Will gives birth...

[BeeNo]

oh i forgot to add, great post rass, very well written.

[-Z-]

The US should never have intervened in WW1. Without US support, a negotiated peace settlement would have been hammered out, without the insane reparations demands, which would have stopped Hitler ever coming to power. I didn't realise this until yesterday, but one US General (Pershing) actually wanted to invade germany and force an unconditional surrender. The Germans would never have stood for this, and it would have resulted in even worse casualties. Fortunately Pershing was overruled.

So If I read you correctly, I can now blame the USA for WW2 and Hitler?

I Love u Will.


Z

[Mr President]

I believe i remember hearing one of our commanders step down before the war started saying that we need X ammount more troops to effectively lock down the border. He was ignored and GWB just found someone else who would try it with less than adequate ammount of troops.

We simply never had enough manpower over there, that was why i initially was against the war.

, this would not be GWB's fault, this would be Mr Rumsfeld fault. The President can only make good choices if the advisors are giving him good info..

So If I read you correctly, I can now blame the USA for WW2 and Hitler?

I Love u Will.


Z

hmmm Z looking for more reasons to hate the USA.. go figure.

[Rassputtin]

I won't get into Vietnam, but as for WW2:
What about the half of Europe that was taken by the Soviets, Rass?

Taken when? In 1939 after they signed a pact with hitler and the germans? Or Sept 17th 1939 when they invaded poland? Or do you mean in Nov when the soviets invaded Finland or 40 when they occupied the baltics, lithuiania, latvia and estonia?

Basically I guess what I mean is are you refering to the countries they were conquering while being in a pact and warmongering along side hitler, or do you mean the bit of help they were once Hitler broke the pact and attacked the soviets.....

Because if your refering to the countries they conquered while in bed with hitler........ then I don't understand the question. What about them? Should I be impressed they invaded poland, finland, lithuiania, latvia and estonia. That would be like the USA invading Guatamala, belize, el salvador etc etc. Not a very impressive feat.

If your referring to the bit of help in pushing the germans back..... i'm still not impressed. They weren't doing anything but moving backwards until the americans arrived, then they managed to stall the germans at stalingrad, and then slowly begin to repel them back. Like it or not without the usa stepping up, the whole of europe falls to the axis.

I read your entire Post Rass, and I am quite impressed.
I did not know all that about NAM.
The following I found a bit comical:
"The result of Vietnam was the only bad thing about it."
I realize I am in no place to judge, but is it not the result that is most important to us today?
If an artist paints a painting, and at the begining and 1/2 way thru it is looking beautiful, but then it turns out to be crap in the end...
"If you want to end the conflict, drop half a million troops on the ground, set up airstrips and basecamps, and put the country and towns on a properly manned, armed and funded military lockdown. Full scale martial law, once you have it locked down internally, you focuse your efforts on the borders and preventing insurgents or illegals from crossing the border.
so the Jihadists can wait in the homes for 5 years until u leave...?
The war was over when GWB declared it so.
Z

Most people don't know all that about Nam, they just know americans are jerks for fighting there. The result should not be all that is important. Because if I attempt to paint a beautifil painting to sell so I can donate the money so a child can afford an operation to cure an illness so he can live, but its not that great of a painting and doesnt raise enough money and the kid dies.

Does it only matter that I didnt raise enough money for the kid. Should everyone walk around calling me a jerk, saying I shouldn't have put my nose into the poor kids business anyway, what a Jerk I am............?

Wait for 5 years, sure they can wait. By then, the iraqi's will be just as well trained, and the infrastructure would be sound, and the economy would be thriving and I don't think the Jihadists would 1. be as inclined, as their country is doing great an americans are GONE. 2. the non jihadists would be better prepared and willing to deal with thier sorry asses.

The US should never have intervened in WW1. Without US support, a negotiated peace settlement would have been hammered out, without the insane reparations demands, which would have stopped Hitler ever coming to power. I didn't realise this until yesterday, but one US General (Pershing) actually wanted to invade germany and force an unconditional surrender. The Germans would never have stood for this, and it would have resulted in even worse casualties. Fortunately Pershing was overruled.

The united states declared war in april of 1917. In January of 1917 Reich Foreign Secretary Zimmermann's telegram to Mexico urging her entry into war against the United States is discovered and translated by the British, and the germans resume unrestricted U-boat warfare against american ships in January and february. How and why do you see continued warfare as a sign that a negotiated peace would have been hammered out?

Secondly the notion that hitlers coming to power is the fault of the americans is ridiculous. Alot took place that brought hitler to power of which the americans had nothing to do with. Thats just reaching.........

Thats like saying most of the wars fought is the fault of the jews because had their religion not indicated a messiah, and Jesus Christ not have been dubbed the messiah and crucified, and christianity born, then none of the holy wars or crusades and what not would have taken place...... just a real stretch is all that is.

So If I read you correctly, I can now blame the USA for WW2 and Hitler?
I Love u Will.
Z

only if your gullable and niave

, this would not be GWB's fault, this would be Mr Rumsfeld fault. The President can only make good choices if the advisors are giving him good info..
hmmm Z looking for more reasons to hate the USA.. go figure.

Whether Donald gave him good information or not its still not his fault.

Another widespread misconception. The president did this , or did that, or vote for this candidate he's gonna do this for us.

In truth, a president does very little. Matter of fact, most of the crap politicians say they are gonna do, they do not have the authority to do. Thats the whole point of our democracy and political system. It takes a majority agreement to get things done.

George Bush didn't declare war, the american congress declared war. George bush didnt spend 10 billion a month in iraq, the american congress did. George bush didnt raise taxes, the american congress did.

Never fails to amaze me.

[esco]

Only beef I have against your post is that after 9/11 Bush was given a blank check by Congress and the American population to do as he wished. Then the other problem that compounded to it was he basically listened to only the neo conservatives around him who believe in the spreading of democracy through military means. So they hijacked the reason we went to war for their own agenda to transform the Mideast and now we're forced to stay (unless we want to face worse consequences down the line). The Bush admin. should have followed Bin Laden into Pakistan and have killed/captured them all while we had the world's "sympathy" instead of waiting until now to start violating borders when our buddy, Musharraf is finally out of power... But in end, if we're lucky, Iraq turns out better than anyone at the moment believes is possible. For the moment let's just hope it does turn out for the best and not ignore the progress that has been made after Bush finally started listening to people more pragmatic like Gen. Peterus and Robert Gates.

[Will]

Taken when? In 1939 after they signed a pact with hitler and the germans? Or Sept 17th 1939 when they invaded poland? Or do you mean in Nov when the soviets invaded Finland or 40 when they occupied the baltics, lithuiania, latvia and estonia?

Basically I guess what I mean is are you refering to the countries they were conquering while being in a pact and warmongering along side hitler, or do you mean the bit of help they were once Hitler broke the pact and attacked the soviets.....

Because if your refering to the countries they conquered while in bed with hitler........ then I don't understand the question. What about them? Should I be impressed they invaded poland, finland, lithuiania, latvia and estonia. That would be like the USA invading Guatamala, belize, el salvador etc etc. Not a very impressive feat.

If your referring to the bit of help in pushing the germans back..... i'm still not impressed. They weren't doing anything but moving backwards until the americans arrived, then they managed to stall the germans at stalingrad, and then slowly begin to repel them back. Like it or not without the usa stepping up, the whole of europe falls to the axis.




Most people don't know all that about Nam, they just know americans are jerks for fighting there. The result should not be all that is important. Because if I attempt to paint a beautifil painting to sell so I can donate the money so a child can afford an operation to cure an illness so he can live, but its not that great of a painting and doesnt raise enough money and the kid dies.

Does it only matter that I didnt raise enough money for the kid. Should everyone walk around calling me a jerk, saying I shouldn't have put my nose into the poor kids business anyway, what a Jerk I am............?

Wait for 5 years, sure they can wait. By then, the iraqi's will be just as well trained, and the infrastructure would be sound, and the economy would be thriving and I don't think the Jihadists would 1. be as inclined, as their country is doing great an americans are GONE. 2. the non jihadists would be better prepared and willing to deal with thier sorry asses.



The united states declared war in april of 1917. In January of 1917 Reich Foreign Secretary Zimmermann's telegram to Mexico urging her entry into war against the United States is discovered and translated by the British, and the germans resume unrestricted U-boat warfare against american ships in January and february. How and why do you see continued warfare as a sign that a negotiated peace would have been hammered out?

Secondly the notion that hitlers coming to power is the fault of the americans is ridiculous. Alot took place that brought hitler to power of which the americans had nothing to do with. Thats just reaching.........

Thats like saying most of the wars fought is the fault of the jews because had their religion not indicated a messiah, and Jesus Christ not have been dubbed the messiah and crucified, and christianity born, then none of the holy wars or crusades and what not would have taken place...... just a real stretch is all that is.



only if your gullable and niave



Whether Donald gave him good information or not its still not his fault.

Another widespread misconception. The president did this , or did that, or vote for this candidate he's gonna do this for us.

In truth, a president does very little. Matter of fact, most of the crap politicians say they are gonna do, they do not have the authority to do. Thats the whole point of our democracy and political system. It takes a majority agreement to get things done.

George Bush didn't declare war, the american congress declared war. George bush didnt spend 10 billion a month in iraq, the american congress did. George bush didnt raise taxes, the american congress did.

Never fails to amaze me.

I think you've misunderstood my post. What I am saying is that it is no good for the US to claim to have saved Europe from Nazism, when half of Europe was subjected to a regime equally as bad, if not worse.

Besides, Germany had no hope of taking Britain by force, not for at least several years. The most likely outcome of US neutrality would have been a negotiated peace whereby Britain is left alone in exchange for allowing Germany a free hand in the east.

For WW1, Hitler's coming to power was a direct consequence of Germany losing WW1, and the crippling demands that were made of it at Versailles. Without fresh US troops, the British and French would not have had the will to fight Germany to the end, and would almost certainly have opted for a settlement. With a reasonable peace treaty (no insane reperations demands) Germany would not have suffered anything like it did historically, and it would have been much easier for the government to deal with extreme elements on both sides (nazis and communists). Germany would likely have remained democratic and far less militaristic.

[jasonlfunk]

...US to claim to have saved Europe from Nazism, when half of Europe was subjected to a regime equally as bad, if not worse. ...

We are Americans. We can claim whatever we want to.

[Will]

We are Americans. We can claim whatever we want to.

Well, in that case.....

We won 1812!

[-Z-]

, this would not be GWB's fault, this would be Mr Rumsfeld fault. The President can only make good choices if the advisors are giving him good info..




hmmm Z looking for more reasons to hate the USA.. go figure.

,

i was just kidding.



But really, Prez... Ive never met anyone in RL that defends GWB...

Z

[Green]

,

i was just kidding.



But really, Prez... Ive never met anyone in RL that defends GWB...

Z

How many times have you been to the South?