Not like launching a few cruise missiles into a pharmaceuticals plant in the Sudan after bombings in Kenya and Tanzania and saying "we are going to do everything we can to bring to justice these people" rather than cancelling operations at the last second, after the operators are in position, to deal with "these people". The Khobar Towers attack and Cole bombing were also on his watch. He gutted our military and hand cuffed our intelligence community, no wonder we were unprepared for the September 11th attacks. He screwed over JSOC in 1993 in Somalia. He expected them to conduct the mission shorthanded. They wanted armor and gunships and were denied repeatedly. And still those men went into that city to tried to do the job. Most people do not know this, but the mission on October 3rd/4th was to capture two Habr Gidr lieutenants, that mission was accomplished. The next day those TF Ranger guys, were ready to go back into that city and level it searching for Aided and to bring back their missing teammates, but instead Clinton called off the operation and the captured prisoners were released. Those brave Americans were killed for nothing because Clinton did have the balls to back the guys on the ground, the same men he ordered into the region. He called off the CIA backed 1995 training of the Kurds in the North. He had to deal with Saddam in 1998 and launched a few days worth of airstrikes 'Operation Desert Fox', than said "hey guys everything is okay, problem solved". Bull ****, he dumped his problems in the lap of President Bush. By the way, the economy had already taken a down turn towards the end of Clinton's presidency, we were headed for a recession (knew that? it's true).

To be honest, I didn't vote for Bush. I was a supporter of John McCain. I do not vote along party lines so when the presidential elections arrived I did not vote because I was not going to put my support behind any of the candidates. But Bush has won me over. Like his father, he might be a bit goofy, but his actions are in this countries best interests, not like Clinton whose actions were only in the interest of his *** life. Let's take a step back for a minute. Clinton appointed a woman to be SecState. Now do not get me wrong, I'm all for equality, but we are talking about a person who is supposed to be the American representitive to the world. A world in which half of the nations still make men the superiors over the women. In my opinion, Albright was a failure, during Clinton's presidency our foreign policy, well frankly, it sucked. These were the same people who decided to buddy up with Yasir Arafat, one of the most dangerous terrorists in the world, just ask the Israelis. Did you notice how after 9/11 Arafat was neither seen nor heard from for quite a while?

Kitsune, you and I could go back and forth forever countering each others points. Most likely, neither of us will convince the other. Hey at least you believe in what your saying. I admire that.

[Kitsune]

Yeah... JiJo... at least that last compliment i can give back wholeheartedly.

With us germans and war its something... To understandstand it remember your countries experience with Vietnam. Perhaps the worst part of it for the americans was loosing the belief in themselves... wether they are really on the side of the light so to speak right? Many americans at least stopped supporting the war and many G.I.s coming back were yelled at and called babykillers.

Well... Germany lost much more people in WWII than america in Vietnam (more than two thirds of the Whrmacht fought against th soviet union by the way) and after coming home (mostly a destroyed home courtesy Aliied Air Force) the typical german soldier was shown some Holocaust- movies from some smug americans or brits ("and thats what you have been fighting for you bastards"). Seen the one with the bulldozer shot at Bergen-Belsen?
If You goe through years of horror and hardship, if you loose comerades or even your family at home...you want to know that this suffering and loss is good for something. Americans and Brits went home as heros (war is always more fun if you are winning). We Germans got nothing... i mean really nothing. Not only we lost it... even all efforts were worth nothing... or even less than nothing.
Something like this kills your spirit.
And thats not all. I cut short through the years of POW imprisonment most germans went through or the 14 million who had to leave the eastern areas germany lost... 2 millions of these refugees, the very old or very young mostly, dying during their way home. The nation was divided.
Germany was no soverign nation until the nineties. (C.I.A for example could phonetap anyone in germany as they pleased until the late eighties. The german police and intelligence agencies could not). But the germans were utilized. The Country who provided more soldiers (and tanks and stuff) in western europe was... germany, protecting itself along with american interests (and french and british interests). The soviets utilized also... in eastern germany germans had to protect the eastern part of germany along with the russian interests. We lived for decades with the knowledge that in case of WWIII (even the smallest version) we would be annihilated...perhaps utterly. And funny thing was that such a war would begin in Washington or Moscow... germans had no saying in it (remember the cuba crisis). How would YOU feel? America divided lets say in north and south... and a command in berlin decides "War!" and possibly sealing your fate? So that wasn't so much funny either.
But of course :"If Germany wouldn't have started the war it would not have come to that."

After the cold war ended germany was much relieved and reduced its military budged.
Fact is germans are still uncomfortable of sending soldiers abroad, projecting power, starting wars. Perhaps too much. We are changing our attitude (today only max. 20000 soldiers can be send abroad by germany... bundeswehr was small and still structured as if it had to defend against a soviet attack until the late ninties... military expeditions weren't planned... but from 2006 on it will be 60000 due to restructuring efforts. Mobility will be enhanced by new transport aeroplanes, Eurofighter will be finally introduced to the Luftwaffe, a new "Tiger" fighting helicopter will give airsupport. Germany is one of the first to field something of a land warrior system (perhaps after the U.S. but we will see that). KSK is finally ready and part of a "Division for special operations" (DSO) special commando trained paratroopers numbering 7000 akin to brit royal marine commnandos).
But we still need time to get used to it. And war is only the very last option for germany... this will not change. And we do not want to be ruled by outside forces again... to compromise as part of the European Union thats ok... but to simply follow the americans without thinking will not be popular here. But the german antiamericanism is overstated... we felt with you at 9/11 and now as the shuttle crashed. And many germans are deeply concerned that many americans think that there is no u.s. - german partnership anymore.

As far as ISAF is concerned. Not only did the americans most of the fighting. In fact german paratroopers did none of it. Its a peacekeeping mission. And to this time the german are VERY popular in afghanisthan... much more so than everyone else including americans, brits or russians. We are still are trying to figure out why the afghans like us so much... it beats me. But this can change any time. Fact is that the situation looks now even idyllic... almost too good to be true. It can change any time and then it could get ugly. And Germany is not mentally prepared for lots of bodybags.
(Only exception is KSK... one hears not much from them and what they are doing. I have heard they participated in every operation undertaken by american and british SF-troops in Afghanisthan but that the german ministry of defence did not want this publicised. This could very well be true. The greens for example didn't like the "supersoldiers" from the start... and now a part green government is first sending them out... So one hears only of britsish and american troops conducting this or that operation. Last week I read a short note in a newspaper saying that KSK was involved in a heavy firefight the tuesday before... 18 enemy dead and no friendly losses...end of note... i really hope at least one of those guys writes a book or something one day...)
I want to end this with some rambling about OUR leader chancellor Schröder. I m no friend of him (I voted for the other guy) and he thoroughly is messing things up here. While i still think that war on iraq is making things worse i also do not like the categorical "nein" that came from Schröder at a much too early time. And without asking other europeans. Not very clever. He should learn from Chirac. That's the way you do it.
Last summer.... no this is getting way to long. My fingers hurt i got to stop.
Ok thats it... Although i do not share Your opinion JiJo i appreciate it that you have used your brain before you got it... there are some guys im not sure of that... and that may even include Sean Penn.

Regards

Kitsune













"Only the dead have seen the end of war"

[FallenAngel]

JiJo...you SURE as hell convinced me! :)

And Kitsune....nothing but respect from me for the Germans. Man for man, the Germans have nearly always been better than their allies and enemies. The only real exception was the Cold War years you mentioned where Germany was a expendable bumper for Eat and West both.

the new Lepard 2A6 tanks also look like they could eat an Abrams and spit it out...although technically they are very similar.

That...and this is just personal opinion....a G36K is far superior to the M4 ;)

...let me sum up by saying, if I couldnt be an American....I'd want to be German. Lots of pride you folks have....and it's well earned :)

[JiJoMacLE45]

There is a picture in one of the gallery's I can not remember which one for the life of me, showing KSK operators with some guys from SEAL Team. Might be the German section, might be the SEAL section. ?.

Anyway, don't take my backing of a removal of Saddam from power to be a decry of all the nations who do not want to fight next to us. I can not comment for others, but for myself, I have no ill will towards Germany or any other nation for that matter, for not wanting to commit troops to war against Iraq. We are the ones who feel as though we are threatened and we want to take action. But what bothers me is that you have leaders from these other countries saying we are being overly aggressive and to back off. We've been playing this game for twelve years, Saddam acts up, we try to rally the troops, it gets close to a deadline, then Hussein balks. It is time to put an end to it. We begin a small relief effort, let him sell some oil to help boost his economy and feed his people. What does he do with the money, try to procure WMDs and strengthen his intelligence and military surroundings. Nothing goes to his people who the bleeding hearts say are being hurt by our embargos. Well we have tried to cut them some slack, but get no cooperation. What do they want us to do, have the Marines land and protect the Red Cross while they began distributing food like in Somalia? I don't that would fly.

To be totally honest, I do not want there to be a war. I would like nothing more for then Hussein to say "you know what, I'm done, I'm packing my bags and I'm outta here". If things could be solved through diplomacy so be it, but I think in the case of Iraq, we have already passed the point of no return. That is not to say that we can't iron things out in North Korea through negotiations. Every situation must be dealt with accordingly. Take Libya for example, Qaddaffi acted up, we parked a couple of five hundred pound bombs on his doorstep, not much of a problem since. We handled Noriega differently. He was our lap dog for a while, he began causing trouble, we could not coerce him to stop, so we had to run him into the ground and eventually capture him.

I've said it before, it is a damned if you, damned if you don't situation. We were chastised for not doing something in Rwanda during the fighting between the Tutsis and the Hutus(I think I got the names right), a conflict that had nothing to do with us. But when we want to do something where we feel we are being threatened(Iraq for example) we are called too aggressive and trigger happy.

Your right Kitsune, bad things can come out of war. I'm a little too young, but not by much(26yo) to remember Vietnam, but I have two relatives who fought in the conflict and they still carry the mental scars of that conflict around with them. I can see it in their faces, that feeling of emptiness, that something in their past was incomplete. To me, these men were heroes, men who were willing to fight, and die if need be, to protect the freedom of our nation, and when they returned were spit upon and looked down upon by the country they were supposed to be protecting. That maybe one reason why I get so upset when I see these anti-war protestors and demonstrations. I have no problem with someone opposing the war, that is there perrogative, but remember it is those men and women in uniform who are giving you the right to oppose it. Do not hold them accountable for the orders they are given by the policitians.

What really steams me are the people leading this anti-war movement are jaded to begin with. The majority of these anti-war college students come from afluent, mostly white, upper class families. And these Hollywood types, don't even get me started. They have never had to work for anything. Everything was handed to them. And now when their country, the country that has allowed them to live such a posh lifestyle, decides to deal with a problem that threatens it, it throws a kink into their laid back day.

Any who, look Kitsune, I've enjoyed this back and forth, you actually informed of a few things I was unaware of. I guess the highest compliment I can pay someone is to say that they have earned my respect, and you have definantly earned it. We don't see eye to eye, but that's okay, we both believe in what we say and that is the important thing.

I notice alot of people leave little sayings at the bottom of there posts so I figured I'd add one. There is an old Greek proverb that goes,
'act quickly, think slowly'. Fitting.

[JiJoMacLE45]

Thanks Fallen Angel.

[Vance]

Yea, thanks FA. Being 45% German, that means alot :)

[Kitsune]

:D

[Trigger]

kitsune, chops, others

If I offended any of you Brits, Aussies, or Germans I apologize. That was not my intent. I've got nothing but respect for all of you, your opinions and the sacrifices your respective militaries have made to honor our alliances. This particular subject gets me fired up and the foot dragging by the governments involved pisses me off. I'm no warmonger. I have no desire to see people (ours or theirs) die, but I fear that if we continue to hesitate, one or many of our cities will become a smoking hole in the ground or a mass grave.

[a. enders]

First,I'd like to say that i registered just to throw in my two cents on this thread.Second,I have and always have had nothing but the greatest respect for any military person and am hoping to join the Army soon (gotta work on some things).
That out of the way,current problem within America is everyone ALWAYS blaming someone else for their shortcomings/foul-ups.
Liberals scream death to conservatives and vice-versa.It's ridiculous to accept the party line and think thats the only way of thinking.
To briefly defend Clinton on the Somalia issue,how would you feel if the first you heard about any operation was a phone call to your hotel room telling you 18 American men were killed?
I can understand his willingness to yank our guys out,although I don't exactly agree.
Whining about "communist" 9please,McCarthy is dead,get over it) liberals and "imperialist" (please,Teddy Roosevelt is dead,get over it) conservatives does nothing but feed the bloated media and tangle up our government.
As it stands,I personally think G.W. Bush is a buffoon taking orders from his Dad's previous staff.It just so happenes those orders are generally good.
The war on Iraq,or actually Saddam,is something that should have ended twelve years ago with the marching of American troops through Baghdad to that nutjobs front gate and his subsequent demise.
But,for whatever reason,we stopped.It doesn't matter if it was peacenik liberals,anti-oil hippies,or war-profiteers thinking they got their cash and not caring anymore.
As it stands we left revolutionaries with their ass twisting in the wind,which disgusts me.
I hear the argument of "What if the next dictator of Iraq is another Ayatollah?" or anyother nonsense.To that I say,when we occupied Germany,there wasn't another Hitler,was there?
As for the "radical yuppie" Hollywoodites,they aren't whining when that HUGE movie-check comes in after making that blockbuster war movie are they?

PS-That rant really has nothing to do with common sense does it?
PPS-forgive any bad grammar,misspelling,or generally screwed up sentecnes,I'm posting on an unfamiliar computer and am watching my nephew.

A. Enders

[hood]

As I was sitting under the covers, in a near death state because of this horrible flu I'm suffering from, I listened to Powell's presentation. You can't help but smile whenever you get a little taste of what our intelligence guys are capable of, because you know there's so much more that they're not sharing with you. You always see it on fictional television, but it's 100x better when it's the real thing. Concerning Iran, I think it's the country that we have the least to worry about in relation to Iraq. There's a continuously growing progressive movement going on in Iran that's really starting to take hold. Protests and boycotts against the religious government are starting to have an effect and aren't being tear gased and squashed like they were as little as 2 years ago. To quote the article on CNN: "They hailed the supreme leader's decision on Sunday as a triumph for the freedom of speech and are considering whether to call off their week-long student rallies." Sure it's taking a long time, but with movements like these, a positive outcome is within sight. What's also important is that so many of the people in Iran have money. People in Afghanistan, Iraq, and North Korea have nothing. They've been below dirt poor for so many years, that they have nothing to lose if they go off and help the current evil dictator. Same goes for the people in the Palestinian refugee camps who get recruited by Hamas 24 hours before they're supposed to blow themselves up. I don't think Iran would be willing to have their cities blown up and take mass casualties when their standard of living for so many people is really not that bad. People in Afghanistan would probably think that the Iranian students who are boycotting school are foolish and spoiled... I smile and see it as a means of averting another war.

[Kitsune]

I hope You will be better soon Hood !!!

[Chris]

hi i was 2 days away, i will read the new posts since my last one when i have the time. Will edit this post

[TheReverend]

JiJo!

I agree 100% with what you say :-)

Amen, preach on.

Rev.

[JiJoMacLE45]

Appreciate it Rev.

[Kitsune]

I have just read that the U.S. is withdrawing its last diplomatic personnel from Iraq.


This could be very well the sign that it is staring now.

[Vance]

'The game is over'

[JiJoMacLE45]

I came across this article and figured I'd put it up. Enjoy.

History does not literally repeat itself, but sometimes it comes awfully close. Iraq is not the first dangerous dictatorship that international agreements tried to keep disarmed. Nor is it the first where that effort failed.

Back in the 1930's, Germany's military forces were limited by a ban on conscription, by limitations on the number and kinds of weapons it could have, and by a requirement that it station no troops in its own
industrialized Rhineland. These requirements werein the treaty of Versailles, which ended the First World War.

Demilitarizing the Rhineland was perhaps the crucial provision of these international restrictions. Germany's population and industrial might, together with its strong military traditions and its aggressive
policies which had brought on the First World War, made it the most dangerous nation on the continent of Europe. But it could not attack any other nation when its own industrial heartland was un defendedand
therefore could be quickly seized by French troops, who were just across the Rhine.

Like Saddam Hussein today, Hitler at first pretended to go along with these restrictions, all the while clandestinely building up his military forces. However, this was clandestine only in the sense that
the general public did not know about it. British intelligence was well aware of what he was doing and kept the Prime Minister informed. The real question was whether Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin
wanted to be the one to break the bad news to the British public or whether he would keep quiet, get re-elected, and pass the problem onto his successors -- as Bill Clinton would do in a later
era.

Clinton did a Baldwin.

In later years, Stanley Baldwin tried to justify his inaction:"Supposing I had gone to the country and said that Germany was re-arming, and that we must re-arm, does anybody think that this pacific democracy would have rallied to that cry at that moment? I cannot think of anything that would have made the loss of the election from my point of view more certain."

But this was not just Baldwin's failure or that of his Conservative Party. The Liberal Party in 1935 demanded "clear proof" of a need for re-armament against the Nazis, much as many in politics and the
mediatoday are demanding "clear proof" of a need to act against Saddam Hussein.

Meanwhile the Labour Party was advocating dis-armament and innumerable groups were promoting international agreements and diplomatic exchanges as a substitute for military power. Diplomatic
agreements and arms limitations treaties proliferated throughout the whole period between the two World Wars.

None of this had any practical effect, except to lull the Western democracies into in-action while Germany and Japan rapidly built up their military forces.

Hitler began openly violating the restrictions put on Germany, one at atime, allowing him to gauge what reaction there would be among the Western powers and in the League of Nations. Each violation that he got
away with led him to try another -- and then another.

The key violation -- without which he would not be able to wage war --was moving German troops into the Rhineland in 1936, in open defiance of the treaty of Versailles. Both he and his generals knew that the
French army was so overwhelmingly more powerful at this point that German troops would not have been able to put up even token resistance if France sent its troops in to oust them.

France did nothing. It was the first of many nothings that France did inaseries of crises that led up to World War II.

When Hitler had built up his clandestine forces sufficiently, he simply stopped keeping them secret and confronted the West with enough power that he knew they would not dare to challenge him.

The opportunity to stop him was past. Those who wanted "clear proof" now had it. In just a few years, they would have even clearer proof when the Nazis invaded France and subjugated it in just six weeks -- and
then began bombing London, night after night.

While history does not literally repeat itself, sometimes it comes very close.

[Kitsune]

Puuuh... Careful now JiJo!

It is always a problem with those historical comparisons... Hussein is not Hitler, Iraq not Germany.

For instance... the article states that Germany began WWI. That is rubbish.
WWI (1914-1918) was started through a complex chain of events. the question which nation is guilty the most (Austria, Russia, Germany, France or Great Britain) has been much debated but serious historians came to the conclusion that all of those powers had their part in it. Fact is all wanted this war and all thought that it would be a short and decisive clash. (The Entente nations France, Russia and great Britain knew they outnumbered the germans and thought the austrians as not much of a threat, germany trusted in its superior quality military and thought it coul beat the french and english forces and transport the troops via railway to the russian front. But it did not work. It came to a war at two fronts that took four years and millions of dead. Ironically in 1917 Russia capitulated and Germany transported it troops to France to win there befor U.S. troops stepped in but it was too late.) After the war a very harsh treaty was created. Germany had to take all the blame for the war. It lost all colonies. It had to pay huge sums of reparations (until 1984). Its military was reduced to almost nothing. No tanks, fighter aeroplanes, no warships no submarines were allowed reducing the german army to amere 125000 infantry force. The Elsaß area was lost (taken from the french in 1870 in war in which they stepped in to prevent the reich founding. But it is said that Bismarck at that time provoked the french to attack because he wanted it.) Inshort the treaty castrated and humiliated germany as much as possible and that came to all the suffering of the war. Now... what If? questions are always a problem in history but virtually all historians now agree that without this treaty of Versailles in 1918 there would NEVER BEEN a Hitler. As he came to power (1933) his aim to give germany military power again was hugely popular (remember France and Germany were not friends at the time... they thought of their relationship as being archenemies, so the position of germany with no military allowing the french to invade whenever they pleased was awful for the germans). Besides during the democratic phase of the weimarian republic (1918-1933) germany was isolated in foreign policy. It was kept out of a UN precursor organisation and treated as pariah (the new soviet union was also and this let to a lot of friendly contacts between soviets and germany)
but when hitler had given germany back its army, navy and a new air force germany was agin treated with respect. Foreign diplomat were quite friendly to the nazis and this goes for England and U.S. alike. The olympic games in Germany in 1936 allowed Hitler to show to all the world (and more importantly to the german people) how highly respected he was. Everyone came (the Americans too). Many famous people in England and America said openly that the Nazis are ok even that england/ america can learn a lot of them (For example Henry Ford who liked Hitler much and vice versa... Hitlers "Mein Kampf" was inspired in large parts by a Book of Ford.... its called something like "the Jew in international economy" or so not sure... antisemitism in U.S. at that time is a fact sorry). Of course after WWII started all conveniently forgot how much they had supported Hitler and more so when the german astrocities of the holocaust came out in 1945 (whereas all who had warned that Hitller is dangerous shouted out :"You see? I have said it all along). But if the weimarian republic had been treated with the respect Hitler had later... well its probable that History would have gone a different way.

Now comes the tricky part. Not Germany attacked France... It was the other way round.
Well ok... Its more complicated (of course). Hitler began a series of provocations. He revoked Versailles. Build up military might. He send troops to the demilitarized Rheinland (the industrial heart of germany lying open to french attack since 1918). All this was popular in germany. The foreign powers accepted it because more and more England, the U.S. and France had realized how unfair Versailles was. (And like stated because of sympathy for the nazis...more than they admit today). Then he went further. He sent german troops to spain were faschists were fighting democrats (to help the faschist franco of course). There were german speaking populations in other nations near the border. Hitler said they should be a part of a "greater Germany". So he sent troops to Austria which became part of Germany. Then a part of Chech-Slowekia was swallowed by Germany. All these were international incident in the late thirties that more and more made the other powers realize that Hitler is a problem. This part of Chech Slovekia the Sudetenland was finallly given to Hitler after a big conference in munich in 1938. But he send troops to occupy the whole country! After that war was in the air. But Hitler started another incident about areas of poland he wanted for germany... he did not get them so he invaded Poland in 1939. After that France and Great Britain declared war on Germany. Hitler did not want it at least not at that time. He had hoped that he could get away with it. (The german people did not want it either... in WWI had been so terrible they did not want it again. Neither did the population of France and Great Britain, there was a very depressed mood in Europe at that time). A funny thing (most americans seem not to know it) is that Germany had made an alliance with the soviets just befor, to the horror of everyone. The Nazis had always been mortal enemies of the communists. France and England had seen Nazigermany as a kind of shield against the soviets (another reason for the sympathy towards the nazis) and now both attacked Poland (the germans did most of the fighting but then left the eastern part of poland so that the soviets could take it). But war was only declared on Germany. (Stalin was so impressed with the fast of the germans over poland that he attacked finland in 1940. The soviets conquered it but with huge losses. Still nobody declared war on the soviet union. Later they became even an ally of France, Great Britain and... the U.S.A. Because of the Holocaust? No,noone knew about it until 1945. And Stalin had millions of people killed from 1935 to 1940 in a soviet "Holocaust" (and that WAS known) whereas the german one started in 1942... ok the Nazis had people killed right from the start (1933) but not nearly as much as the soviets. Still "Uncle Joe" as american propaganda called Stalin became the ally... even the american one. Unfair? Politics is unfair and nations have no hearts...only interests. And those interests made Germany the bigger problem to France and Great Britain.)
Now Hitler had his ideas put down in a book "Mein Kampf" written in the 20ties. In it you find his antisemitism, the idea that jews were parasits who had to be exterminated, all that rubbish. In it he stated his idea for war. Aside from being educational ("every generation should have been in a war") he thought that Germany needed space. And he stated that it was a typical german error to fight the western nations france and england (in fact if hitler liked any foreigenrs then the english)... germany should conquer Russia to the Urals. And one can be quite sure that this was what he wanted... so he would probably started a war with the soviet union someday (perhaps 1942 or so). The declaration of war from England and France was not what he had planned...
Another typical misconception people have is that when Germany invaded France in June 1940 that it had an HUGE army whereas the french had to throw flowers or something. Fact (and its true) is that the german army was SMALLER. The French had more troops and a string of HUGE fortresses with big cannon towers, minefields, trenches...the works.
In fact the french thought they would win... and many german generals thought the same... (they even wanted to assassinate Hitler before the german army was destroyed... did not work) But the germans used innovative tactics and had superior troops... france was beaten in 6 weeks with only small losses (compared to WWI). A miracle! The shame of Versailles was redeemed thought many germans (the french were in tears on the streets of paris but the germans thought what the french had thought 1918: "They only got what they deserved!") At that point hitler was a star... he had a incredible string of successes one after one since 1933 (not the least was to bring the economy in order and to defeat unemployment). Now he seemed to be a genius and all who had doubted him (a lot had after the french/english declaration of war) fell silent. (Ah why had he attacked the french and not vice versa? Their strategy was defensive... they wanted to kill the germans with the giant cannon of the maginot-line). The British were also beaten and encircled at dunkirk. and thats another thing... why did they get away? The Germans stopped and 350000 british troops could be evacuated. Most probably Hitler let them go. He may have thought it as a clever "gambit" to make peace with them (because he wanted to make war on the Soviet Union). But it did not work. So he tried threats. Did not work either (Brits can be rather stubborn). So he tried to conquer them. The German Airforce was given the order to destroy the British one so that England could be invaded (and fast please Russia is waiting). At the beiginning of this airwar the germans were in fact forbidden to bomb civilians (you do not believe it? But its true!). Then the British send one Bomber to bomb Berlin. Hitler was so enraged that he now ordered the bombing of british cities (yeah how could they tsss). But the RAF was not beaten. It is even said that the order to bomb english cities was the reason... RAF was on its knees already with german numerical superiority but the bombing of the citiies diverted their power... RAF got strong again and finally got the upper hand) In the end Hitler decided to leave England alone... and invaded Russia. He thought that the Wehrmacht would accomplish it in one year (with the new blitzkrieg tactic). It nearly did. But a near miss still is not a hit (german proverb). The war got long and longer and finally america came in....yeah well the rest is history (my fingers hurt).

This WWII history is what i have found out (as a german being interseted in the bloodtrnched hostory of my country). It is of course a view but i have trie to be as neutral as possible because I wanted the TRUTH
fot myself not propaganda. (And all sites made propaganda, the english, the americans, the soviets and of course the germans. The german one is worst. During the war Hitler was depicted as demigod and genius... nazi lore was right and true... after it hitler became a demonprince. To state ANYTHING positive about him (for example that he could paint or something) about the governement or the german military was frowned upon. So for example the story of dunkirk... that Hitler let them go... well german hirstorians hesitated along time to say this... and the brits do not like it either. But i have read a lot of stuff about it...it seems to be true. But be warned this one will be contested by some).

Asides from a history lession :roll: I just wanted to say that one should be extremely careful to compare different historic situations from different times... its often done (mostly to justify something) and nearly always wrong.

Thank You for reading this !!!!!!!

[punkindrublic]

Ok, I am bored tonight and a friend of mine sent me a link to this thread. So being who I am and after reading through most of it, I decided to register just to post this reply. Sorry if this this gets a little long, but I feel it has to be said.

Right, I have heard just about as much of this right-wing nationalism as I can stand. I am a strong liberal/anarchist. I really couldn't care less if I get flammed horribbly for this, do you worst because I will most likely never visit this forum again. Bush is a facist. He institution of policies such as The Patriot Act further prove this. He says that any american citizen tied to bin laden or his network is entitled to be exterminated by the CIA. If this is true then bush and his entire family are entitled be shot on the spot. Both bush and his father had strong ties to the now deceased Salem Bin-Laden. As said by VOX, "By the administration’s own policy, both Bushes must be immediately destroyed. No trial, no explanation, no warning - Just immediate obliteration.

According to White House officials the President’s policy is that “association” alone, with ANY suspected Al Queda or terrorist, is sufficient enough justification for immediate extermination by the CIA or US military.


Yet there is NO other family in America today who has had closer ties with the Bin Ladens than the Bush family. And that bears repeating.


THERE IS NO OTHER FAMILY IN AMERICA WHICH HAS HAD CLOSER ASSOCIATIONS AND SUSPICIOUS DEALINGS WITH THE BIN LADEN FAMILY THAN GEORGE BUSH SENIOR AND JUNIOR. NO OTHER AMERICANS! Period. Prove us wrong . . . "


by voxfux
I Completly agree with this statement. Shortly after publishing this article voxfux's house was raided by the FBI and local police. No warrent, No reason other then he was speaking out against Bush. If that isn't a display of facism I dont know what is. Bush wants oil, plain and simple. He wants to be popular with the american masses. Bush and his staff even critized the great Nelson Mandela for his comments against the war with iraq. I fully, 100% support every liberal and anti-war "yuppie" as you so kindly refer to them as. My belief is this government should be over thrown and totally redesigned. That way I wont have to worry about the feds breaking down my door because I do not like they way george bush handles things. Thats all cuz I'm going to bed because I'm going to a show tomorrow night.

Red White and BullSh**

Proud Supporter of
www.raisethefist.com

Down with capatlist Pigs.

[Kitsune]

Yeah well....


:roll:

[FallenAngel]

obviously Punk is a immature little **** who has never taken a US history or US government class in his entire existance.

You ignorant f*ck...the mere fact that you could come here, openly trash this country, its leader (hey...no one's perfect...times change) and indirectly every civil servant and serviceman that supports it makes you a hypocrit.

If this was a truly facist country...someone would track your IP address, break down your door, and hawl you off in some unmarked van never to be seen or heard from again for saying that.

But that doesn't happen. Why? Because about 225 years ago, some conservative Americans stood up for what they believed in. They fought the greatest super-power on the face of the damn planet for those beliefs.

Since then, tens of millions have served and hundreds of thousands have died to protect those beliefs and give them to others who WERE under facists regimes.

Sadly...the world today is full of self-rightous, ignorant assholes like you who want THEIR way...screw what's good for the rest of humanity. These fools actually DO bring down governments and kill innocents due to their own ignorance and narrow-mindedness. If people like them (and you) weren't around, we'd all be living comfortably and without a whole lot of conflict in the world.

However, they do exist- you're living proof- and you deserved to be crushed by every red-blooded and patriotic American (Liberal or Conservative) for the **** you just said.

just my 2 cents on YOU :)

[a. enders]

United against stupidity and ignorance.Right FA?
Heh.

;)

Enders

[FallenAngel]

hell yes. I hate these anarchists pricks....especially when they dont even realize that there are men willing to lay down their lives to allow them to be anarchist pricks. :fork:

....but i *DO* feel sorta stupid posting this because like 2 minutes later I saw the thread for trashing this guy :cantbeli:

[a. enders]

Ah,give him a break.He's a 14 y/o who saw that SLC Punk! movie and thought anarchism sounded good.If he really were a punk,he'd be too poor (NOT an insult as most "true" punks give their cash to charity) to have a comp or net connection,and he'd be dropping band names no one outside his city/town has ever hear of.
Poor sod.So willing to blindly follow he forgot the prime punk rule:question everything and destroy the rest.

;)

A. Enders

[ajk]

Stalin was so impressed with the fast of the germans over poland that he attacked finland in 1940. The soviets conquered it but with huge losses.

While this is an old thread and I have no special interest in bringing it up again, I felt someone needs to correct this particular detail.

Finland was NOT conquered by the Soviet Union or anyone else during WW II. While Finland did have to give in in the end, the lost land area was only about 10%, not the entire country.

In fact, Helsinki is the only capital of the European countries participating in the war in addition to London and Moscow that wasn't taken over.

Later on in the war Finland took the lost area back, held it for some years, but had to give in again after the Russians attacked with huge numbers. Greatly simplified, but since this is mostly off-topic I'll leave the details to be checked elsewhere.

[ST4]

Main Point

We still need to get Osama and his network. Since we dont hear it too often now, why the **** isnt the main goal Afghanistan? I hear too much about Saddam and his "WMD." People, how was he a threat? Seriously? Yes, he was a burtal dictator who killed over thirty years, but justifying the war with WMD doesn't cut it. With Task Force 121, get Force Recon and SEAL sniper teams covertly into Pakistan. In this war, we need to fight dirty. Sorry Pakistan, we are going after terrorists with or without your approval.

Lets compare WMD threats:

Iraq - Still NO WMD found after 9 months

NORTH KOREA - Nuclear reactors processing spent fuel rods

When Bush decleared his Axis of Evil, North Korea was the main threat, but stupid monkey Bush. If he wants to find WMD, there they are... in NORTH KOREA. He says Iraq is a threat with WMD, but no evidence found. Now, look at North Korea, spend fuel rods being processed. There are those WMD. Is Bush blinded or something? :cantbeli:

Iraq was no threat. COME ON! After the Gulf War, Saddam lost pretty much all of his offensive weapons. Now, Americans are dying for NO CAUSE in site, just like Vietnam. It is cool to see Task Force 121 get the job done. I am NOT ragging on the American military (I want a career as either a Naval officer, an Air Force officer, or a job in the NSA).

[Vance]

So what the hell do you want us to do? Invade f*cking North Korea? Are you mad? We ARE using diplomacy with them, but they keep wanting to blackmail us.

[WARPIG]

No kidding. Republic of Korea has been working on peace with the North for years. We have troops there to support their lead. ROK has been a tremendous ally to the US for decades. We will support them for as long as it takes. If that means militarily.. then so be it. For now we are letting the Asian countries deal with North Korea. It is enough that we openly denounce them for their weapons dealings. If we do more we open ourslelves to letting them negotiate money from us to stop selling/builidng weapons.

People need to stop taking headline blurbs and soundbytes to form an opinion on. Take a look at the big frigging picture. The US is the biggest dog on the block. We are the best suited to do the dirty work, are asked to do it often, and criticised by the same people who asked for help just a few years ago.
It is easy to criticise from the safety of apathy. There is no risk of failure if you don't act.

[ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð]

Well nice to see this discussion was rather productive for once. Theres a few things I'd like to discuss though.

I agree'd with the decision of going to war with Saddams regime. Was he the most dangerous in the middle east? Personally I think Iran and Syria pose more of a threat, but hey thats just me.

The main goal now should be stabilizing Iraq and Afghanistan. In Afghanistan there has been alot of remaining taliban/al-queda resistance attacks lately, and in Iraq the question still remains will there still be resistance attacks continueing after saddam has been captured.

Its along road ahead, if I'm lucky I will get healthy and join up the Canadian armed forces and do my part. The only thing that bothers me about it is that people take things for granted, just remeber who's out ther e putting there ass on the line so you can sit n live comfortablly in your condo.

[Trigger]

I agree'd with the decision of going to war with Saddams regime. Was he the most dangerous in the middle east?
He was obviously weakened by years of sanctions as has been discussed elsewhere, but...these other countries that may be bigger threats have been put on notice by our actions, wouldn't you agree?
Don't you think Iran is thinking twice about it's future actions?
Look what Libya just did. I firmly believe that was a direct result of the Iraq war.
Sometimes you don't punch the biggest threat in the nose to get the desired results.

[usa320]

AMen to this thread!

woot

read: ****mus, go screw yourself.

[Armour recon]

Main Point

We still need to get Osama and his network. Since we dont hear it too often now, why the f*** isnt the main goal Afghanistan?
Lets compare WMD threats:


Exactly!

[Armour recon]

Stalin was so impressed with the fast of the germans over poland that he attacked finland in 1940. The soviets conquered it but with huge losses.

In fact, Helsinki is the only capital of the European countries participating in the war in addition to London and Moscow that wasn't taken over.

Later on in the war Finland took the lost area back, held it for some years, but had to give in again after the Russians attacked with huge numbers. Greatly simplified, but since this is mostly off-topic I'll leave the details to be checked elsewhere.


From my point of view Russians were defeated. They failed what they were ordered to do!

[MEGR]

BUSH NEVER SAID IRAQ WAS AN IMMINENT THREAT!

[Trigger]

Main Point

We still need to get Osama and his network. Since we dont hear it too often now, why the f*** isnt the main goal Afghanistan?
Lets compare WMD threats:


Exactly!
Who the f*** said Afghanistan isn't a 'main' goal?
Did any of you know about the Libyan situation that had been ongoing for over 9 months? No you didn't. Why? Because none of you are 'in the loop' but you assume that because it's not printed in 3 inch tall letters in the daily paper that we've somehow 'forgotten' about Afghanistan. Speculation is great as long as you go about it in a logical manner.

[budanski]

Who the f*** said Afghanistan isn't a 'main' goal?
Did any of you know about the Libyan situation that had been ongoing for over 9 months? No you didn't. Why? Because none of you are 'in the loop' but you assume that because it's not printed in 3 inch tall letters in the daily paper that we've somehow 'forgotten' about Afghanistan. Speculation is great as long as you go about it in a logical manner.

Its true:
Trigger drops bombs like Hiroshima!!!

[California Joe]

Everytime I read the title of this thread it reminds me of the Klan guy on Howard Stern saying "Wake Up White People"

Carrion.

[WARPIG]

If your only view of the world is through the media and what little you see from the window... your safe to criticise those on the outside dealing with the world.
If you instead choose to stay within the safety of apathy and criticise the rest.. you're doomed to your own ignorance. Hmm .. I guess mediocrity has it's followers too.

[Skaman]

I am at a loss as there is far too much to say. But here, eat up: food for thought.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=473738

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/17/eveningnews/main589137.shtml

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/18/politics/18PREX.html?ex=1072328400&en=c5771a47d543e4cc&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

[NcDeuce]

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/sucks1.jpg