Ramifications of American responce to WW2 (+WW1)

[Litofsky]

Split from UN - Islam thread, please continue WW2 discussion here; - j7

 

When the UN makes a resolution, a warning, and they don't back that up when it's broken that makes the resolutions in my opinion not mean so much.

Perhaps that is because, as mentioned previously, that when they can't even influence one of their most important members, they lack the resolve/strength to get anything actual done?

 

Sorry I didn't respond last night. Some of us have to go to bed to get up because we have things to do the next day.

And some people live in different time zones.

 

But yes I believe because the UN had their oil for food agreement that's why they didn't want us to go into Iraq because they would lose out in their deal with Saddam.

Wow, an institution doing something that would benefit its members! Crazy, right? Perhaps it was that, or maybe the UN say no justifiable reason to invade Iraq.

 

We the US already didn't like Saddam. I don't believe in compromising on our resolutions for the sake ofmoney. To me that's like selling out on your convictions. And since the UN does not support what we feel is good and right that too makes them useless to us. We mean what we say when we go into war. Or at least most of the time, Veitnam being the exception. But the UN in my opinion when it caves on it's resolutions shows it has little to no spine.

So, everything just a tool in the world to help the US carry its 'righteous convictions' throughout the land?

 

Again, the UN is a conglomeration of countries, and serves all of us, not just one. It doesn't matter who contributes the most money, or such. Generally, bribery is illegal.

 

And Astor this just shows by you saying others didn't need us in WWII how un grateful other countries are who hate us. We in America believe if it were not for us you'd all be speaking german. So your entitled to believe you didn't believe us, but for example the French we had to save from Hitler's take over.

Don't you dare speak for me. You are blindly assuming that the US was the single deciding factor in World War II. I admit, the US helped an immense amount after we entered the war, but that doesn't mean we get to take all of the 'glory.'

 

I feel somewhat bad for you if you believe that being ungrateful constitutes being hateful.

 

Again in my opinion it shows how generous we are to save countries even when they are un grateful. And not everyone like you believes they didn't need the US in WWI and WWII. There are those that are grateful we saved you Europe.

Who to say that everyone in a country is ungrateful? You're assuming that, based off of your skewed perception of a few posts that all of Europe is ungrateful (and therefore hateful, according to your post) for our actions in WWII. Sure, we helped a lot, but that does not entitle us to claim victory and glory for ourselves.

 

Heck we rebuilt you so you can sit here right now on a computer and bash your liberators. So your welcome.

Freedom of speech. It's one of the great qualities of most nations.

[Astor]

And Astor this just shows by you saying others didn't need us in WWII how un grateful other countries are who hate us.[/Quote]

 

I'm not ungrateful at all. But I refuse to allow America to simply believe it is solely responsible for saving the world. No one country can claim victory, and you're being narrow-minded if you think that.

 

We in America believe if it were not for us you'd all be speaking german.

 

And you'd be wrong. Britain hasn't been successfully invaded since 1066, and the Germans weren't even close.

 

Again in my opinion it shows how generous we are to save countries even when they are un grateful. And not everyone like you believes they didn't need the US in WWI and WWII.[/Quote]

 

I never said we didn't need America. I merely oppose Americans believing that they've saved the world and invented freedom.

 

There are those that are grateful we saved you Europe.[/Quote]

 

Heck we rebuilt you so you can sit here right now on a computer and bash your liberators. So your welcome.

 

I could turn that around and say without Britain you wouldn't be here to bash those who are apparently 'ungrateful'.

 

Your welcome.

[SD Nihil]

I'm not ungrateful at all. But I refuse to allow America to simply believe it is solely responsible for saving the world. No one country can claim victory, and you're being narrow-minded if you think that.

 

Our allies aided our effort, but we were doing a lot of the work. Who stormed the beaches, we did, who dropped nukes on those Japan islands ending the war, we did, who liberated France we did, who did the majority to rebuild Europe we did. I think we've done a lot.

 

And if you say you didn't need us I think that is an un grateful attitude.

 

Again, money or not, it is not the UN's duty to back America, or anyone else, unless they need to be protected by an aggressive state. Also, International law as written by the UN in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights expressly establishes the Human Rights enjoyed by most states in the Western world.

 

I believe that because we've done so much for the world that it does, and the fact we've done a lot for them too. So we may not be expecting anything in return for helping the world. But I think the world does owe us a great deal for our lives, money, and aid we've given to so many.

 

So humane the UN is for the oil for food scandal. I think they didn't want us to mess up their deal with Iraq because of the deal with Saddam. I think they knew they'd lose out on their deal if we went in. So that's why I think they cared more about their deal with Saddam rather than stand up to a man that committed crimes against humanity.

 

I don't think the UN is very humane if they don't stand up against killers like Saddam. You said aggressive nation. Are you refering to us. We see ourselves as liberators, not as conquerers like Russia, and Saddam was.

 

You are forgetting that Britain stood firm against Germany from 1939. Evidence: actions such as the Battle of Britain. Surviving the blitzkrieg. America didn't enter out of 'generosity', it entered after it was directly attacked in 1941. You are also missing the effect of the actions of the French Resistance.

 

Little they did in the face of Hilter. Doesn't change the fact we saved lives, and sacrificed so much. Today may be different in how much of the world hates us, but I believe England and others were grateful for all we did majorly against the axis powers.

 

Saved countries such as Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq...

 

So you think we should just not exist, never help, and let you guys fend for yourselves against terrorists, oppressive regimes, and dictators that have commited crimes against humanity.

 

Yeah we've saved Iraq. Free elections, education, woman's rights, no Saddam. Yes we saved them. They are doing much of their own defense. We are very close to victory.

 

Keep in mind Veitnam is the only war we lost.

 

Korea, yes because the South Koreans are free and protected from North Korea.

 

We liberated France, much of Europe with our allies. Africa too.

 

Considering Britain was never conquered...

 

From what I saw on the History channel England had a tough time during the Blitz against the Nazis almost destroying Englands air power.

 

The point is by us coming in don't you think we saved more lives of others.

 

Perhaps that is because, as mentioned previously, that when they can't even influence one of their most important members, they lack the resolve/strength to get anything actual done?

 

I again think it is because the UN didn't want to mess up their deal with Saddam. And I think it's because the UN is spineless, weak, and doesn't listen to the one country (us) that has done more for others than any other nation has in the history of the world.

 

I think we are the best nation on the planet. I'm glad I live here rather than in other countries who hate us, are jelous, whin, are weaker than us, and are un grateful to us.

 

Those that conquered Europe don't respect weakness. We respect those who stand up against evil and for the freedoms of others.

 

And some people live in different time zones.

 

You've never told me what country are you from? And please actually say a name. Before when I asked you all you said was in another zip code. Have pride in your country, we do.

 

Now again this above about weak and stuff is not meant as an insult to other countries. It's simply how we feel. I hate none of you here. I simply disagree with other countries who don't agree with us and well the above I have written.

 

So, everything just a tool in the world to help the US carry its 'righteous convictions' throughout the land?

 

We believe even with other countries kicking and screaming against our help that we feel we know what's best for them, and what's also best for us too.

 

Don't you dare speak for me. You are blindly assuming that the US was the single deciding factor in World War II. I admit, the US helped an immense amount after we entered the war, but that doesn't mean we get to take all of the 'glory.'

 

I never said single. I said a major contributer. I don't speak for you. Our country does for you and other I believe. It's like how some that believe in our Christan God that fight against him, or try. No matter what I believe he knows best too. We feel we know what's best.

 

Who to say that everyone in a country is ungrateful? You're assuming that, based off of your skewed perception of a few posts that all of Europe is ungrateful (and therefore hateful, according to your post) for our actions in WWII. Sure, we helped a lot, but that does not entitle us to claim victory and glory for ourselves.

 

Like before with the world wars you assume I belive that we were the sole person who won the world wars. And again you assume here too. I never said everyone did I.

 

Some, other than you, are actually grateful when America helps them. Who doesn't want victory and glory. Even our enemies realize that.

 

Freedom of speech. It's one of the great qualities of most nations.

 

But not all countries allow you to speak badly against their government without fear of punishment from that government. We Americans have a government that allows you to speak poorly against your own government. That is your right in this great land.

 

I could turn that around and say without Britain you wouldn't be here to bash those who are apparently 'ungrateful'.

 

Your welcome.

 

And I could also say if it were not for the French we would've not been here. But that was when they stood by us way back then. I'm just happy the current leader of France has seen the error in our opinion of his country's ways. Maybe that boycotting we did to them paid off.

 

And "your welcome". I think I said your welcome so you mean Thank you US for all the good you do for the rest of the world. We should be a heck of a lot nicer to you. Heck we should support you in your quest for freedom everywhere. Without you the world would be a whole lot worse America.

 

But I will say Thank You in exercising your free speech that we believe in too.

[Yar-El]

Here is the deal. European nations need the United States, and the United States needs the European nations. Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams fought over the nature of our relationships. World War I and World War II wouldn't have been successful if we all didn't work together. All of our lives were in jeopardy.

 

I don't think the United Nations is absolute; however, I do belive it was built upon solid ideologies. Each nation involved with the UN should not have to ask for permission, so they can defend themselves from a forgeign threat. Period.

 

Islam and Christianity are both guilty of the same things. Each religion was involved in ethnic cleansing. Both religions have psychopathic extremists hidden in the organization's structure. What is good for one group is good for the other. We should support the portions of both groups that catter to the greater good. If we turn back the hands of time, Christianity is the Islam invasion to the Jewish community. Like it or not, that is what actually happened.

 

United Nations should not promote a religion, but they should promote peace across religious bounderies. Anything else is just pathetic.

[Litofsky]

Just to say a few things off the bat before I answer your questions:

 

1) I live in the United States of America. I never said I didn't (in fact, I even mentioned that I lived here in my previous post). Also, I believe that you have me confused with someone else (if I recall correctly, this is the first time we've communicated with each other).

 

2) Please, when speaking about America, don't use the term "we." Saying "we" implies that the lot of us agree with what your saying, and that's just not true.

 

I also cut out the points that were not directed at me, so as to keep our argument focused.

 

I again think it is because the UN didn't want to mess up their deal with Saddam. And I think it's because the UN is spineless, weak, and doesn't listen to the one country (us) that has done more for others than any other nation has in the history of the world.

That's entirely possible. If you've got a good economic deal that benefits multiple member nations, why would you mess that up with a war that was/is unjustified (I say 'unjustified,' as the Senators voting for the war were deliberately misled).

 

I think we are the best nation on the planet. I'm glad I live here rather than in other countries who hate us, are jelous, whin, are weaker than us, and are un grateful to us.

I think that we're a pretty good nation. I never said that we weren't. However, you're assuming that every nation is "ungrateful" and that they "hate us." Please, provide a significant piece of evidence supporting your position.

 

You've never told me what country are you from? And please actually say a name. Before when I asked you all you said was in another zip code. Have pride in your country, we do.

Refer to Point 1. The United States of America. Again, I believe that you've gotten me confused with someone else.

 

Now again this above about weak and stuff is not meant as an insult to other countries. It's simply how we feel. I hate none of you here. I simply disagree with other countries who don't agree with us and well the above I have written.

So, you don't like County "A" because it disagrees with us?

 

We believe even with other countries kicking and screaming against our help that we feel we know what's best for them, and what's also best for us too.

Yes, I've noticed that as well. The question remains, however, if we actually are helping them. It depends on the situation and opinion.

 

I never said single. I said a major contributer. I don't speak for you. Our country does for you and other I believe. It's like how some that believe in our Christan God that fight against him, or try. No matter what I believe he knows best too. We feel we know what's best.

So, the US is like God, only on Earth? That's what I derived from your post. If you please, when was our apotheosis? I'm pretty sure that we're just an influential nation that likes to take center-stage in most major world events.

 

Like before with the world wars you assume I belive that we were the sole person who won the world wars. And again you assume here too. I never said everyone did I.

 

Some, other than you, are actually grateful when America helps them. Who doesn't want victory and glory. Even our enemies realize that.

You have my apologies for inferring something not said. The US did help the Allies a significant amount, I never denied that.

 

But not all countries allow you to speak badly against their government without fear of punishment from that government. We Americans have a government that allows you to speak poorly against your own government. That is your right in this great land.

Yes, that's the beauty of our county. We're allowed to voice our opinions without worrying about retribution by our government. I dare to say that the reason the Founding Fathers included the First Amendment in the Constitution for a reason similar to this.

 

And I could also say if it were not for the French we would've not been here. But that was when they stood by us way back then. I'm just happy the current leader of France has seen the error in our opinion of his country's ways. Maybe that boycotting we did to them paid off.

People are allowed to have their own opinions. It's nice to have allies, but you can't make someone your ally. That's up to the leaders to decide (and, at an even more basic level, that up to the people to decide their leaders).

 

And "your welcome". I think I said your welcome so you mean Thank you US for all the good you do for the rest of the world. We should be a heck of a lot nicer to you. Heck we should support you in your quest for freedom everywhere. Without you the world would be a whole lot worse America.But I will say Thank You in exercising your free speech that we believe in too.

Again, I'm American. Born and raised here. Just because I disagree with your ideas doesn't mean I don't realize what America's done in the world. However, I disagree with what you're saying. Just because America has done this or that doesn't make it the end all be all of existence.

[Samuel Dravis]

World War 2 was over 60 years ago and the Japanese took the first shot. War with Germany was inevitable if we fought the Japanese due to treaties between the two countries (and in fact we declared war on Germany after it had declared war on us). Nearly everyone who was alive at the time is dead and their views do not necessarily reflect their descendants'... Citing reasons and attitudes towards the war by people who are gone is not an excellent argument for why someone should support you, now.

 

The UN cannot do other than cave in because it is not an independent entity with its own military. Additionally, the makeup of the permanent members of the Security Council virtually guarantees that it's impossible to get anything militarily significant done - the member's interests are too diverse.

[Web Rider]

Anyway, I didn't address about why they should be disolved. If it were the oil for food scandal alone I'd say no don't disolve it. But that along with the fact they rarely back the US,

Weve repeatedly explained that it's an INTERNATIONAL orginization, and your former argument, that it's because we give them most money, you quickly drop as soon as you realize other countries can give the UN more money if they want to.

 

So why should they listen to the US? Because their building is here? That's a pretty bad argument. That means they should listen to Iran if Iran donated them a building. Because we contribute the most troops? We DONT have to do that you know, we do it because we WANT to, not because we're required. And UN peacekeepers are members from MANY nations who join the UN. Soldiers listen to their commanding officers, not the nations they come from.

 

follow through with their resolution when it gets broken, and support countries who don't allow freedom of speech, and countries who oppress their people.

The UN follows through on a LOT of it's resolutions. Not all of them sure. And hey, the US backs a LOT of countries that are oppressive dictatorships. Lets see, Brazil, Columbia, Saudi Arabia, China, yeah, we back, either directly or indirectly, MOST of the nations the UN can do nothing about.

 

But yes I believe because the UN had their oil for food agreement that's why they didn't want us to go into Iraq because they would lose out in their deal with Saddam.

You know why Bush sr didn't take out Saddam? Because we still liked him.

 

We the US already didn't like Saddam. I don't believe in compromising on our resolutions for the sake ofmoney.

That's strange, if we never liked the guy, why did we put him in power?

 

To me that's like selling out on your convictions.

Oh yeah, we're real good at not selling ourselves out for a bigger buck. That'd be why we didn't outsource american jobs, that'd be why our electronics companies never sold their ideas to Japan, that'd be why the financial market isn't in tatters.

 

Oh wait, we did ALL those things in the name of MORE MONEY. Americans surely are paragons of how to make more money at the expense of others.

 

And since the UN does not support what we feel is good and right that too makes them useless to us.

You know, I can use that same argument to justify murder of republicans. So really, you don't want to go down the road of "they're useless because they don't agree with me." Because if you're not careful, you'll be the one on the wrong end of the barrel.

 

We mean what we say when we go into war. Or at least most of the time, Veitnam being the exception. But the UN in my opinion when it caves on it's resolutions shows it has little to no spine.

It's not like we're helping when we veto measures for UN intervention 'cause it would interfere with our desires.

 

And Astor this just shows by you saying others didn't need us in WWII how un grateful other countries are who hate us. We in America believe if it were not for us you'd all be speaking german. So your entitled to believe you didn't believe us, but for example the French we had to save from Hitler's take over.

If the US didn't intervene, Europe would likly be speaking Russian, not German. WWII in Europe was heading towards an end when we joined. Did we help a LOT, damn straight. But the War in the Pacific is really where the US made the biggest impact.

 

Again in my opinion it shows how generous we are to save countries even when they are un grateful. And not everyone like you believes they didn't need the US in WWI and WWII. There are those that are grateful we saved you Europe.

ugh, gag me, all this pro-america tripe is making me sick. Hey, I love my country, but we aren't THAT grand of saviors for Europe.

 

Heck we rebuilt you so you can sit here right now on a computer and bash your liberators. So your welcome.

Only if you're talking about Germany and Japan. The French and British did a good job of rebuilding their own countries.

[SD Nihil]

And so the US was able to respond to the Taleban threat. However, there was no evidence to justify attacking Iraq - which is why the UN refused to pass a resolution sponsoring an assault the way they did with Res. 678. The UN is there to try to prevent war breaking out.

 

Again you guys don't read and you come back with the same arguments. Why am I wasting my time with you. I said it does not matter if they had WMDs or not. They broke the cease fire agreement. The UN didn't follow through with their resoultions and we acted.

 

But whatever. I'm tired of telling it over and over and over. Scarcasm: Yup Bush is evil and America is evil and aggressive, and mean. lol.

 

<snip> It amuses me that you make silly flamey statements like that, when clearly you have far too much time on your hands to be posting posts longer than others who apparently should be doing other things...

 

2) Please, when speaking about America, don't use the term "we." Saying "we" implies that the lot of us agree with what your saying, and that's just not true.

 

Well you sure don't act patriotic. And if I want to us we as in America meaning not just I believe this way. We did this we did that. So I will use we. Don't tell me what to do.

 

That's entirely possible. If you've got a good economic deal that benefits multiple member nations, why would you mess that up with a war that was/is unjustified (I say 'unjustified,' as the Senators voting for the war were deliberately misled).

 

Again, a member benefiting the UN at the expense of inocents in Iraq. Lives mean more than material things in my opinion. Saddm was feeding his army and not his people. So yes all those nations who benefited off of that food for oil scandal were wrong in supporting a deal with Saddam like this.

 

So, you don't like County "A" because it disagrees with us?

 

Because they rarely support us for all that we do. I think they should show that they are grateful by standing for what we do. Giving lives, aid, and mone to help others. They should be much nicer to us for all that we sacrificed.

 

Yes, I've noticed that as well. The question remains, however, if we actually are helping them. It depends on the situation and opinion.

 

A lot of us believe what we are doing is good for other countries. We rock in my opinion. And we'll continue to help others dispite what other countries think of us, say about us, or resist us.

 

So, the US is like God, only on Earth? That's what I derived from your post. If you please, when was our apotheosis? I'm pretty sure that we're just an influential nation that likes to take center-stage in most major world events

 

I'm saying he knows what's best. And I believe we know what's best too.

 

You have my apologies for inferring something not said. The US did help the Allies a significant amount, I never denied that.

 

I think that was for the other guy. Too much writing to look through. Too much "blank" to correct.

 

Yes, that's the beauty of our county. We're allowed to voice our opinions without worrying about retribution by our government. I dare to say that the reason the Founding Fathers included the First Amendment in the Constitution for a reason similar to this.

 

I agree. Wow one thing we agree on. lol. Yeah and that too in my opinion makes us better than some countries that don't have that aspect to them.

 

People are allowed to have their own opinions. It's nice to have allies, but you can't make someone your ally. That's up to the leaders to decide (and, at an even more basic level, that up to the people to decide their leaders).

 

I think a boycott, an exercise of our freedom to not buy from them can effect their country and citizens. And it can preasure them to change their minds. Or at least get back at them for not supporting us. And yes I agree we all can have our opinions. I've always said that.

 

Again, I'm American. Born and raised here. Just because I disagree with your ideas doesn't mean I don't realize what America's done in the world. However, I disagree with what you're saying. Just because America has done this or that doesn't make it the end all be all of existence.

 

I know your American. A lot of these quotes were from Astor Kaine. You know what you said.

 

World War 2 was over 60 years ago and the Japanese took the first shot. War with Germany was inevitable if we fought the Japanese due to treaties between the two countries (and in fact we declared war on Germany after it had declared war on us). Nearly everyone who was alive at the time is dead and their views do not necessarily reflect their descendants'... Citing reasons and attitudes towards the war by people who are gone is not an excellent argument for why someone should support you, now.

 

People have such disrespect for the greatest generation. A lot of decendents still believe the way they do. And those not related to them do too.

 

Weve repeatedly explained that it's an INTERNATIONAL orginization, and your former argument, that it's because we give them most money, you quickly drop as soon as you realize other countries can give the UN more money if they want to.

 

We've given the most lives, aid, and money to countries. So yeah they should care about our opinion which in our opinion is right.

 

The UN follows through on a LOT of it's resolutions. Not all of them sure. And hey, the US backs a LOT of countries that are oppressive dictatorships. Lets see, Brazil, Columbia, Saudi Arabia, China, yeah, we back, either directly or indirectly, MOST of the nations the UN can do nothing about.

 

I agree there we should'nt be supporting those nations. But I didn't vote on that. Or at least a vote for that didn't come up. And even if the UN can't act militarily, their member countries if they wanted to can back us militarily. But they rarely do.

 

You know why Bush sr didn't take out Saddam? Because we still liked him.

 

lol. No. Again it was because we would've, but initially Saddam agreed to the cease fire agreement by getting out of Kuwaitt, and allowing UN inspectors in.

 

That's strange, if we never liked the guy, why did we put him in power?

 

Because back then we didn't expect him to do the things he did.

 

Oh yeah, we're real good at not selling ourselves out for a bigger buck. That'd be why we didn't outsource american jobs, that'd be why our electronics companies never sold their ideas to Japan, that'd be why the financial market isn't in tatters.

 

We don't, or at least since the China and other nations were brought up, at least we shouldn't have deals with countries making a profit off of the expense of innocents. We are sure better in my opinion than a lot of nations.

 

You know, I can use that same argument to justify murder of republicans. So really, you don't want to go down the road of "they're useless because they don't agree with me." Because if you're not careful, you'll be the one on the wrong end of the barrel.[/QUOE]

 

I said the UN in my opinion is useless to us. Never said we should kill them. And interesting you bring up about republicans. I don't always agree with the republicans. Republican and Democrats are parties. Conservative and liberal are belief

 

And yeah interesting that you say republican killed. Would it really bother you if I wasn't alive.

 

But that's the thing today. People start hating each other in this country so much they want to do some bad things. I don't hate you. I want nothing bad to ever happen to you. We can disagree on policy. I believe however, we should agree on principals that make us American.

 

f the US didn't intervene, Europe would likly be speaking Russian, not German. WWII in Europe was heading towards an end when we joined. Did we help a LOT, damn straight. But the War in the Pacific is really where the US made the biggest impact.

 

It was nearing the end when we came because we were responsible for the end being that year by us helping it to end quicker. I think by us coming in we saved more lives by doing so. By dropping nukes on the japanese islands we ended i quicker. We were responsible for D day. So I think we did a lot in that war. And even if Russia did more than us and you think we'd all be speaking Russian, would you want to be speaking Russian, having comunism, and unable to speak against the government of Russia. I think those countries are glad to not be under Russian rule. I think countries were happy when we told Russia to "tar down this wall".

 

Web what country are you from? Are you from the US too? Who here is from what? I live in the US. I'm from the south east. I'm a red stater and proud of it.I'm proud to be conservative.

 

Only if you're talking about Germany and Japan. The French and British did a good job of rebuilding their own countries.

 

I think England back then was thankful for us helping them. The French wouldn't be able to assist in rebuilding ifif we didn't liberate them.

 

Have a blessed day all.

[Litofsky]

Again you guys don't read and you come back with the same arguments. Why am I wasting my time with you. I said it does not matter if they had WMDs or not. They broke the cease fire agreement. The UN didn't follow through with their resoultions and we acted.But whatever. I'm tired of telling it over and over and over. Scarcasm: Yup Bush is evil and America is evil and aggressive, and mean. lol.

I don't know why you're "wasting your time" with us. I find this quite interesting, and I'm saddened to know that you consider the exchange of opinions a "waste of time."

 

However, once more, I believe that you're missing my point. The Senate voted to go to war with Iraq based on the belief that they held WMDs, not because they broke the cease-fire. The pretenses under which we went to war were false/fabricated.

 

As for the last part of your post, some people view us (meaning America as a country) as "evil" and "aggressive." It all depends how you look at it, and the circumstances.

 

It's like you guys live on this forum. How can you guys post all day. Don't you have jobs to go to?

It's the weekend for most of us.

 

Well you sure don't act patriotic. And if I want to us we as in America meaning not just I believe this way. We did this we did that. So I will use we. Don't tell me what to do.

I fail to see how not saying that America is the world liberator is unpatriotic. I'm not telling you what to do. Rather, I'm asking that, when referring to America in general, you avoid assuming that everyone agrees with you (as evidenced by your constant use of "we" in place of "USA/America").

 

It groups many people that disagree with you into one group, and I, for one, would request that you stop stereotyping America. We're a group of many people, with a multitude of ideas, not just a single collective that shares the exact same thoughts.

 

Again, a member benefiting the UN at the expense of inocents in Iraq. Lives mean more than material things in my opinion. Saddm was feeding his army and not his people. So yes all those nations who benefited off of that food for oil scandal were wrong in supporting a deal with Saddam like this.

 

Source? Assuming that this is true:

 

What you say has merit, but Saddam was feeding his people (just not all of them. As you say, he was only feeding the military). So, because Country "X" makes a deal with Country "B," and people are harmed by this, you say that they are morally wrong?

 

Because they rarely support us for all that we do. I think they should show that they are grateful by standing for what we do. Giving lives, aid, and mone to help others. They should be much nicer to us for all that we sacrificed.

So, these gifts aren't just altruistic in nature? It's a shame that our aid comes with strings attached, as if the recipient country didn't accept the terms, people would suffer. And then wouldn't that be the fault of both nations? And therefore morally wrong?

 

A lot of us believe what we are doing is good for other countries. We rock in my opinion. And we'll continue to help others dispite what other countries think of us, say about us, or resist us.

Yes, many citizens agree with you. However,

 

I'm saying he knows what's best. And I believe we know what's best too.

If I remember correctly my geometry correctly, the Transitive Property property stated that, if A=B, and B=C, then A=C (variations apply).

 

So, God (A)= Knows what's best (B). And the US ©= knows what's best (B). Therefore, does A=C? According to my math, you're saying that the US is equivalent to God in terms of power and influence?

 

Please, correct me if I've interpreted you incorrectly.

 

I agree. Wow one thing we agree on. lol. Yeah and that too in my opinion makes us better than some countries that don't have that aspect to them.

I'm immensely grateful for our Constitution.

 

 

People have such disrespect for the greatest generation. A lot of decendents still believe the way they do. And those not related to them do too.

What makes this generation the greatest (I assume that you mean our generation, in this case). Also, what is the point of this statement?

[jawathehutt]

We were responsible for D day.

No, the allies were responsible for overlord, saying only America was did it takes away much deserved credit from thousands of soldiers, civilians and officers of the other allied nations.

And even if Russia did more than us and you think we'd all be speaking Russian, would you want to be speaking Russian, having comunism, and unable to speak against the government of Russia. I think those countries are glad to not be under Russian rule. I think countries were happy when we told Russia to "tar down this wall".

If you think Russia could have taken over Europe had germany not been their, you are completely wrong. Ever hear of the winter war? From 1939 to 1940 the Russians got the crap kicked out of them by Finland. Their army was pathetic at that time, its highly unlikely they would have even reached a major nation like France(Assuming Germany was still disarmed) before getting annihilated.

Web what country are you from? Are you from the US too? Who here is from what? I live in the US. I'm from the south east. I'm a red stater and proud of it.I'm proud to be conservative.

You must feel so proud to be contributing to the wonderful party that takes international treaties and national rights of all citizens and waterboards them until they stop existing. Oh wait, its not called waterboarding, its "enhanced interrogation."

[GarfieldJL]

Really the only major powers left in for D-day was the United States and the United Kingdom.

 

Canada may have helped as well as a few other countries, as well as the remnants of other countries military forces but fact is, the US and UK were really the only major allies left.

[Corinthian]

I think it's pretty apparent that without any of the Big Three, World War 2 would have been lost. America did save the day, yes, but so did Great Britain and Russia.

[Astor]

Again you guys don't read and you come back with the same arguments. Why am I wasting my time with you.[/Quote]

 

We're sorry that we've wasted your precious time, seeing as you've given us brilliant arguments so far.

 

 

Don't tell me what to do.

 

Why shouldn't he? You've been telling us we're wrong and that we should think like you. You've even told us not to bother 'wasting your time'.

 

Because they rarely support us for all that we do. I think they should show that they are grateful by standing for what we do. Giving lives, aid, and mone to help others. They should be much nicer to us for all that we sacrificed.[/Quote]

 

Yet again, you parade the same old tripe without actually saying anything of merit.

 

I know your American. A lot of these quotes were from Astor Kaine. You know what you said.

 

Actually, half of the quotes you attributed to me were by other people.

 

People have such disrespect for the greatest generation. A lot of decendents still believe the way they do. And those not related to them do too.[/Quote]

 

If you're implying that I have no respect for the Veterans of the Second World War, you couldn't be more wrong. My Grandfather spent the entire war diffusing and delivering unexploded bombs.

 

My Great-Grandfather fought Rommel in the Desert, and spent a years as his prisoner. So don't you ever tell me that I disrespect them.

 

And, more to the point, I've spoken to many American war Veterans, and they've never declared that they saved the world. They've said they were glad to help, and have never shown the arrogance that you clearly show.

 

 

We've given the most lives, aid, and money to countries. So yeah they should care about our opinion which in our opinion is right.[/Quote]

 

In your opinion, your opinions are right? I should hope so. Still doesn't mean anyone should give a two-penny damn about them.

 

We were responsible for D day. So I think we did a lot in that war.

 

Oh, nice of you to disregard the Armed Forces of Great Britain, Canada, Australia, France, New Zealand, The Netherlands, Norway and Poland.

 

Also, the entire operation was planned by a British General (Sir Frederick Morgan). And the fact that the entire Operation was overseen and commanded by a British Officer has nothing to do with it?

 

Nice of you to forget those huge war cemetaries dedicated to soldiers who weren't American, too.

 

I think England back then was thankful for us helping them. The French wouldn't be able to assist in rebuilding ifif we didn't liberate them.[/Quote]

 

I repeat, I have never once said that Britain wasn't thankful to America for their sacrifices during the War. But it does not mean we have to be eternally grateful to Americans, or be your lapdogs.

 

The only people i'm grateful towards are the likes of Major Richard Winters, and other such veterans who gave so much.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Who stormed the beaches

It's called the Allied Invasion of Normandy for a reason.

 

who dropped nukes on those Japan islands ending the war

Citing atrocities as victories isn't helping your case.

 

who liberated France we did

Once again, the Allied forces. To use your catchphrase against you, who liberated the death camps? The Russians.

 

And if you say you didn't need us I think that is an un grateful attitude.

I don't think anyone said that, however you can't give the US all the credit for the Allied victory in World War II. In fact, I'd go so far as to say even with the aid of the US, the Germans may have won in Europe without the help of the Russians. Hell, the majority of Americans didn't even want to get involved until the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, and there's substantial evidence to suggest that the US government let that happen in order to get us involved.

 

I believe that because we've done so much for the world that it does, and the fact we've done a lot for them too. So we may not be expecting anything in return for helping the world. But I think the world does owe us a great deal for our lives, money, and aid we've given to so many.

So you expect the rest of the world to condemn themselves to a sort of "debtors' prison" because the US helped out in the World Wars? If you're going to say that, you have to blame the US for the times it's screwed things up as well. After the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the massive influx of weapons into the Middle East from the US, Israel, and Egypt, we did next to nothing to rebuild Afghanistan and paved the way for the Taliban to take control. We've supported brutal dictators to protect corporate interests in South America, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East thereby causing massive amounts of war, poverty, and anarchy.

Where's your attitude of taking responsibility and paying off your debts when it comes to those things? Or do you only believe in taking credit for positive things?

 

So humane the UN is for the oil for food scandal. I think they didn't want us to mess up their deal with Iraq because of the deal with Saddam. I think they knew they'd lose out on their deal if we went in. So that's why I think they cared more about their deal with Saddam rather than stand up to a man that committed crimes against humanity.

See above, we've done the exact same thing since the mid-19th century, starting with the Union campaign of "Total War" in the Civil War. If you'd like an example of this sort of thing going on today, how about the US protecting the interests of oil companies like Shell, who had Ken Saro-Wiwa, a Nigerian man who led peaceful protests against Shell, among other oil companies, for the human rights violations they committed against their workers in the Niger Delta area.

 

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_Nigeria#Human_rights_controversies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Saro-Wiwa

 

If Wikipedia isn't good enough for you or has what you perceive to be some sort of "liberal bias", click the links cited on those pages or go find your own.

 

I don't think the UN is very humane if they don't stand up against killers like Saddam. You said aggressive nation. Are you refering to us. We see ourselves as liberators, not as conquerers like Russia, and Saddam was.

Who gives a **** what "we" think (which is a far cry from the truth), it matters how the Iraqis see us since (and this may blow your ****ing mind) we're in THEIR country. As to your assertion that the UN doesn't stand up against "killers like Saddam", what about the genocides that have occurred in numerous African countries (Sudan, Rwanda, and Congo to name a few), Armenia (granted, this was some time ago), and Palestine?

 

Little they did in the face of Hilter. Doesn't change the fact we saved lives, and sacrificed so much. Today may be different in how much of the world hates us, but I believe England and others were grateful for all we did majorly against the axis powers.

No ****. But you're overlooking the fact that every country involved sacrificed as much as or more than what we did.

 

So you think we should just not exist, never help, and let you guys fend for yourselves against terrorists, oppressive regimes, and dictators that have commited crimes against humanity.

You're splitting things into just black and white, when the world consists of shades of gray. The US did help the world in World War II. The US does help by giving foreign aid to other countries (although a large amount of it is spent on weapons). However this doesn't mean that our wrongs don't "count", logically, your whole "debt" system should apply to both positive and negative acts.

 

Yeah we've saved Iraq. Free elections, education, woman's rights, no Saddam. Yes we saved them. They are doing much of their own defense. We are very close to victory.

We aren't close to "victory" since no one has ever defined what "victory" is, so far it has just been used as a buzzword, something that pro-war politicians throw around to cover up their sins.

 

Keep in mind Veitnam is the only war we lost.

And? Iraq is the same type of war we fought in Vietnam and we're using almost the exact same strategy in the Iraq War. Our soldiers are being attacked by people who aren't part of a formal military who dress as civilians. Our response to this is to issue orders to our troops to guess at who their enemy is or is not. We think that brute force is the answer, and ostracize soldiers and intelligence officers with experience in Middle Eastern affairs and culture or the ability to speak Arabic because social conservatives disagree with who they are or how they live their lives.

 

Korea, yes because the South Koreans are free and protected from North Korea.

And what of North Korea?

 

We liberated France, much of Europe with our allies. Africa too.

See above for my views on the European front. As to Africa isn't liberated, we've only changed who is doing the oppressing.

 

From what I saw on the History channel England had a tough time during the Blitz against the Nazis almost destroying Englands air power.

The Blitz was near the beginning of the war, and ended with an unsuccessful invasion. Again, I'm not saying the US played no part in the victories in World War II, however the US wasn't the superhero-esque picture you seem to be painting.

 

The point is by us coming in don't you think we saved more lives of others.

No one said that. See my comment about shades of gray and whatnot.

 

I again think it is because the UN didn't want to mess up their deal with Saddam. And I think it's because the UN is spineless, weak, and doesn't listen to the one country (us) that has done more for others than any other nation has in the history of the world.

The US is a great country, and it's the only real superpower left, but you're ignoring its sins instead of advocating atoning for them and making sure they don't happen again. Your attitude is allowing the US to become static and complacent, instead of moving forward and improving on its current state.

 

I think we are the best nation on the planet. I'm glad I live here rather than in other countries who hate us, are jelous, whin, are weaker than us, and are un grateful to us.

What other countries have you been to, if you don't mind my asking? In my mind the plains and wildlife of Tanzania are far more beautiful than any place here in the US, the jungles of Central and South America and its wildlife are also incredible. The urban environment of Amsterdam meshed with its history is quite interesting, being able to see the history of a city and how its evolved or been retrofitted is pretty damn cool. Does it make me unpatriotic for picking and choosing the aspects of different countries that I like? No, it only means that I see room for the US to improve, instead of allowing it to stagnate and eventually collapse under its own weight. In short, just because an idea is foreign, you shouldn't write it off as being a lesser idea.

 

Those that conquered Europe don't respect weakness. We respect those who stand up against evil and for the freedoms of others.

If we respect those who stand up against evil and for the freedoms of others, perhaps we shouldn't be so selective about who we stand up for and start standing up for them without destroying the infrastructure of their country in the process.

 

Now again this above about weak and stuff is not meant as an insult to other countries. It's simply how we feel. I hate none of you here. I simply disagree with other countries who don't agree with us and well the above I have written.

I think others have said this, but enough with this "we" ****, the majority of the country is against the war in Iraq and views US foreign policy in a negative light.

 

We believe even with other countries kicking and screaming against our help that we feel we know what's best for them, and what's also best for us too.

Other countries aren't children, they're countries. Unless they meddle with our affairs, we shouldn't meddle with theirs.

 

I never said single. I said a major contributer. I don't speak for you. Our country does for you and other I believe. It's like how some that believe in our Christan God that fight against him, or try. No matter what I believe he knows best too. We feel we know what's best.

If we knew it was what's best I'd still say **** that. People need the right to choose what they want, and unless they deny others that right, we should not impose our beliefs onto them.

 

Like before with the world wars you assume I belive that we were the sole person who won the world wars. And again you assume here too. I never said everyone did I.

You're still misrepresenting the US' role.

 

Some, other than you, are actually grateful when America helps them. Who doesn't want victory and glory. Even our enemies realize that.

Define "victory" and "glory" in this context. Are your definitions the same as those you want the US to crusade for? If not, then what gives you the right to redefine these words for others? Do you have a reason for this beyond "I/the US knows what's best for others".

 

But not all countries allow you to speak badly against their government without fear of punishment from that government. We Americans have a government that allows you to speak poorly against your own government. That is your right in this great land.

And the people you seem to support (pro-war social conservatives) are pro-censorship. I find this more than a little ironic.

 

And I could also say if it were not for the French we would've not been here. But that was when they stood by us way back then. I'm just happy the current leader of France has seen the error in our opinion of his country's ways. Maybe that boycotting we did to them paid off.

Yes, I'm sure renaming french fries to freedom fries in a small number of restaurants and cafeterias made a difference.

 

And "your welcome". I think I said your welcome so you mean Thank you US for all the good you do for the rest of the world. We should be a heck of a lot nicer to you. Heck we should support you in your quest for freedom everywhere. Without you the world would be a whole lot worse America.

Again, I'm simply asking that you recognize the wrongs the US has committed and the truth of the good things the US has done.

[Corinthian]

Since when were Pro-War Social Conservatives Pro-Censorship?

[Litofsky]

Since when were Pro-War Social Conservatives Pro-Censorship?

 

I believe that jmac meant that where you find one of the above qualities usually you find the other.

 

But I might have misinterpreted it.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Since when were Pro-War Social Conservatives Pro-Censorship?

That comment was mainly directed at just social conservatives, however I assumed there are also social conservatives who are anti-war. In the context of the comment, I needed to specify which one I was referring to since he wouldn't (supposedly) be supporting anti-war social conservatives, not implying that one follows the other.

[Totenkopf]

Actually, Jmac, liberals are just as prone as social conservatives to be censorship minded. The PC mindset and speech codes at universities are byproducts of socially liberal people. Further, the Obama campaign is trying to censor povs that they feel are unfair to their candidate, all the while distorting the records of the other side. Nice piece of political hypocrisy.

 

Frankly, as regards WW2, it is right to point out that a healthy share of the credit for destroying the German war machine can be attributed to US involvement. That should not overlook the contribution made by our allies, both eastern and western. Even if GB provided nothing other than only Enigma, its contribution would be almost sinful to overlook. It naturally provided more, of course. The USSR tied down >60% of Hitler's armies on the eastern front. Imagine how impossible D-Day would have been had the USSR been forced to capitulate in '41. Even in the Pacific theatre, commonwealth troops helped tie down Japanese forces in places like Burma. It would, however, be incorrect to contend that the US entered the European theatre only toward the end. Invasions of Africa and Sicily/Italy were underway as early as '42/'43. The final push only didn't take place till '44. Also, not all the concentration camps were liberated by the Russians, though the many of the largest ones did lie mostly in their path. Frankly, the crack about the atomic bombing as atrocity is pretty empty. The war itself was something of an atrocity and ugly tactics were used by all sides.

 

As regards the question of "loyalty" and allies, I think it was Palmerston in the 19th century that pointed out that countires have permanent interests, not permanent friends. I've been to Europe 2x and have not generally found the people to be hostile to Americans or the contributions of our grandfathers (outside of govt positions and the portions of the "intelligentsia", who even tend to be America haters in our own country). It is only natural, as Palmerston pointed out (and we discover even w/in our own families) that people ain't always gonna agree on everything and will have their own agendas. Ce le vie/guerre (sp?).

 

As to the UN, it's a useless pit of vipers if we're going to be honest. It serves a kind of PR purpose for all the major players, but that's really about all. Given that it only takes 1 of 5 countries to nix something, perhaps we should be gratreful. All the more so with the hostility many of its members have toward the US and even west/developed world in general. I can only thank God/fate that the UN is so weak. A UN army/military would be a waste of money anyway for the aforementioned reason. As it is, what military force the UN has currently is a major joke anyway. I wouldn't advocate anyone make its military subservient to the UN, even our enemies (tempting though it might be). While we shouldn't expect other nations to be grateful for the support we do provide through the UN, nor should they ungratefully assume that the $$ spigot will flow unquestioningly.

 

As for Iraq, SD is quite correct that it was never necessary for the whole charade of justifying an "illegal war" (so called by its critics), as the very breaking of the cease fire terms automatically set things in motion anyway. That's how wars work. Break the ceasefire terms and war resumes. Had an actual peace treaty been signed, the Iraq war critics would actually have had a possible case. Instead, all they've got is bupkiss. Ce le guerre.