The land of the free?

[Skaman]

Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The American constitution created freedom. But what about slaves, was the American constitution one big falsification? Well yes, thus the reason the civil war broke out-human rights in the name of abolitionist slavery. Where these the reasons for the civil war? Was the North truly pushed forward by a moral fabric to make a better America for African American slaves? Hmm, I learned an interesting detail concerning the motivation of the civil war.

The post Revolutionary war period in America was a time of sectional dispute and disagreement concerning division of power among the federalists and anti-federalists. While the North industrialized, the South maintained its economic lifeline from tobacco and cotton, both monopolized by the use of slaves. Did the North truly want to end slavery, or were economic actions more prevalent. Apparently, the North saw the south as a detriment far too reliant on slave labor and agricultural crop commodities, and if these crops did happen to fail, or slavery did in fact continue, the Unified America would be struck a horrible economic blow and viewed upon the World as a nation lacking a strong moral fabric which they tried to embody with the Constitution. Was this expected to be taken seriously? Did American fight for the rights of slaves, or simply a stronger unified nation where African slaves would not be necessary. This is an interesting premise, thoughts?


Number 2. Anyone heard of the Monroe Doctrine?

Created in 1823 by President Munroe, it details four principles

1.American continent is closed to further European colonization.

2.Poliitcal system of Americas are separate to those in Europe.

3.Us would consider dangerous to its peace and safety any attempts to extend Europe’s political influence into the Western hemisphere.

4.U.S would neither interfere with existing colonies in the New World nor in European affairs.

Why were Presidents in the post Munroe period not responsible to this Doctrine, and if broken, why was it not justified? Was the Munroe doctrine simply "brushed" under the carpet?

Thoughts anyone? I would like to know.

[Whistler]

Like any other war I'm sure there were plenty of reasons behind it. Pinning it on one thing never generally works out.

It also probably depends on whos point of view its from. They are all dead now, but I'm sure if you brought a union regiment back to life and asked them what they were fighting for their answers would be as varied and their backgrounds and upbringings.

[Vance]

Simple, we didn't want to get taken over by another country, and we made it damn clear.

[ilxAudrey]

Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
4.U.S would neither interfere with existing colonies in the New World nor in European affairs.


This is the truth.

If only we had embraced isolationism (or at least, a strict policy of non-intervention) from the start, we wouldn't be bogged down by this ridiculous War on Terror. We wouldn't have bothered with Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq (again), Vietnam, Korea, WWII, WWI, etc.

We need to stop interfering with the affairs of the outside world.

[Skaman]

Simple, we didn't want to get taken over by another country, and we made it damn clear.


It really is not that simplistic. Some catalyst must come first before fear of war arises and the ideal of-


Simple, we didn't want to get taken over by another country, and we made it damn clear

[Skaman]

Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
4.U.S would neither interfere with existing colonies in the New World nor in European affairs.


This is the truth.

If only we had embraced isolationism (or at least, a strict policy of non-intervention) from the start, we wouldn't be bogged down by this ridiculous War on Terror. We wouldn't have bothered with Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq (again), Vietnam, Korea, WWII, WWI, etc.

We need to stop interfering with the affairs of the outside world.


Fair enough. Yet what happened to the doctrine? Was it just forgotten?

[ilxAudrey]

Fair enough. Yet what happened to the doctrine? Was it just forgotten?

No. It was simply passed over. High ideals will always be sacrificed upon the altar of power.

[Whistler]

As for the Monroe doctrine, they did stick to it pretty damn long, thats why everybody complains about the US joining WW2 late. They were having HUGE internal debates on whether to mind their own business and let Europe deal with Europe, or join in and fight the good fight. You think the debates over Iraq were a big deal, they were nothing compared to the ones back then.

Eventually the Americans realized (with the help of a few Japanese bombs) the global scale of the war and that they couldn't stay out forever.

[ChuckThunder]

Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
4.U.S would neither interfere with existing colonies in the New World nor in European affairs.


This is the truth.

If only we had embraced isolationism (or at least, a strict policy of non-intervention) from the start, we wouldn't be bogged down by this ridiculous War on Terror. We wouldn't have bothered with Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq (again), Vietnam, Korea, WWII, WWI, etc.

We need to stop interfering with the affairs of the outside world.


Fair enough. Yet what happened to the doctrine? Was it just forgotten?

First, we didn't start anything. Second, if we remained isolationists we'd be critized as much as we are now and Europe would be full of Communism/Nazis and there would no such thing as Arabs...

About the Monroe Doctrine... Its in our back pocket. Remember Grenada?

So ducimus, shove your thumb up your ass and carry on with whatever you do. Just some thoughts...

[Seiyuuki]

Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The American constitution created freedom. But what about slaves, was the American constitution one big falsification? Well yes, thus the reason the civil war broke out-human rights in the name of abolitionist slavery. Where these the reasons for the civil war? Was the North truly pushed forward by a moral fabric to make a better America for African American slaves? Hmm, I learned an interesting detail concerning the motivation of the civil war.

The Founders were more interested in the formation of the United States of America, to bring up the controversial issue of slavery would definitely destroy any progress made by the Constitution. It was a sacrifice for a better future for the United States of America.

Written words by some of the Founders expressed this concern and hope that the future will bring an end to slavery, but for the moment, their only concern is the formation of the new nation.

End slavery now and let the dream of a United States of America die or have the United States of American now then work to end slavery later.

It is a misconception for the little kiddies, for a college student, it is a uneducated perception that slavery was a major factor that started the Civil War. The war did not "broke out-human rights in the name of abolitionist slavery," there were many factors leading up to it...including the old debate of states' government vs. the federal government, economics, of courese, it was illegal in accordance to the Constitution to break from the Union, etc. The issue of slavery was miniscule and did not become prominent until later, else, the Emancipation Proclamation would have been introduce in the beginning of the war.

The Civil War was the preservation of the Union at any cost, Lincoln said it himself (this is not the exact words, but you'll get the idea), "If I could free the slave the save the Union, then I would do both, but if I have to choose, then save the Union I will ."


The post Revolutionary war period in America was a time of sectional dispute and disagreement concerning division of power among the federalists and anti-federalists. While the North industrialized, the South maintained its economic lifeline from tobacco and cotton, both monopolized by the use of slaves. Did the North truly want to end slavery, or were economic actions more prevalent. Apparently, the North saw the south as a detriment far too reliant on slave labor and agricultural crop commodities, and if these crops did happen to fail, or slavery did in fact continue, the Unified America would be struck a horrible economic blow and viewed upon the World as a nation lacking a strong moral fabric which they tried to embody with the Constitution. Was this expected to be taken seriously? Did American fight for the rights of slaves, or simply a stronger unified nation where African slaves would not be necessary. This is an interesting premise, thoughts?


Number 2. Anyone heard of the Monroe Doctrine?

Created in 1823 by President Munroe, it details four principles

1.American continent is closed to further European colonization.

2.Poliitcal system of Americas are separate to those in Europe.

3.Us would consider dangerous to its peace and safety any attempts to extend Europe’s political influence into the Western hemisphere.

4.U.S would neither interfere with existing colonies in the New World nor in European affairs.

It was not created by President Monroe, it bear his name because the document was finalized and came into effect during his presidency.


Why were Presidents in the post Munroe period not responsible to this Doctrine, and if broken, why was it not justified? Was the Munroe doctrine simply "brushed" under the carpet?

Thoughts anyone? I would like to know.

There was also "Teddy" Roosevelt's Doctrine, the Kennedy's Doctrine...every presidency have their own doctrine, the Monroe's Doctrine was merely Monroes' isolationist foreign policies and he started a nice trend. The document is not godly like the Constitution. Now, it is the Bush's Doctrine.



There should be an emoticon for *sigh* and this is suppose to be college level work?

[ilxAudrey]

As for the Monroe doctrine, they did stick to it pretty damn long, thats why everybody complains about the US joining WW2 late. They were having HUGE internal debates on whether to mind their own business and let Europe deal with Europe, or join in and fight the good fight. You think the debates over Iraq were a big deal, they were nothing compared to the ones back then.

Eventually the Americans realized (with the help of a few Japanese bombs) the global scale of the war and that they couldn't stay out forever.

We had no business fighting that war. The United States' reckless policy of sending weapons to the British and the Russians, while provoking Japan with a disastrous oil embargo was a crime against the American people.

[DE_Six]

Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The American constitution created freedom. But what about slaves, was the American constitution one big falsification? Well yes, thus the reason the civil war broke out-human rights in the name of abolitionist slavery. Where these the reasons for the civil war? Was the North truly pushed forward by a moral fabric to make a better America for African American slaves? Hmm, I learned an interesting detail concerning the motivation of the civil war.

The post Revolutionary war period in America was a time of sectional dispute and disagreement concerning division of power among the federalists and anti-federalists. While the North industrialized, the South maintained its economic lifeline from tobacco and cotton, both monopolized by the use of slaves. Did the North truly want to end slavery, or were economic actions more prevalent. Apparently, the North saw the south as a detriment far too reliant on slave labor and agricultural crop commodities, and if these crops did happen to fail, or slavery did in fact continue, the Unified America would be struck a horrible economic blow and viewed upon the World as a nation lacking a strong moral fabric which they tried to embody with the Constitution. Was this expected to be taken seriously? Did American fight for the rights of slaves, or simply a stronger unified nation where African slaves would not be necessary. This is an interesting premise, thoughts?


Number 2. Anyone heard of the Monroe Doctrine?

Created in 1823 by President Munroe, it details four principles

1.American continent is closed to further European colonization.

2.Poliitcal system of Americas are separate to those in Europe.

3.Us would consider dangerous to its peace and safety any attempts to extend Europe’s political influence into the Western hemisphere.

4.U.S would neither interfere with existing colonies in the New World nor in European affairs.

Why were Presidents in the post Munroe period not responsible to this Doctrine, and if broken, why was it not justified? Was the Munroe doctrine simply "brushed" under the carpet?

Thoughts anyone? I would like to know.

What the ...? You just had you first history class or what? This is basic stuff, it didn't even made it in my Cegep's "American History" exam back then.
Hey, it's a doctrine, not a law. It was implemented first in a time where European powers like Spain still had the power to interfere with nascent America's development . Nothing forced any subsequent administrations to go by it, it's only a doctrine, and a timely one then, not now. Why should have Roosevelt or Kennedy bothered with Spanish expansionism in latin America?

Second, about the true reasons of the Civil war...come on. This is common knowledge, it holds no controversy at all and what exactly are you trying to do by posting this? Trolling?

[Skaman]

[quote=ilxAudrey][quote=ducimus19]Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
4.U.S would neither interfere with existing colonies in the New World nor in European affairs.


This is the truth.

If only we had embraced isolationism (or at least, a strict policy of non-intervention) from the start, we wouldn't be bogged down by this ridiculous War on Terror. We wouldn't have bothered with Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq (again), Vietnam, Korea, WWII, WWI, etc.

We need to stop interfering with the affairs of the outside world.







About the Monroe Doctrine... Its in our back pocket. Remember Grenada?

Why were Presidents in the post Munroe period not responsible to this Doctrine, and if broken, why was it not justified?

[Salty Dog]

you can't please everyone! :)

[James]

Re: the American Civil War - the North went to war to preserve the Union, not to end slavery. It is important to recall that the emancipation proclamation wasn't issued until 1863, more than 18 months after the war started. I seem to recall (I wish I had a reference for this) that President Lincol said, before the war started, that he was willing to see slavery remain in the South if the Union could be preserved.
The South went to war to preserve state's rights. One might argue that it was the birth of the modern United States. Before 1861, "States" was plural. After 1865, "States" was seen more as a single entity.

[ilxAudrey]

First, we didn't start anything. Second, if we remained isolationists we'd be critized as much as we are now and Europe would be full of Communism/Nazis and there would no such thing as Arabs...


1. To Hell with Europe. Criticism is cheap. 500,000 American lives are not.

2. What happens in Europe should be of no concern to us. They're responsible for their continent, we are not.

[Operation Ivy]

As for the Monroe doctrine, they did stick to it pretty damn long, thats why everybody complains about the US joining WW2 late. They were having HUGE internal debates on whether to mind their own business and let Europe deal with Europe, or join in and fight the good fight. You think the debates over Iraq were a big deal, they were nothing compared to the ones back then.

Eventually the Americans realized (with the help of a few Japanese bombs) the global scale of the war and that they couldn't stay out forever.

We had no business fighting that war. The United States' reckless policy of sending weapons to the British and the Russians, while provoking Japan with a disastrous oil embargo was a crime against the American people.

I may be reading this wrong,but did u say we shouldnt have been in WWII?

[Seiyuuki]

As for the Monroe doctrine, they did stick to it pretty damn long, thats why everybody complains about the US joining WW2 late. They were having HUGE internal debates on whether to mind their own business and let Europe deal with Europe, or join in and fight the good fight. You think the debates over Iraq were a big deal, they were nothing compared to the ones back then.

Eventually the Americans realized (with the help of a few Japanese bombs) the global scale of the war and that they couldn't stay out forever.

We had no business fighting that war. The United States' reckless policy of sending weapons to the British and the Russians, while provoking Japan with a disastrous oil embargo was a crime against the American people.

"Evil triumph when good men do nothing."

You white people (written with an imply sense of humor) intrigue me. On one hand, Europeans bitch and whine about how the American came late in the war to help...and now you are bitching and whining about how they should have stay isolated.

[ilxAudrey]

I may be reading this wrong,but did u say we shouldnt have been in WWII?

That is exactly what I am saying.

[James]

Why were Presidents in the post Munroe period not responsible to this Doctrine, and if broken, why was it not justified?


As stated earlier, it was simply a doctrine, and not anything that the U.S. Congress passed into Law.

It was appropriate in 1803, when the U.S. was an infant of a nation. After the experiences of the 20th Century (namely the two World Wars and the Cold War) it is a very dated and unrealistic policy to abide by. Let's take a rather simple view of things in the 20th century.

America chooses isolationism. World War One. We eventually join. Versailles leaves a very, very bad taste in our mouth.

America returns to a degree of isolationism. Screw Europe. Screw the old world.

World War Two begins. The U.S. becomes involved. After victory, I think the attitude was "Never Again". I believe that this is why the Cold War was "Cold" and not "Hot".

Anyway, that's my 2c.

[ilxAudrey]

"Evil triumph when good men do nothing."

You white people (written with an imply sense of humor) intrigue me. On one hand, Europeans bitch and whine about how the American came late in the war to help...and now you are bitching and whining about how they should have stay isolated.

1. I am not white.
2. I prefer to think of my posts as pissing and moaning, not bitching and whining.

[ilxAudrey]

Eh, that war ended almost sixty years ago. Kind of pointless to argue about it, no?

Then it's kind of silly to argue about the Monroe Doctrine, no?

[ibstolidude]

Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
4.U.S would neither interfere with existing colonies in the New World nor in European affairs.


This is the truth.

If only we had embraced isolationism (or at least, a strict policy of non-intervention) from the start, we wouldn't be bogged down by this ridiculous War on Terror. We wouldn't have bothered with Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq (again), Vietnam, Korea, WWII, WWI, etc.

We need to stop interfering with the affairs of the outside world.
Fair enough. Yet what happened to the doctrine? Was it just forgotten?
stagnation = death
doctrine changes...

After all the famous series "Roots" was based on Canadian Slavery..
Canadians continued with slavery after the American Civil War.
After a term, Canadians did not refer to the term "slave", as it was potentially controversial with the United States, and therefore referred to the term "servant." A popular impression that the first slaves in Canada were introduced into the Maritimes Provinces by the Loyalists, in 1783, is false. Historical records indicated that slavery was established in Quebec, by the French, through a royal mandate issued by Louis XIV in 1689.

This mandate not only gave permission to "Canadians to avail themselves of the services of African slaves", but declared as well that all negroes who had been so bought or held should belong to the person so owning them, in full proprietorship. This system was given further legal recognition through a number of royal declarations regarding slavery and slaves in 1721, 1742 and 1745, making it possible for slaves to be listed often with "effects and merchandise in parish records, legal notices and the official documents of the times.

After all Canadian Slavery was not abolished untill 01 August 1834. Many of the Northern states of the US had abolished slavery

[James]

Eh, that war ended almost sixty years ago. Kind of pointless to argue about it, no?

Then it's kind of silly to argue about the Monroe Doctrine, no?

Well, I thought I was providing a brief history lesson, not arguing with anyone. Ducimus asked a question, and I answered it.

Anyway...

[Operation Ivy]

I may be reading this wrong,but did u say we shouldnt have been in WWII?

That is exactly what I am saying.

So when Japan killed almost 3000 soliders we were just supposed to sit back and accept that? :roll:

[ilxAudrey]

So when Japan killed almost 3000 soliders we were just supposed to sit back and accept that? :roll:

Pearl Harbor would not have happened had we not provoked the Axis powers.

I am certainly not saying that, after Pearl Harbor, the United States should not have responded to Japan and Germany's declarations of war with a declaration of its own.

I am saying that we should not have been involved in the first place.

[ibstolidude]

Hey the Candaian Doctrine in relation to the war in IRaq had previously been to oppose military action without the approval of the UN!

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030314.wdefe0314/BNStory/National

Hey what the fuuuck!!!!



Why were PMs in the post Cretin period not responsible to this Doctrine, and if broken, why was it not justified?

Or could it be that doctrine is constantly evolving?
Doctrine is a policy not a statute or legal code (in the use of the political arena). To whom would it be "justified". As if a country, based upon their doctrine, was bound to act in a specific manner.

[Operation Ivy]

So when Japan killed almost 3000 soliders we were just supposed to sit back and accept that? :roll:

Pearl Harbor would not have happened had we not provoked the Axis powers.

I am certainly not saying that, after Pearl Harbor, the United States should not have responded to Japan and Germany's declarations of war with a declaration of its own.

I am saying that we should not have been involved in the first place.

ic :D

[Skaman]

There should be an emoticon for *sigh* and this is suppose to be college level work?

-How very pompous of you. I am not an expert In all fields of History and am still learning. Hence the reason students attend college, or did you forget that? Additionally, I am not sure what you are referring to in particular. Of course the civil war was an amalgamation of many factors yet our discussion today focused on this aspect of economics not a moral fabric which is a common pre-conception, reason why I chose to repost it here.


What the ...? You just had you first history class or what? This is basic stuff

Yes, it is basic yet nonetheless pivotal to an American history class and important to discuss. I am sure many are aware of the doctrine, yet analyzing, interpreting and thorough discussions are not common among rudimentary grade school or entry level University courses.

[Skaman]

So when Japan killed almost 3000 soliders we were just supposed to sit back and accept that? :roll:

Pearl Harbor would not have happened had we not provoked the Axis powers.

I am certainly not saying that, after Pearl Harbor, the United States should not have responded to Japan and Germany's declarations of war with a declaration of its own.

I am saying that we should not have been involved in the first place.


America could not possibly exist as an isolationist nation and hope to hold its firm grasp as a super power nation. Unfortunately, its efforts to do so have spawned countless conflicts throughout the world. America could have remained within the confines of North America yet countless nations would fall victim to industrial might and military corrupt nations bent on supremacy. There are pros and cons to both aspects of involvement and non-involvement. Perhaps the best course of action would have been to choose a fine line between the two.

[army cadet_ngcsu]

Well, in one hand many Americans think that we've done alot for the world and the improved standards of living tremendously. We've rebuilt MOST of Europe twice in one century and have put down many totalitarian movements that were very harmful to the world. On the other hand we've facilitated some movements that have come back to bite us in the ass. Not to get off topic but I believe that there were many reasons for the Civil War, but the main factor was slavery. The way how the North and South was divided, how Maine was traded off and made a free state instead of a slave state, and also a lot of the interest groups that contributed heavily in the Republican Party. After reviewing the subject carefully the economic risks far outweighed any justifications to go to war just simply over money. In regards to the Monroe Doctrine, how do you think that all of those Latin American and South American countries still retained their independence while other nations like China were resisting European colonization into the late 1900's. I also remember reading about a dispute between Great Britian and Venezuala about land bordering Great Britian's Guyana in which the US declared that a move on Venezuala would be a move on us, the settlement was resolved peacefully and is attributed to the US.

[ilxAudrey]

America could not possibly exist as an isolationist nation and hope to hold its firm grasp as a super power nation.

This is exactly my point. There's no reason for us to be a "super power." It has nothing to do with protecting the Constitution or the rights and liberties of the American people.

If our industrial/technological might alone is enough to make us the world's only true power, then I have no problem with it. We both know, however, that this is not the case.


America could have remained within the confines of North America yet countless nations would fall victim to industrial might and military corrupt nations bent on supremacy.

Unless these corrupt nations threaten our existence, we should not concern ourselves with their actions.



Perhaps the best course of action would have been to choose a fine line between the two.

I don't believe that's possible.

[usa320]

We had no business fighting that war. The United States' reckless policy of sending weapons to the British and the Russians, while provoking Japan with a disastrous oil embargo was a crime against the American people.

Wait, so the unprovoked attack on pearl Harbor that took the lives of 3,000 Americans, and the systematic, brutal and gross slaughter, rape and torture of the people of Europe is not a reason to go to war?

Whatever ****wad wrote the above quoted line needs to talk to some Jewish folks who spent some time in a Nazi camp, or go tell the son of a sailor who was killed at Pearl Harbor the exact same thing he posted.

THIS FORUM IS GOING TO HELL I SWEAR. IT STARTED OUT AS A DECENT PLACE TO DISCUSS MILITARY THINGS. NOW IT SEEMS 3/4'S OF THE PEOPLE WHO POST HERE POST HERE TO MOCK THOSE WHO HAVE THE BALLS TO FIGHT IN WAR. MERE TROLLS.

Sometimes i wonder why hood even bothers. There are only about a handful of folks here that even appreciate the hard work him and Beowulf put into keeping this site running, more or less controlling the trolling, pimply faced, airsofting, counterstrike playing, post-pubescent-punks.

[Skaman]

America could not possibly exist as an isolationist nation and hope to hold its firm grasp as a super power nation.

This is exactly my point. There's no reason for us to be a "super power." It has nothing to do with protecting the Constitution or the rights and liberties of the American people.

If our industrial/technological might alone is enough to make us the world's only true power, then I have no problem with it. We both know, however, that this is not the case.


America could have remained within the confines of North America yet countless nations would fall victim to industrial might and military corrupt nations bent on supremacy.

Unless these corrupt nations threaten our existence, we should not concern ourselves with their actions.



Perhaps the best course of action would have been to choose a fine line between the two.

I don't believe that's possible.


I agree with you in these aspects. "The fine line between the two" is in reference to a similar statement you made:

Unless these corrupt nations threaten our existence, we should not concern ourselves with their actions.



As long as Nations push forward to be the top dog, and as long as America pushes buttons, the domino will continue, and the USA will forever be entrenched in a conflict they cannot shake.


interests in S.Pacific --->conflict with Japan----->outbreak of war---->war with Germany----->(creation of Israel)(conflict with Russia)----->(cold war)(me crisis)----->spread of communism in competition with capitalism----->Vietnam----->arms race------>technological race--->race to horde oil-------->interests in middle east------>American animosity---->ME conflict------>terror attacks----->etc.



This is very broad, but you get the idea.

[ilxAudrey]

Wait, so the unprovoked attack on pearl Harbor that took the lives of 3,000 Americans...

It was not unprovoked.


...and the systematic, brutal and gross slaughter, rape and torture of the people of Europe is not a reason to go to war?

No, it is not.


Whatever ****wad wrote the above quoted line needs to talk to some Jewish folks who spent some time in a Nazi camp...

Or I could talk to some Rwandans, Cambodians, Tibetans ... you get the idea. Why didn't we go to war on their behalf?


...or go tell the son of a sailor who was killed at Pearl Harbor the exact same thing he posted.

I lost many family members in WWII. This is one of the reasons I believe we should not have been involved in the first place.

[usa320]

It hurts. It really hurts me inside.

Thousands of men gave their lives. Hundreds of thousands if not millions served. I happened to be related to a few of those good men. Both my grandfathers served. One was with the mechanized units that landed on Omaha beach. He spent many years over there. Fighting. My other grandfather worked communications in both the pacific and european theatres. He spent time away from family as well. I had an uncle that flew B-52's over vietnam, and relatives over in Iraq, serving as figher pilots and with the 82nd airborne division.

And i wonder. Why?

Good men know why. Good men with good hearts and minds know that these men spend time away from their family, there home, everything that is convinient to them. They put themselves in harms way, and they deal with much stress and danger. They work longer shifts than most people here would ever work. At night. In the ****tiest conditions imaginable. But they DO IT. Do they do it so ten years later some little punk can bitch that the sacrifice they made was useless and unimportant? DO they do it to protect those that lack the courage to do it? Do they do it to protect those who are so lazy and incompetent, that they mock these brave men for doing their rough deeds, yet could never face the same hardships themselves?

NO. They do it because its what is right. Sure, the deeds they do arent nice ones, but in the whole swing of things, its the less of two evils. People are out there who know nothing but killing and torturing and threatening anyone who believes anything different than they do. There have been these people for centuries. These malicious people will always be with society unfortunately. But thankfully, the brave men and women who chellenge them also will always be with us. They will always be ready to defend freedom, and justice, their friends and their home. They will always be ready to help out when humanitarian aid is needed, and they will always be ready to kill few so many may live. Its these men and women who show skills and courage, that we should respect. We should not take their deeds for granted nor mock them, or call their cause unjust. We should respect them, treat them with dignity. These people all gave something to make the world a better place. The nazis did not. The communists did not. The dictators and shadowy juntas did not. The terrorists will not. Those that show now respect or dignity for those that rid the earth of murderers, rapist, killers and thugs, they wont give anything to make the world a better place either. Their efforts to re-write history will fail as miserably as the nazis, and the dictators...

[Skaman]

Wait, so the unprovoked attack on pearl Harbor that took the lives of 3,000 Americans...

It was not unprovoked.


...and the systematic, brutal and gross slaughter, rape and torture of the people of Europe is not a reason to go to war?

No, it is not.


Whatever ****wad wrote the above quoted line needs to talk to some Jewish folks who spent some time in a Nazi camp...

Or I could talk to some Rwandans, Cambodians, Tibetans ... you get the idea. Why didn't we go to war on their behalf?


...or go tell the son of a sailor who was killed at Pearl Harbor the exact same thing he posted.

I lost many family members in WWII. This is one of the reasons I believe we should not have been involved in the first place.


I have said the same things countless times. You will be here for quite some time. Take a deep breath. ;)

[James]

We weren't so much interested in the S. Pacific as we were with the Japanese Army raping, pillaging, and slaughtering its way through Manchuria and China. That is why we provoked them into attacking us with the oil embargo.

Maybe we tricked them into killing untold millions of Chines, so we could then enact an oil embargo to trick them into Pearl Harbor, so we could go to war against them and make Germany declare war on us (thus fulfilling our true objective - a U.S. hold on Western Europe after the war) and become a superpower.

I think that joining the fight in World War Two was one of the greatest things the U.S. ever did. We truly did help to save the world.

[Operation Ivy]

It was not unprovoked

Well we were pretty pissed about Japn invading Mancuhria(sp) and we didnt like the fact they were slowly taking over the Pacific so we put a oil embargo on them to try and slow them down.

[ilxAudrey]

As long as Nations push forward to be the top dog, and as long as America pushes buttons, the domino will continue, and the USA will forever be entrenched in a conflict they cannot shake.


interests in S.Pacific --->conflict with Japan----->outbreak of war---->war with Germany----->(creation of Israel)(conflict with Russia)----->(cold war)(me crisis)----->spread of communism in competition with capitalism----->Vietnam----->arms race------>technological race--->race to horde oil-------->interests in middle east------>American animosity---->ME conflict------>terror attacks----->etc.



This is very broad, but you get the idea.

Very well said. I agree with you 100%.

[NcDeuce]

:cantbeli: Ay

I'm not even going to waste my keybord's life on this one.

[usa320]

Thats still no excuse for saying that the holocaust wasnt a reason to go to war.

If that isnt a reason to fight- then im not sure what is.

Gassing, shooting, burning, human experiments, cutting, raping, pillaging...

all millions of times.

I think some of these punks need to be shown some photos of the nazi death camps... The horrendous deeds that were carried out. If someone feels that those atrocities werent a recent to fight, then they are EVIL. Not twisted. Not mislead. EVIL.

[Skaman]

Thats still no excuse for saying that the holocaust wasnt a reason to go to war.

If that isnt a reason to fight- then im not sure what is.

Gassing, shooting, burning, human experiments, cutting, raping, pillaging...

all millions of times.

I think some of these punks need to be shown some photos of the nazi death camps... The horrendous deeds that were carried out. If someone feels that those atrocities werent a recent to fight, then they are EVIL. Not twisted. Not mislead. EVIL.


Was Rwanda not worth it? Cambodia? Was El Salvador worth it?

[usa320]

For the most part i dont mind dealing with other political viewpoints, but to an extent.

****mus and this new guy Audrey are so very twisted and sick, they should never be allowed to post here again.

[usa320]

Was Rwanda not worth it? Cambodia? Was El Salvador worth it?

Absolutely.

Yet you are the very same person who would complain if we did take action in Rwanda, or Cambodia, or El Salvador.

You are merely a ignoramus. A Pawn.

[ilxAudrey]

Thats still no excuse for saying that the holocaust wasnt a reason to go to war.

If that isnt a reason to fight- then im not sure what is.

Gassing, shooting, burning, human experiments, cutting, raping, pillaging...

all millions of times.

I think some of these punks need to be shown some photos of the nazi death camps... The horrendous deeds that were carried out. If someone feels that those atrocities werent a recent to fight, then they are EVIL. Not twisted. Not mislead. EVIL.

You can't have it both ways. The entire 20th Century is soaked with the blood of hundreds of millions of innocents.

Where were we in Cambodia? Where were we in Rwanda?

[usa320]

oh, and i hope hood locks this one up with the mother of all padlocks.

[ilxAudrey]

For the most part i dont mind dealing with other political viewpoints, but to an extent.

****mus and this new guy Audrey are so very twisted and sick, they should never be allowed to post here again.

"new"?

[EvanL]

Was Rwanda not worth it? Cambodia? Was El Salvador worth it?

Absolutely.

Yet you are the very same person who would complain if we did take action in Rwanda, or Cambodia, or El Salvador.

You are merely a ignoramus. A Pawn.
I wouldnt say hes the same person who would complain, he complains about the iraq war because he doesnt view it as being as necessary as cambodia el salvador and especially Rwanda where millions were killed. Way more than Saddam, thus thats why he views the Iraq war in the light he does. Why attack a country like Iraq (which dont get me wrong was a terrible regime and even ducimus is glad its gone) and not attack countries and regimes like the ones in Cambodia and Rwanda where more ppl have died.

[Skaman]

Was Rwanda not worth it? Cambodia? Was El Salvador worth it?

Absolutely.

Yet you are the very same person who would complain if we did take action in Rwanda, or Cambodia, or El Salvador.

You are merely a ignoramus. A Pawn.
I wouldnt say hes the same person who would complain, he complains about the iraq war because he doesnt view it as being as necessary as cambodia el salvador and especially Rwanda where millions were killed. Way more than Saddam, thus thats why he views the Iraq war in the light he does. Why attack a country like Iraq (which dont get me wrong was a terrible regime and even ducimus is glad its gone) and not attack countries and regimes like the ones in Cambodia and Rwanda where more ppl have died.

good to hear it from someone else. thanks bro

[usa320]

Im not talking about the iraq war. Im talking about this:




and the systematic, brutal and gross slaughter, rape and torture of the people of Europe is not a reason to go to war? (me, reffering to nazis)

****head:
No, it is not.

[Operation Ivy]

so much yelling :(

mabe this will make everyone happy, makes me happy :D

http://www.xbox-connection.com/hostedimages/Tank97!.jpg

[Skaman]

Im not talking about the iraq war. Im talking about this:




and the systematic, brutal and gross slaughter, rape and torture of the people of Europe is not a reason to go to war? (me, reffering to nazis)

****head:
No, it is not.




It could have been prevented. US screwed up WW2, now the rest of the world suffers the repercussions. Check the little 'arrow diagram'

[Skaman]

so much yelling :(

mabe this will make everyone happy, makes me happy :D



Impeach The Bush man, then I will be happy. Cool pics though. woot

[ilxAudrey]

Okay. I admit it. I'm a troll.

I was trying to get ducimus to openly admit that the U.S. intervention in WWII was just, so I could nail him with comparisons to the Iraq war. Who knew he wound wind up agreeing with me?

Terribly sorry you were so offended, usa. And ducimus, you're f-cking good, man. I've got to give you that.

[EvanL]

Im not talking about the iraq war. Im talking about this:




and the systematic, brutal and gross slaughter, rape and torture of the people of Europe is not a reason to go to war? (me, reffering to nazis)

****head:
No, it is not.




It could have been prevented. US screwed up WW2, now the rest of the world suffers the repercussions. Check the little 'arrow diagram'
I wouldnt say screwed it up, but by waiting out the first 3 years definately caused some stuff that could have been prevented had they of gotten involved earlier.
As my military history teacher used to say (WW2 Vet)
Americans were more interested in the baseball scores than WW2 until pearl harbour.

[Skaman]

Okay. I admit it. I'm a troll.

I was trying to get ducimus to openly admit that the U.S. intervention in WWII was just, so I could nail him with comparisons to the Iraq war. Who knew he wound wind up agreeing with me?

Terribly sorry you were so offended, usa. And ducimus, you're f-cking good, man. I've got to give you that.


confusing.... :|

[Vance]

I personally want to hear Ducimus acknowledge the fact that we tried to make good in Somalia. Why was Rwanda not good enough? Why was El Salvador not good enough? Because Clinton didn't think it was good enough.

[EvanL]

I personally want to hear Ducimus acknowledge the fact that we tried to make good in Somalia. Why was Rwanda not good enough? Why was El Salvador not good enough? Because Clinton didn't think it was good enough.
What about Cambodia vance? is that too complicated for you? Or maybe you havent learned about that yet in kindergarten.
Cambodia Khmer rouge killed millions of people.

[Skaman]

I personally want to hear Ducimus acknowledge the fact that we tried to make good in Somalia. Why was Rwanda not good enough? Why was El Salvador not good enough? Because Clinton didn't think it was good enough.

Clinton had nothing to do with El Salvador. America merely provided a dictator with countless weapons that cost countless lives. Somalia was a good attempt, yet a sore result.

[NcDeuce]

Somalia was a good attempt, yet a sore result.


http://www.edunetconnect.com/cat/timemachine/images/dieppe.gif

Dieppe was a good attempt (NOT!), yet a very sore result...

Just because you guys got your asses whooped doesn't mean it wasn't worth it.

*I toss on my Kevlar and yell, "Incoming!"*

[EvanL]

Somalia was a good attempt, yet a sore result.


http://www.edunetconnect.com/cat/timemachine/images/dieppe.gif

Dieppe was a good attempt (NOT!), yet a very sore result...

Just because you guys got your asses whooped doesn't mean it wasn't worth it.Hey you stupid mother ****er. You think thats a way to malke a point? COmparing somalia to dieppe is like comparing columbine t o the holocaust. You obviously have no respect for the dead soldiers of either conflict, and you just proved it with that heartless comparison. And saying we got our asses wooped is not ****ing true man. If it wasnt for dieppe normandy wouldnt have been able to go through properly. It was a trial run and forced the germans to move heavier assets north instead of to normandy. Dieppe is comparable to normandy if you look at it per capita. Considering we had much more to lose than the yanks and britts id say it was a victory. Go tell that to some vets at the VFW.
TF grow up. And go suck a **** you little uninformed asshole.

[EvanL]

If tehres any moderator in here i would suggest locking this topic because it is just gonna turn into even more of a pissing contest.
Its gone too far already.

[ibstolidude]

Thats still no excuse for saying that the holocaust wasnt a reason to go to war.

If that isnt a reason to fight- then im not sure what is.

Gassing, shooting, burning, human experiments, cutting, raping, pillaging...

all millions of times.

I think some of these punks need to be shown some photos of the nazi death camps... The horrendous deeds that were carried out. If someone feels that those atrocities werent a recent to fight, then they are EVIL. Not twisted. Not mislead. EVIL.


Was Rwanda not worth it? Cambodia? Was El Salvador worth it?
Judging by hte lack of canadian involvment I'd say "No"

[Skaman]

If tehres any moderator in here i would suggest locking this topic because it is just gonna turn into even more of a pissing contest.
Its gone too far already.


Its a good thread, we just need to get back on topic. Lets see where it goes.

[NcDeuce]

900+ dead
1600 wounded
2000 captured
out of 5000?

Bottom line: Asses whooped!

Yes, we learned some valuable lessons from the fupa. We learn valuable lessons each and every day.


Dieppe was a failure of intelligence, a "gross lapse in command sense and leadership," historian Bill McAndrew has correctly noted. Yes, there were lessons learned from Dieppe, but most of them would have been obvious to a second lieutenant fresh out of officer cadet classes.

If it makes you Canadians feel better...there were about 50 American commandos in the raid on Dieppe. And R.I.P. to the fallen but can you really say they didn't get slaughtered?

[NcDeuce]

Boy that Canadian artillery always overshoots, eh?

[Skaman]

900+ dead
1600 wounded
2000 captured

Bottom line: Asses whooped!

Yes, we learned some valuable lessons from the fupa. We learn valuable lessons each and every day.


Dieppe was a failure of intelligence, a "gross lapse in command sense and leadership," historian Bill McAndrew has correctly noted. Yes, there were lessons learned from Dieppe, but most of them would have been obvious to a second lieutenant fresh out of officer cadet classes.

If it makes you Canadians feel better...there were about 50 American commandos in the raid on Dieppe. And R.I.P. to the fallen but can you really say they didn't get slaughtered?

read this

http://www.waramps.ca/video/ddcf.pdf

[DE_Six]

Somebody's chord was struck.

First off, Dieppe was a raid, not an amphibious invasion. To say it was a trial run is bit of an exaggeration. It was however capital in testing the German defense.
At the time, the British high command argued it was meant to instill a fear of a western front opening in France. If you ask me, it was BS. Amphibious raids (or combined ops) were already being conducted in Norway from Scotland and the Germans never moved any reinforcement there out of fear of a new front in Scandinavia.
The Germans knew the Allies were to open that new front (the Allies couldn't hide the massive buildup in England) and they knew that France was the only geographically sound area for that. So they built the Atlantic wall.
Dieppe was meant as a test of new equipment and a probing of German defense. The high command knew it was suicidal. The beach was narrow, the defense built in overlapping fields of fire and the city had the largest naval security forces garrison in France. So yes, in crude terms we got our asses handed to us for the sake of testing the German defence. It doesn't take anything away from the brave men who fought and died there.
What "forced" (I'd rather say entice) the Germans to move their reinforcement was more likely "Fortitude", the massive disinformation effort that preceded D-Day.
The comparison with Somalia, well I don't see anything in common between the two from a strategic point of view. Two different typres of operation, two very different places and enemy, two very different goals.

Just a thought.

[EvanL]

900+ dead
1600 wounded
2000 captured
out of 5000?

Bottom line: Asses whooped!

Yes, we learned some valuable lessons from the fupa. We learn valuable lessons each and every day.


Dieppe was a failure of intelligence, a "gross lapse in command sense and leadership," historian Bill McAndrew has correctly noted. Yes, there were lessons learned from Dieppe, but most of them would have been obvious to a second lieutenant fresh out of officer cadet classes.

If it makes you Canadians feel better...there were about 50 American commandos in the raid on Dieppe. And R.I.P. to the fallen but can you really say they didn't get slaughtered?
Dont even play that **** man. 50 americans? Wow you had so much to lose. How about all the **** that went on before you guys came eh?
Rape of Nanking. If you guys were so intent on freeing ppl, why did you just sit back and wait till it came to your doorstep?
Dont give me **** how it was a failure. For someone who talks about respecting veterans and soldiers, you sure put your foot in your mouth on this one. I hope i never have to serve beside you in battle, the urine puddle at your feet would be enough for me to shoot you.

[Vance]

I won't waste my time....*sigh*

[EvanL]

I won't waste my time....*sigh*
Vance for once i agree with you.
Im done. Im sick of arguing with pimple faced teens (second time using that quote). Reply how you wish i dont give two flying f*cks. Yall can blow it out your arse.

[NcDeuce]

Dont even play that **** man. 50 americans? Wow you had so much to lose. How about all the **** that went on before you guys came eh?

How about all the **** that went on afterwards? The U.S. contributed more to WW2.


Rape of Nanking. If you guys were so intent on freeing ppl, why did you just sit back and wait till it came to your doorstep?

They say we're the world's police man. We are also evil Hitler-like robots too. We are expected to do everything and do it perfectly. Sometimes...many times actually...we can't do everything. You have to pick your "smart fights"...homeless people, poverty, education, terrorism, ANWR, etc. etc. etc. If you feel so strongly on some of those countries or situations where the U.S. didn't get involved...ask yourself, where was Canada?


I hope i never have to serve beside you in battle, the urine puddle at your feet would be enough for me to shoot you.

You Canadian militaryphoto members crack me up...so we have got French special forces learning ballet while training with the Italians on how to raise your arms properly to surrender with some Canadians teaching the art of fratricide. Nice...thumbs up to the red leaf, not.

BTW, if I'm beside you in battle, the urine puddle wouldn't be at my feet...it would probably be in your canteen, have a nice day.

[Skaman]

Well, we went from sharks to an anti Iraq war sig. to freedom of speech, to democracy, to American ambitions, to Monroe doctrine to 'failed' war time efforts. Well, we covered a lot of ground today boys, I’m sure there are some topics we failed to include as well. phew, I am exhausted.

[EvanL]

Dont even play that **** man. 50 americans? Wow you had so much to lose. How about all the **** that went on before you guys came eh?

How about all the **** that went on afterwards? The U.S. contributed more to WW2.


Rape of Nanking. If you guys were so intent on freeing ppl, why did you just sit back and wait till it came to your doorstep?

They say we're the world's police man. We are also evil Hitler-like robots too. We are expected to do everything and do it perfectly. Sometimes...many times actually...we can't do everything. You have to pick your "smart fights"...homeless people, poverty, education, terrorism, ANWR, etc. etc. etc. If you feel so strongly on some of those countries or situations where the U.S. didn't get involved...ask yourself, where was Canada?


I hope i never have to serve beside you in battle, the urine puddle at your feet would be enough for me to shoot you.

You Canadian militaryphoto members crack me up...so we have got French special forces learning ballet while training with the Italians on how to raise your arms properly to surrender with some Canadians teaching the art of fratricide. Nice...thumbs up to the red leaf, not.

BTW, if I'm beside you in battle, the urine puddle wouldn't be at my feet...it would probably be in your canteen, have a nice day.
Haha in my canteen. You know what ill give you that one. It was actually funny.
Telling me canada is teaching fratricide? Should i post the numbers of blue on blues in afghanistan and iraq? If anything it would seem like it is being taught at ROTC. Have a good one buddy.

[NcDeuce]

*Takes off Kevlar and leaves the battlefield in a yellow jalopy*

Marne Marne Marne, I mean cough.

[Vance]

*Takes off Kevlar and leaves the battlefield in a yellow jalopy*

Marne Marne Marne, I mean cough.
Rock of the Marne!

[Beowulf]

All right. If anyone wants to continue one of the many discussions from this thread (reasons for civil war, Monroe doctrine, canadian involvement in WW2 etc.) then by all means start a new thread, and try to stay on topic. This thread has gone far enough downhill.

-b