WW2 veterns and the way they fought...

[H@pkid0ist]

Its not just all about war. It is about the public attitue in general. Hell I served for 10 years, and was proud to do it. I don't want a war either. But what do we have to have happen for people to open their eyes and pull their heads out of their butts. Do we need more 911 s? Maybe we should just let some of these other countries and dictators like Husain stoke pile Chemical, Biological, and Nuclear weapons. I have a feeling that he would not think twice about using them against us and try te enslave us and everyone else. If peace is living under a tyrant rule and fearing for the life and safty of loved ones and yourself under the whim of a dictator then I would reather live in war. The problem is I belive that most people do not truly have to fight or suffer for anything or any cause anymore. They protest not to avoid conflict for peace and the lives of our military, but to protect all they have personally aquired and their own selfish ideals and reasons. I'm not saying this is everyone, but in todays world even many lower income families have a lot compared to their 40's and 50's counterparts. everything/life is easy compared to 50 and 60 years agoe. People in todays world don't seem to understand. Peace for peace at all costs ends up in more pain and suffering than war brings. You loose your sense of honor, dignity, pride, self-worth. Maybe not right away, but it comes. I pray that as my son gets older and I die, the world we leave behind will not be as codeling and giving. Things mean more when you earn them. I don't want him to suffer for anything, but I want him to earn and deserve all that he does get. I pray that a world that we leave behind for our children is a world worth having.

[Kingston]

i see what your saying h@pkid0ist. But really i think about 90% of people born in north america dont realy deserve what they get, no matter how hard they work. The amount of privleges we get just for being born here is incredible, not just the rich or well off people in america. I dont have to worry about terrorism, i dont have to worry about food, i dont have to worry about war, i dont have to worry about desease, i dont have to worry about opression, i have an unlimited (literaly) amount of options when im born to go ANY direction in my life.

if your born in most places on earth, those amount of luxeries arent available to you.

America has in the past overthrown a legitamet government for banana profits, subsiquently creating one of the worst human rights cases in histor.....Why did america attack viet nam?
why does it sell guns to countries commiting genocide? why did it train Osama bin laden, then leave his country in dissaray after the war (with russia). why did Bush pull out of the kyoto accord (im not sure if hes on it again though). Why does america take action for some countries, and completely ignore others.....Why does america target civilian targets.....now if your from one of those "poor" countries youll say, why are you bombing my wedding, our country can possibly stand against your force, why are you killing my children, other people say, why are you selling guns to the terrorist that are killing us every day, then other say why do you support this country that suppreses our people. Why do they keep medling with us when we dont do anything to them.

now wether those statements are well founded, they are legitamet feelings.

In americas fight for freedom, its mostly other people that have to suffer for it. Most of the recent U.S. operations look for like target practice then an accual military confrontation, its like 10 to 1 death count.......

Thats why alot of groups hate the U.S.A.
Yes america has a right to its own freedoms, but america should respect other countries right to there own freedoms.
Americas attitude of kings of the universe is what annoys people.
"if they take arms against us they should be crushed" well like it has already been said, america has taken up arms against alot of people, all "weaker", Saddam really has only two choices be americas lap dog or get his ass kicked. Would there be so much fuss over Saddam if he wasn't sitting on a bounch of oil fields?

WE should fight for our freedoms, BUT ONLY when our freedoms are at risk. ALWAYS remember that an american life is not worth anymore then an afganistan life or an african life......

Im not anti-war, im just a realist.

[Szczepankiewicz]

Kingston, I don't know if I'd call you a realist or not....

However, I totally agree with you.


The United States of America has no business in the affairs of other nations. They should cease and desist all foreign trade, imports, exports, and any military involvement with anything outside the recognized borders of the lower 48 states, Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico.

No medicine, no Budweiser, no airplanes no Big Macs, no wheat, no potatos. Nada. Lock up the borders tight. Don't let anyone in or out. Allow the same freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution within the borders, but exclude and ignore anyone and everything else.

We'll let bygones be bygones and agree to separate amicably for the next 100 years.

Sounds reasonable and fair to me. Not to mention 'realistic'.

Spanky

[Siegfried]

There would be just as much fuss over Saddam even if he wasn't sitting on large amounts of oil.

The reason for this is: He is a serious threat to the people who live in this country (America) and our free way of life.

Sorry I got off the original topic. But I like to talk about this sort of stuff.

[Szczepankiewicz]

NOPE, I agree with our young Canadian armchair quarterback. Oil is a major factor in why we are going after Hussein.

AND North Korea, Iran, and Iraq have just as much right to develop nuclear weapons as the US does.

Isolationism and Neutrality is the way we should go. It's done wonders for the Swiss.

[Kingston]

Originally posted by Szczepankiewicz
[B]Kingston, I don't know if I'd call you a realist or not....

However, I totally agree with you.


The United States of America has no business in the affairs of other nations. They should cease and desist all foreign trade, imports, exports, and any military involvement with anything outside the recognized borders of the lower 48 states, Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico.

No medicine, no Budweiser, no airplanes no Big Macs, no wheat, no potatos. Nada. Lock up the borders tight. Don't let anyone in or out. Allow the same freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution within the borders, but exclude and ignore anyone and everything else.

We'll let bygones be bygones and agree to separate amicably for the next 100 years.

Sounds reasonable and fair to me. Not to mention 'realistic'.
/B]

lol spanky, do i sense a sarcastic tone in this post?

i never even implied the idea of isolationism in my post....i never said the U.S.A. didn't have business in national affairs......
so what exactly are you agreeing with?

or is that post just your personal opinion and you also agree with my seperate opinion.....

Its funny sometimes, how people think that if you critique americas policies you suddenly forget all the good that america has done as well. I havn't forgoten any of the contributions that the United States have made, but that doesn't mean they havn't made any mistakes.

Reality is looking at the good and the bad.....the only difference between the two is the second you dont take for granted.

[Szczepankiewicz]

Sarcastic? ME??? NEVER!!!!


No, I think a good dose of isolation is in order. Kinda clean the slate and all.


If the US stops using foreign oil altogether, that will do two good things for the world:

1) The US will become more efficient and newer, envrionmentally friendly technologies will be forced into the mainstream.

2) The Arab world, Germany and France (ok, Germany and Germany West) will finally realize their true worth.


I'm not that much of an ass, however. Any citizen of a Commonwealth Nation, Japan, South Korea, or Isreal will be welcomed with open arms, and all of those who find European culture superior to the vulgar cowboys here in the states will be free to leave.


Embargo On!

Who run Bartertown?

WHO RUN BARTERTOWN???

Spanky

[ryanhall]

Im not anti-war, im just a realist.

Well, that is certainly open to debate, but I'll try to be fair here. Perhaps you believe too much of what you read in the editorials section of the paper?

Why does america target civilian targets.

Say that again? I don't know about you violent Canadians, but we Americans attack legitimate military targets, not civilians. When a group hides amongst its noncombatants, there are bound to be some casualties. Nobody wishes for this, but it happens. Put the blame on the cowards who would hide with women and children, not the United States.

Most of the recent U.S. operations look for like target practice then an accual military confrontation, its like 10 to 1 death count.......

It's called training. Nobody except for Soviet WWII Russia/Soviet Union just sent their troops to be butchered. We do not waste the lives of our citizens. Perhaps you are referring to the genocide in Somalia? Seen Black Hawk Down and you're an expert? OK. Let me start: the militia would slaughter its own people, and we came to stop them. The world wanted it done, but surprise surprise, they sent Americans to do it. We attacked civies here? Guess what: there were women and children mixed in with the fighting men by their own will. If that's not sick, I don't know what is. Maybe if Canada had sent troops, you would feel differently.

Yes america has a right to its own freedoms, but america should respect other countries right to there own freedoms.

This may come as a shock to you, Kingston, but we do. We just have a little habit of stepping in when some unrully people start trying to wipe one another off the face of the planet due to religion or race. Perhaps you would like us to stop? When "America" violates freedoms, it is often the world asking America to do it for them. As the sole remaining superpower, we are the big kid on the block. We are sent to do everybody's dirty work. Aside from the British, who else is gonna do it? The French?

if your born in most places on earth, those amount of luxeries arent available to you.

Of course they are not. This is, however, not big bad America's doing. Keep in mind that the people who built the United States didn't have it so well either. It may seem like a minor point, but it is important to note. Everyone seems to think that all Americans live in penthouses with servants.

WE should fight for our freedoms, BUT ONLY when our freedoms are at risk. ALWAYS remember that an american life is not worth anymore then an afganistan life or an african life......

Does the possibility of a terrorist attack using biological, nuclear, or chemical weapons fall into that 'risk' category? Do you have any idea how easy it would be to use a small scale nuclear weapon to destroy half of Manhattan? Putting a weapon on a boat and floating it up the Hudson River could be easier than it sounds. Nobody wants to destroy Halifax, so don't start with the overreacting comments. The reason that nobody bothered the states that support terrorism before 9/11/01 was that terrorism is a relatively easy thing to do. No government wants to bring it upon their country, so they don't mess with it until it is in their back yard.

[Kingston]

Originally posted by Szczepankiewicz
NOPE, I agree with our young Canadian armchair quarterback. Oil is a major factor in why we are going after Hussein.

AND North Korea, Iran, and Iraq have just as much right to develop nuclear weapons as the US does.

Isolationism and Neutrality is the way we should go. It's done wonders for the Swiss.

Spanky, Spanky, Spanky, .....sarcasm is the sign of a weak mind you know...

Im willing to leave the armchair, but only if its worth it.
Lets just say i dont jump on the bandwagon.

wether you like it or not oil is an important part as to why the U.S.A. wants an american friendly (aka puppet) leader in the middle east that can look after the oil fields for them.

does north korea or saddam derserve nukes?

well think of it this way, does america deserve nukes? how do we decide over who gets them?

if a country suppresses its people does it deserve a nuke?
america did for a long long time....it got a nuke.
if a country indorses terrorists should it have a nuke?
well America did, so should it have one?

even more important.
What would happen if only one country had a nuke, that country could rule the world, without having to discuss foreign policies.

If america attacks a country without nukes, america can, if they chose win....whenever they want.

Why does america chose to ignore some acks of oppresion and fight others, it all depends on how the United States can benefit from "helping" to free those people.

i dout saddam will ever get a nuke, im sure he is making chemical weapons....america has plenty....ask yourself this, why in hell would saddam want a war with america? so he can LOSE AGAIN!
get real, Saddam doesn't want nore can he "overthrow" or opress americans in any way. The only thing he can do is not listen to america, wich in turn gets his country bombed....

i dont support saddam, but i dont think hes any kind of a threat to the american people.

am i an armchair quarterback? Perhaps, i guess i could go oversees and shoot people for my "freedom" wich i already have safely packed away, maybe get bombed by my allies.....

being an armchari quarterback is better then being shot at for no good reason other then because you have a gun and are shooting back. ok i got off topic....the world is a different place then it was in WWII, wether thats good or bad is up to you.

[Szczepankiewicz]

Ryan you are WRONG WRONG WRONG.

The US is only interested in what is best for the US. This country is populated with selfish, jingoistic warmongers who care nothing about the rest of the world except what they can steal!

Let's see. The 20th century.

War in Europe, take one.

War in Europe, take two.
War in Asia, take one.

Korea. (Asia, take two)

Vietnam. (Asia, take three)
Persian Gulf (Asia, take four)

Bosnia (Europe, take three)

Somalia (Africa, take one)

What do all these conflicts have in common? The US stuck their big fat uninvited noses into somebody else's business. Irregardless of the documented history involving centuries of bloodshed in each of these locations, the US should have kept to their own business.

I mean we have unemployed welfare recipients to care for. We have too many of our own problems to worry about what other people are doing with their own freedom. Not to mention reparations for the slaves and other misused immigrants!

Or maybe we should just let loose the beast that is Isreal. In about 6 months we would not be hearing about any more 'conflict' in the middle east. However, someone would have a hell of a mess to clean up.

[Kingston]

*sigh* spanky is it possible for you to make a point without being sarcastic?

what your saying does have some truth, most americans dont realy care what goes on in other parts of the world. The and this is reflected in the media.

[ryanhall]

well think of it this way, does america deserve nukes? how do we decide over who gets them?

I'd say yes. Seeing as we have no reason to use them, I would say we're ok. When the rest of the world tells us to disarm, then maybe we take them down a bit. Don't even try to compare America to Korea or Iraq. The difference between a democratic republic and a dictator is enormous.

If america attacks a country without nukes, america can, if they chose win....whenever they want.

Last time I checked, we weren't taking over too many foreign states. Give me a break. What are you trying to say here? Iraq can use nukes because it isn't able to fight man for man a larger, more powerful country. Are you aware that his son said something to the extent of "if Americans attacked Iraq, September 11th would look like a picnic." Anyone who says that is assumed to possess the ability to back up their rhetoric. To believe otherwise is to invite disaster.

i dont support saddam, but i dont think hes any kind of a threat to the american people.

Not to be rude, but please have your head checked. Anyone who would support a terrorist is a threat not only to America, but to her allies (or anybody else he's pissed at). Saddam is an opportunist who gassed his own people and tried to take a defenseless nation. Granted, Kuait is rich as hell and they are pretty arrogant. That, however, does not give a leader the right to invade without a thought to the consequences.

am i an armchair quarterback?

Yes. You're not getting my vote for the pro bowl either

being an armchari quarterback is better then being shot at for no good reason other then because you have a gun and are shooting back.

Being shot at is not a good reason to return fire?

What do all these conflicts have in common? The US stuck their big fat uninvited noses into somebody else's business. Irregardless of the documented history involving centuries of bloodshed in each of these locations, the US should have kept to their own business

Sounds like a criminal's take on the cops. "And I would have gotten away with if too if it weren't for you meddling kids!" "Yoinks Scoob!"

[Szczepankiewicz]

I'm glad that our media does such a good job in representing (in an honest, objective and totally unbiased way) the people of this country.


Sarcasm? Not I. You've simplified what I believe to be complex situations into small digestable bullet points. I am simply trying to further simplify the situation by agreeing that we should stay the hell out of everybody else's business.

We've really nothing to gain and everything to lose if we keep getting involved.

I sure will miss the Molson's though...

I much prefer the Eurpoean view on things. I mean, they've had several millenia of unbroken peace, eh?

I don't know WHAT the hell President Bush is thinking. He should defer to the folks at the UN in these matters.

[Kingston]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ryanhall

I'd say yes. Seeing as we have no reason to use them, I would say we're ok. When the rest of the world tells us to disarm, then maybe we take them down a bit. Don't even try to compare America to Korea or Iraq. The difference between a democratic republic and a dictator is enormous.

meh, i guess if someone has to have em better "you" then "them".

Last time I checked, we weren't taking over too many foreign states. Give me a break. What are you trying to say here? Iraq can use nukes because it isn't able to fight man for man a larger, more powerful country. Are you aware that his son said something to the extent of "if Americans attacked Iraq, September 11th would look like a picnic." Anyone who says that is assumed to possess the ability to back up their rhetoric. To believe otherwise is to invite disaster.

i dont think anyone should have a nuke. Whatever Saddams son said really doesn't matter, the United states should be prepared for it even without a warning.

Not to be rude, but please have your head checked. Anyone who would support a terrorist is a threat not only to America, but to her allies (or anybody else he's pissed at). Saddam is an opportunist who gassed his own people and tried to take a defenseless nation. Granted, Kuait is rich as hell and they are pretty arrogant. That, however, does not give a leader the right to invade without a thought to the consequences.

The american government has supported terroists in the past, Nelson Mandela was considerd a terrorist...
why should we care if saddam takes over kuait? When we could have cared about the many other horrible acts going on in the world?
the reason is saddam doesn't support america. Oh ya, and that sweet sweet oil.

You're not getting my vote for the pro bowl either

....i thought we were friends

Being shot at is not a good reason to return fire?

i was trying to get at why they are being shot at....

[Kingston]

Originally posted by Szczepankiewicz

I'm glad that our media does such a good job in representing (in an honest, objective and totally unbiased way) the people of this country.

the american media is incredibly biased, that was my point.

Sarcasm? Not I.

thats a lie and you know it

You've simplified what I believe to be complex situations into small digestable bullet points. I am simply trying to further simplify the situation by agreeing that we should stay the hell out of everybody else's business.

if your saying that by me simplifying the situation is wrong, then woudln't and even more simplified version be even worse?

We've really nothing to gain and everything to lose if we keep getting involved.

that realy depends on what you get involved in

[qoute]I much prefer the Eurpoean view on things. I mean, they've had several millenia of unbroken peace, eh?

im sorry that made no sence

I don't know WHAT the hell President Bush is thinking. He should defer to the folks at the UN in these matters

last time a UN type organization was totaly ignored WWII broke out....