New Grave Sites in IRaq

[conjur]

Well, Britain had been under attack for some time and we were supplying aid (and ammo, as well) to the British. France had already fallen and the rest of Europe was on the way to defeat. Hitler was moving into Africa. The U.S. decided it could wait no longer. Although, Pearl Harbor accelerated our involvement.

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: conjur
Well, Britain had been under attack for some time and we were supplying aid (and ammo, as well) to the British. France had already fallen and the rest of Europe was on the way to defeat. Hitler was moving into Africa. The U.S. decided it could wait no longer. Although, Pearl Harbor accelerated our involvement.

The american government felt they needed a reason to enter the war. That's why they stalled. You had long supplied the british, and without those supplies it would have gone under before you entered the war. Yes your supply ships were under attack by wolf packs of german subs. WWII is my field. Trust me on this.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: conjur
Well, Britain had been under attack for some time and we were supplying aid (and ammo, as well) to the British. France had already fallen and the rest of Europe was on the way to defeat. Hitler was moving into Africa. The U.S. decided it could wait no longer. Although, Pearl Harbor accelerated our involvement.

But my question to the anit-war crowd is why did we even have to get involved.

We could have pulled out of IndoChina and left Europe to Germany/Italy.
If we kept our noses out of it, then no US troops would have been killed. There would have been no nukes used, no firebombing of Dresden, the Israile/Arab problem would not have existed, no need for a UN, etc.

 

[conjur]

Because Hitler was overrunning all of Europe. Madmen bent on world domination are a BAD thing. Unlike Saddam who was a class bully compared to Hitler.

The post-war division of lands wasn't done with the best of intentions but name one aftermath of a major war that was.

The only way to win a war is not to wage it in the first place.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: conjur
Well, Britain had been under attack for some time and we were supplying aid (and ammo, as well) to the British. France had already fallen and the rest of Europe was on the way to defeat. Hitler was moving into Africa. The U.S. decided it could wait no longer. Although, Pearl Harbor accelerated our involvement.

But my question to the anit-war crowd is why did we even have to get involved.

We could have pulled out of IndoChina and left Europe to Germany/Italy.
If we kept our noses out of it, then no US troops would have been killed. There would have been no nukes used, no firebombing of Dresden, the Israile/Arab problem would not have existed, no need for a UN, etc.

That's a pretty broad assumption. The axis where very much so attempting to make a atomic bomb, though they didn't complete there progress foruntalty.

 

[OffTopic1]

Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie
don cheadle wants to know where we were when the rwandan genocide was going on.

where was our moral obligation on that one?

Where the hell were the West while there were genocide in rwanda (800,000 people) and Cambodia (2,000,000)? And, where were the rest of the world when the American was in Vietnam, and the result also killed 150,000 Cambodian peasants that had nothing to do with the conflict by random bombing?

Hypocrite at work.

 

[slurmsmackenzie]

Originally posted by: OffTopic

Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie
don cheadle wants to know where we were when the rwandan genocide was going on.

where was our moral obligation on that one?

Where the hell were the West while there were genocide in rwanda (800,000 people) and Cambodia (2,000,000)? And, where were the rest of the world when the American was in Vietnam, and the result also killed 150,000 Cambodian peasants that had nothing to do with the conflict by random bombing?

Hypocrite at work.

 

[Taejin]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Link

113 Kurds found in Iraqi mass grave
Women, children pulled from trenches that may hold 1,500

Another reason that he should have been removed.

Some feel that the US is committing attrocies within Iraq against the population and should not have gone there.

This seems to give a clue on the needed moral reasons on removing/eliminating leaders that promote these types of actions.

Is anyone that complains about the US actions able to justify this?

Yer a retard. Our country does not go to war with random dictators because they are committing atrocities, and you know this. The original justification for invading Iraq was because they were a threat to us, not to their people.

Why don't we fvcking invade all of Africa for the atrocities done there too, hmm? And while we're at it, while dont you pull your head out of your arse.

 

[GTKeeper]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
"hello my name is osama bin laden, and i'm a recovering american ally"


. . . odd isn't it ? The US bankrolled and supported the Mujahadeen against Russia, and
one of Russia's reasons
to justify their invading of Afganistan was to curb the Islamic Fundamentalist Terorists that were threatening
the USSR in that frontier - really helped us didn't it.

CIA calls it BLOW-BACK.

Wrong. That is how you would the history to be, isn't it? Unfortunately, many Americans buy this BS about US directly supporting the mujahadeen in Afghanistan.

We and Saudi Arabia sent the funds to Pakistan to give the aid and money to the fighters, no matter who it was. Pakistan chose the radical sunni islamists so they would work for Pakistan in the future, possibly. Also they wanted to create a favorable regime in Afghanistan. We simply gave the aid to Pakistan and it was Pakistan who chose who to give it to.

At that time, the CIA wanted to simply kill Russians any way they could. We simply said to Pakistan, here is the money and give it to whoever will kill the Russians and drive them out of Afghanistan.

iraq = stoopid war

so whether it be korea, vietnam, iraq, iraq II, south america, or whatever skirmish we were involved in.... i actually agree with you. some other stoopid war would've gotten the money. i think oil prices are high for the same reason that canadian beef is still under embargo (or whatever it's called).... cuz as long as you turn up the heat slowly, the frog will stay in the pan.

Korea was a stupid war? Vietnam was a stupid war? The first Iraq war was a stoopid war?

Vietnam was a failure because it was run by politicians, not military leaders. If it had been run by generals and commanders, we would have won, no doubt.

Yeah right. I guarantee you that many Conservatives would have balked at supporting the Dub's excellent adventure if he had said we were invading Iraq to save the Iraqi's instead of eliminating WMDs.

Right, many conservatives did oppose the Iraq war, but they were the isolationist kind. I too opposed the Iraq war, although I'm not a conservative, on the ground that it would divert attention from Afghanistan. I was right, our attention is completely off of Afghanistan while things get more out of control there. Its not a good situation.

Actually, we not only supplied money but weapons to the Mujahadeen. That is why the Russians withdrew. We gave the shoulder rocket launchers that started taking down the Russian choppers like no tomorrow. (look this up)