" A journey of a thousand miles begins with one step." I don't mind if they earned the money and not inherited it. John Edwards would be an example.
Not that I'm pro-American or pro-war, but here's something I've been thinking about: Ask people in Poland when WWII started, they'll tell you 1936. Ask Canadians or Brits when it started, they'll tell you 1939. Ask Americans when it started, they'll tell you 1941. Now growing up my Canadian (read: pro British) history books critisized America for sitting on the sidelines too long. Today we critisize them for not sitting on the sidelines enough. Just some food for thought.
Hey Guys, sorry ive been away a bit, some great points made a long the way, though i havent had a chance to read them all (tonnes of coursework for uni at the min). Just on our good friends Kens point, America was criticised about leaving it very late. The reason they did that was that they didnt see the need for them to intervene in a war that really had nothing to do with them. What then happened was that America realised if Germany was to win the war and dominate Europe, their freedom and stability could be affected (ie: they could be next on the list). It is well documented that America couldve have known about an attack on Pearl Harbour prior to it actually happening, but did nothing to use it as an excuse to the American people to join the war. Theres more food for thought....
I think a few words from our freind Bill Maher will help us understand America. Enjoy. "If it weren’t for California, there’s be almost no TV, and you’d have to come home at night and actually talk to your family. You know, the rest of America feels about California the way the rest of the world feels about America. They hate us because we do what we want. They think we’re too blessed and too free, and it makes them nuts in the dreary hovels of Kabul and Tikrit and Lubbock, Texas. They pray to their threadbare gods that we’ll get what we deserve. But it won’t happen. Because you never know what we’re going to do here next. We elected Ronald Reagan and Jerry Brown. We’re home to Disney and Hustler, the Partridge Family and the Manson Family. We can drink a Mudslide and a Sex on the Beach during an actual mudslide while having sex on the beach! Our farms feed the world, and Calista Flockhart lives here. We have bears and great white sharks. And even our washed-up actors are allowed to kill one blonde chick. We invented surfing and cyber-porn and LSD and the boob job. And if we didn’t, we would haven. We have oranges, free oranges, everywhere. What grows on the trees in Scranton, fusker?! We have a real hockey team named after a hockey team in a movie! Our Indian casinos could kick your Indian casinos’ ass. We give our illegal aliens driver’s licenses. And we have a guy running for governor who digs group sex."
It's actually well documented that America did know about Pearl Harbor well before it happened. Gen. Billy Mitchell had spent quite awhile in Japan before the war (being sent there because he was too outspoken and critical of those in power, they wanted him far away) and when he came back he flat out told everyone that they would attack Pearl Harbor on a Sunday then attack the Phillipines the next week. Exactly as it happened. It was more a case of obstinate entrenched brass deliberately dismissing Gen. Mitchell's waring because they hated him than an excuse to go to war. Many nations dismissed Hitler's agressive actions prior to 1936. Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain kept negotiating with Hitler despite obvious sign's of Hitler's intentions. Stalin signed a nonagression pact with Hitler and when Hitler launched Operation Barbarossa it took Stalin 3-4 days to even issue retaliatory orders, not to mention a German defector had given the Russians critical details of the invasion beforehand (even the exact time of the initial offensive) and they did nothing. Many nations were in denial of the obvious. I don't think any nation realized how fast Europe would fall to the Wermacht until it was too late. The Germans introduced a totally new method of warfare combining mechanized units integrated with infantry all supported by the Luftwaffe - Blitzkrieg. Everyone was caught with their pants down. I can accept that some may feel America waited too long to get involved in WW2 but keep in mind the monumental efforts we made and the losses we suffered in helping to bring about the end of the war. Every nation made mistakes and could've done some things better. Just my .02 and not aimed at anyone _X_X_X_X_X_[small] JMLS-166S/Plextor PX-708A/Plextor Premium[/small]
Great discussion guys! (Not tryin to be sexist if a female has been involved) I totally agree that the U.S. will never be able to please everyone. If we don't act swiftly enough, we come across as arrogant and full of ourselves, we act to fast and we are power mongers. I was listening to a radio talk host today and he made a valid point. Why are we having a discussion with these terrorists at all? It's already proven that they are not honoring the ceasefire and in fact maybe using the ceasefire as a diversion to stockpile weapons in mosques. They will have to reconsider their tactics if they don't get what they want. By disrupting the region close to the deadline, they are attempting to force the U.S. to either keep their word and leave an unstable region that is in no way prepared to take over. The new government fails and the terrorists pick up their stronghold. America stays beyond the deadline to stabalize the region and we are labeled invaders who want to take over! This is basic psychology. If we reward a certain act, the learned act will be performed to achieve the desired stimulus. (Pavlov's dog) By giving in to terrorist demands, we encourage more terorist acts, not prevent them. It's interesting how we ask ourselves how can we fight an enemy who is willing to die for their cause, but consider this, who are the ones dying for the cause? The poor citizens and the under privileged are the ones dying for the cause, Bin Laden doesn't seem willing to die, Arafat doesn't seem willing to die. Known of the heads of any of these factions are the ones willing to die, they are brain washing young followers to die for the cause with the reward of virgins awaiting in the afterlife. We need to go after these people directly, not the followers and then lets see if they are willing to die for the cause.
As i recall the original idea was to go after Bin Laden in Afghanistan, because that's where Al Qaeda was. But the US went about it all wrong, I gotta say Afghanistan was a war done on the cheap. Basically the US got (paid, bribed) the northern alliance to do much of the ground the fighting, while they (the US) bombed from planes. The US allowed the Northern alliance way too much leeway, and just let them do whatever they wanted to as long as they said they were killing the Taliban, and now that's why Hamid Karzai is the "mayor" of Kabul and not the president. There are some 15000 US troops in Afghanistan in addition to the thousands from other countries including France and Germany, I want to know why there are 130000 US troops in Iraq when bin Laden was in another country. It pisses me off even more that troops were probably not deployed to Afghanistan because of preparations to go into Iraq (not to mention that diverted 700 million from the Afghan war to Iraq) especially since there were no actual links between Hussein and Bin Laden. I mean they hated each other, just before Gulf War 1 Bin Laden was preparing to wage a terrorist campaign against Saddam the "infidel" because of the possible threat to Saudi Arabia (made up by the US to get troop deployments, I might add) And, and, and, (almost done i promise) the WMDs that weren't. Now it is entirely possible that Saddam would try to get WMDs down the line, long after the worlds attention would have faded. But the case for war was made on the basis that he had them now, that he had hundreds of gallons of anthrax and botchulinem (sp?), and could have nuclear weapons very soon. But of course none of this was even remotely true, as Scott Ritter, Hans Blix and (eventually) David Kay all pointed out. Sorry i went a little bit off topic, i just needed to say that.
It's true that Bin Laden did not like Hussein, but they did cooperate in ventures together, when it suited both individuals. When I mean go after these people, I'm talking with gloves off! We have special forces and other elite units that conduct covert ops. Why not just send these people end and capture/ kill these people? No, we have to make a huge spectacle of the situation and announce our intentions giving them time to escape. If the police planned a search warrant at your house and they told you the day and time when it would be executed, you'd be pretty dumb not to get rid of any contraband that you may possess and even more stupid if you were present when the warrant was served! They know that we won't use certain tactics because we always have to be politically correct, like in comics, the bad guy can try and kill the good guy over and over, but when the bad guy is losing he just has to surrender and he knows he won't be harmed. We had several opportunities kill Bin Laden earlier, but we have to post a huge sign to let the world know when and where we will be coming. We allow CNN and other press to cover troop movement and their interaction with the enemy. We are playing by different rules! They can fire on us during ceasefires, and get away with it-it's what's expected of them, but it's inconceivable for us to act in the same manner. As for the WMD, no one is acknowledging the ruse used to kill Americans the other day where they recovered a cache of chemicals that could take out an entire city-what do you call those items? _X_X_X_X_X_[small]Silent Assasin[/small]
Huh? If it wasnt for an Englishman named Edwin Belin who invented television, then there would be no television.....Although the actualy first television was by a man named Philo Farnsworth, another Englishman
Maybe we should have just left hitler alone in europe and let him do whatever he wanted. I see it this way, bush basically stopped a premature hitler from getting to powerful. The guy killed his own people for no reason and no other country will stand up for the iraqi people. The iraqi people in the US and in iraq had celebrations and parties when we got rid of saddam. Maybe we should have left iraq alone and let him do whatever he wanted, but as soon as he did something to another country, everyone will be looking for help. They wont get it from germany or france, that is for sure. I dont like the way bush runs things, but im glad they went over there and stopped something that would have gotten worse. Oh and sophocles, even though they didnt find WOMD or chem weapons, they found illegal missles and other weapons that werent permitted by the UN. So what else are they hiding? If a man can hide in a small cave for a long time, i dont think it would be hard for them to hide other illegal weapons. AND AUSTRAILIA RULES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Chris- TV may have been invented by the British. But if we had left it up to them we'd only have 3 channels still. (lol)
I must repectfully disagree. The paralells between Hitler and Hussein are few. Hitler's plans included the whole of Europe and beyond whereas Hussein's plans have centered around Iraq's neigbors coupled with the fact that Hussein's military posed nowhere near the threat that the Wermacht did in it's day. If stopping terrorist was the one of the driving forces behind our invasion of Iraq, then we could have arbitrarily picked almost any country in that region. The WMD issue was cooked up and the fact that Hussein was slaughtering his own people isn't unique to Iraq at all. There're dictatorships on every continent killing their own people. Trying to install a democracy in a region that's been basically a fuedal/dictatorship society since Biblical times is like pissing into the wind. There are too many power-hungry factions who want it all to themselves that know how to kill or intimidate to get it, along with a huge population who've no idea what a democracy is and what it could do for them because they've never had anything remotely close to it. It breaks my heart that good, honest soldiers of all nations are over there getting killed for something that, I feel, is never going to work.
Excellent point Neph. According to the new Bush "doctrine" of invading all potnetial enemies, or states with WMDs or suporters of terrorism. If the US did that, they would first invade Saudi Arabia, then Pakistan, then Uzbekistan (all US allies), all of whom have records as bad, if not worse than Iraq'q But let me reinterate another point: There is no, nor has there ever been, a connection between Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, they never cooperated on anything. Both are Assholes and killers, and both are by-products of American foreign policies, but that does not make them like each other.
Excellent point Neph. According to the new Bush "doctrine" of invading all potnetial enemies, or states with WMDs or suporters of terrorism. If the US did that, they would first invade Saudi Arabia, then Pakistan, then Uzbekistan (all US allies), all of whom have records as bad, if not worse than Iraq's But let me reinterate another point: There is no, nor has there ever been, a connection between Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, they never cooperated on anything. Both are Assholes and killers, and both are by-products of American foreign policies, but that does not make them like each other. _X_X_X_X_X_[small]"Kids, you tried, and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try"[/small]
Excellent point Neph. According to the new Bush "doctrine" of invading all potnetial enemies, or states with WMDs or suporters of terrorism. If the US did that, they would first invade Saudi Arabia, then Pakistan, then Uzbekistan (all US allies), all of whom have records as bad, if not worse than Iraq'q But let me reinterate another point: There is no, nor has there ever been, a connection between Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, they never cooperated on anything. Both are Assholes and killers, and both are by-products of American foreign policies, but that does not make them like each other.
Sorry about that, i had a little trouble editing my first post, then somehow i wound up with a few more... so if you're a mod, feel free to delete a couple of them
I see quite a lot of posts that say - If we did nothing in Iraq and he attacked someone else.....etc. The point is it is not up to America to dictate what countries they intervene in and what countries they do not. Thats what the UN is there for, no matter what you might think about it. The UN, in its current state, or a newer state in the future should be what decides what happens around the world, not the US. Also, I see a lot of posts saying that US shouldnt let Iraq slaughter its own people. If thats the case, why does the US let the Isreal Government destroy Pallistines way of life and kill their people, take their land. At the end of the day, it does not come down to America stepping into Iraq to help the Iraqi people (just look at the pull out at Desert Storm), it comes down to a very unstable country controlling a vast quantity of oil. Anyone who thinks otherwise is fulling themselves...... _X_X_X_X_X_[small]For your DVD needs http://www.dvd-and-media.com http://www.dvd-backup.tk For User Guides/Downloads: http://www.chrismccann.co.uk/user_guides.htm [/small]
Start a political thread and in few days your at three pages. Come to Canada, we'll have all terorists, and make the americans think that we are the 51st state. It all good here.
Oriphus, the U.N. is a worthless entity. If they had any credibilty, Hussein would not have violated upteen resolutions, for fear of retaliation. THEY DON'T DO ANYTHING!!! A bunch of figure head puppets who individually have no power, they have to report to their individual countries for permisssion to act. Where are they in the North Korean issue? Where are they with Pakistan or Syria or any other problemed region? North Korea is in blanant violation of nuclear armament! I do believe that the U.N. needs to shoulder more responsibility, starting with the members picking up more of the financial burden to operate. The U.S. is dispreportionately shouldering the expense to fund the U.N. I wouldn't compare Hussein to Hitler or the war in Iraq with Vietnam, however, if gone unchecked and Hussein or terrorists were to control the entire middle east, how long would it be before they looked westward? _X_X_X_X_X_[small]Silent Assasin[/small]
