Pulled the old switchero of changing the thread title

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: Insane3D
How was Iraq a IMMINENT threat? WMD?

WMD, no, money to fund terrorism? yes.

Fund terrorism how? The only funding Saddam did was to give money to the families left behind from suicide bombers in Palestine. That was primarily because it was doing damage to his enemy Israel. He had no ties with AQ or other Islamic fundamentalists because he repressed Islam in his country. He was not well liked for this reason.

um, this is how sneaky people get up in your base and cut your throat. don't get me on this? sorry.

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: Judgement
Can you in complete honesty think that the only reason we jumped into the war was because Japan attacked us? Japan attacked the U.S. because they knew it was only a matter of time. The simple fact that we had not declared it yet does not change that. Japan knew we were coming and tried to give a critical blow while they had the advantage of us not being involved/expecting the attack. Even if Japan had never attacked it was only a matter of time.

I don't think we were going overthere before 1943. We didn't really manage a victory until mid-1942. We were ill prepared.

Japan attacked the US because we cut them off. We disapproved of their rape of Asia and stopped selling them oil. They wanted to cripple our fleet so that they could force us into selling or giving them war material. I think they would have attacked America later anyway, if we didn't go after them.

The threat of Japan was known, even back in the early 20th century. Teddy Roosevelt knew that we needed to watch out for them. That was part of the driving force behind his desire to construct the Panama Canal. That way our Atlantic Fleet could easily be redirected to the Pacific.

So while I think that we *may* have attacked Japan at some point, I would not call World War 2 proactive in any way.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: Judgement

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: Judgement

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: Judgement
Honestly, WTF are you talking about?

WWII, Korea, and Vietnam were all proactive.

I don't think the US was proactive in World War 2. Germany invaded its neighbors then Japan attacks the US and minutes later makes demands. The US declares war on Japan. Then Germany and Italy declare war on the US.

Can you in complete honesty think that the only reason we jumped into the war was because Japan attacked us? Japan attacked the U.S. because they knew it was only a matter of time. The simple fact that we had not declared it yet does not change that. Japan knew we were coming and tried to give a critical blow while they had the advantage of us not being involved/expecting the attack. Even if Japan had never attacked it was only a matter of time.

It was still reactive. Proactive would have been to take out Hitler long before he got as powerful as he did.

That would have been a proactive action by one of the strong European powers like England or France, but for the U.S. proactive was not waiting until Europe had been completely conquered to the point where they had no allies left.

yep.

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: Judgement


That would have been a proactive action by one of the strong European powers like England or France, but for the U.S. proactive was not waiting until Europe had been completely conquered to the point where they had no allies left.

Look, you may feel that way, and that is your perogative, but the fact is, it's generally accepted WW2 was not proactive.

 

[FoBoT]

read the enemy within by michael savage

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: Insane3D
How was Iraq a IMMINENT threat? WMD?

WMD, no, money to fund terrorism? yes.

Fund terrorism how? The only funding Saddam did was to give money to the families left behind from suicide bombers in Palestine. That was primarily because it was doing damage to his enemy Israel. He had no ties with AQ or other Islamic fundamentalists because he repressed Islam in his country. He was not well liked for this reason.

um, this is how sneaky people get up in your base and cut your throat. don't get me on this? sorry.

Riiight. Can't argue with that reasoning! So are we going to attack everyone who might be "sneaky" now? Also, you didn't answer my questions about cars earlier. Should we destroy all cars to proactively "save" all those people who will be killed in accidents in the coming years?

 

[AFB]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: Judgement

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: Judgement

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: Judgement
Honestly, WTF are you talking about?

WWII, Korea, and Vietnam were all proactive.

I don't think the US was proactive in World War 2. Germany invaded its neighbors then Japan attacks the US and minutes later makes demands. The US declares war on Japan. Then Germany and Italy declare war on the US.

Can you in complete honesty think that the only reason we jumped into the war was because Japan attacked us? Japan attacked the U.S. because they knew it was only a matter of time. The simple fact that we had not declared it yet does not change that. Japan knew we were coming and tried to give a critical blow while they had the advantage of us not being involved/expecting the attack. Even if Japan had never attacked it was only a matter of time.

It was still reactive. Proactive would have been to take out Hitler long before he got as powerful as he did.

That would have been a proactive action by one of the strong European powers like England or France, but for the U.S. proactive was not waiting until Europe had been completely conquered to the point where they had no allies left.

yep.

Once again

Proactive
1 A step taken before something happens

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
read the enemy within by michael savage

Riight....Savage...that moderate? Maybe Ann Coulter?

:roll:

Publisher's weekly review...(part of the liberal establishment of course!)

According to the conservative shock jock, host of the syndicated radio show Savage Nation (and author of the bestselling book of the same title), America's greatest threat comes not from terrorists or foreign nations, but from liberals. In the outrageous, controversial style that made him a hit on syndicated radio-and cost him his short-lived TV show on MSNBC-this wide-ranging screed covers Savage's strident views on everything from the courts to the military, the media, universal health care, religion, public education and what Savage sees as the decline of American morality. In sweeping, purposely dramatic prose, he accuses "mad dog" leftists of a conspiracy "to undermine God, country, family, and the military." Select examples are given of what he sees as democracy run amok, such as one teacher who reportedly gave extra credit to her class for writing antiwar letters to the White House and refused extra credit to a student who wrote a letter supporting the war. Heavy on bluster and light on facts, however, Savage's attempts to stretch such anecdotes into a portrait of national decay appear specious at best, as do many other colorful claims, such as that the Democratic Party views "the Judeo-Christian faith as public enemy number one." On the radio, Savage's tough talk is designed to jolt listeners. Fixed in print, his words are even more startling, resonating with hate and intolerance. As for his now infamous firing from MSNBC for telling a gay caller to "get AIDS and die," Savage offers a weak defense, suggesting that he was the victim of a conspiracy.

Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Yep...sounds like a good read....if your a rabid right winger.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: Judgement


That would have been a proactive action by one of the strong European powers like England or France, but for the U.S. proactive was not waiting until Europe had been completely conquered to the point where they had no allies left.

Look, you may feel that way, and that is your perogative, but the fact is, it's generally accepted WW2 was not proactive.

bad words in this debate. generally accepted. (please accept im not attacking anybody in here on a personal level, its all about behavior. )

i think differently than and out of the box of "generally accepted"

anybody else?

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: Judgement


That would have been a proactive action by one of the strong European powers like England or France, but for the U.S. proactive was not waiting until Europe had been completely conquered to the point where they had no allies left.

Look, you may feel that way, and that is your perogative, but the fact is, it's generally accepted WW2 was not proactive.

bad words in this debate. generally accepted. (please accept im not attacking anybody in here on a personal level, its all about behavior. )

i think differently than and out of the box of "generally accepted"

anybody else?

Again, that's fine, but it doesn't make you right.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: amdfanboy

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: Judgement

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: Judgement

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: Judgement
Honestly, WTF are you talking about?

WWII, Korea, and Vietnam were all proactive.

I don't think the US was proactive in World War 2. Germany invaded its neighbors then Japan attacks the US and minutes later makes demands. The US declares war on Japan. Then Germany and Italy declare war on the US.

Can you in complete honesty think that the only reason we jumped into the war was because Japan attacked us? Japan attacked the U.S. because they knew it was only a matter of time. The simple fact that we had not declared it yet does not change that. Japan knew we were coming and tried to give a critical blow while they had the advantage of us not being involved/expecting the attack. Even if Japan had never attacked it was only a matter of time.

It was still reactive. Proactive would have been to take out Hitler long before he got as powerful as he did.

That would have been a proactive action by one of the strong European powers like England or France, but for the U.S. proactive was not waiting until Europe had been completely conquered to the point where they had no allies left.

yep.

Once again

Proactive
1 A step taken before something happens

not proactive would have been just fighting with Japan, proactive was the whole project.

 

[Judgement]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: Judgement


That would have been a proactive action by one of the strong European powers like England or France, but for the U.S. proactive was not waiting until Europe had been completely conquered to the point where they had no allies left.

Look, you may feel that way, and that is your perogative, but the fact is, it's generally accepted WW2 was not proactive.

So what you're saying is that if Japan had never attacked us, we wouldn't have gotten involved in the war until we were provoked?

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: Judgement


That would have been a proactive action by one of the strong European powers like England or France, but for the U.S. proactive was not waiting until Europe had been completely conquered to the point where they had no allies left.

Look, you may feel that way, and that is your perogative, but the fact is, it's generally accepted WW2 was not proactive.

bad words in this debate. generally accepted. (please accept im not attacking anybody in here on a personal level, its all about behavior. )

i think differently than and out of the box of "generally accepted"

anybody else?

Again, that's fine, but it doesn't make you right.

i didn't say I was right. I'm putting out how I feel based upon the experience I have and knowledge gained from it. I'm looking at the opinion of others to compare and contrast my current state.

 

[AFB]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: amdfanboy

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: Judgement

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: Judgement

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: Judgement
Honestly, WTF are you talking about?

WWII, Korea, and Vietnam were all proactive.

I don't think the US was proactive in World War 2. Germany invaded its neighbors then Japan attacks the US and minutes later makes demands. The US declares war on Japan. Then Germany and Italy declare war on the US.

Can you in complete honesty think that the only reason we jumped into the war was because Japan attacked us? Japan attacked the U.S. because they knew it was only a matter of time. The simple fact that we had not declared it yet does not change that. Japan knew we were coming and tried to give a critical blow while they had the advantage of us not being involved/expecting the attack. Even if Japan had never attacked it was only a matter of time.

It was still reactive. Proactive would have been to take out Hitler long before he got as powerful as he did.

That would have been a proactive action by one of the strong European powers like England or France, but for the U.S. proactive was not waiting until Europe had been completely conquered to the point where they had no allies left.

yep.

Once again

Proactive
1 A step taken before something happens

not proactive would have been just fighting with Japan, proactive was the whole project.

Well considering that the European countries declared war on us, what the fvck were we going to do ? Ignore it ?

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: Judgement

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: Judgement


That would have been a proactive action by one of the strong European powers like England or France, but for the U.S. proactive was not waiting until Europe had been completely conquered to the point where they had no allies left.

Look, you may feel that way, and that is your perogative, but the fact is, it's generally accepted WW2 was not proactive.

So what you're saying is that if Japan had never attacked us, we wouldn't have gotten involved in the war until we were provoked?

I can't say what would have happened accurately, nor do I think anyone can. The best guess would be just that...a guess.

 

[Judgement]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: Judgement
Can you in complete honesty think that the only reason we jumped into the war was because Japan attacked us? Japan attacked the U.S. because they knew it was only a matter of time. The simple fact that we had not declared it yet does not change that. Japan knew we were coming and tried to give a critical blow while they had the advantage of us not being involved/expecting the attack. Even if Japan had never attacked it was only a matter of time.

I don't think we were going overthere before 1943. We didn't really manage a victory until mid-1942. We were ill prepared.

Japan attacked the US because we cut them off. We disapproved of their rape of Asia and stopped selling them oil. They wanted to cripple our fleet so that they could force us into selling or giving them war material. I think they would have attacked America later anyway, if we didn't go after them.

The threat of Japan was known, even back in the early 20th century. Teddy Roosevelt knew that we needed to watch out for them. That was part of the driving force behind his desire to construct the Panama Canal. That way our Atlantic Fleet could easily be redirected to the Pacific.

So while I think that we *may* have attacked Japan at some point, I would not call World War 2 proactive in any way.

You make it sound like we didn't know what we were getting into when we attacked Japan. You ignore the fact that the entire country had been preparing for war long before we were actually involved. The attack by Japan was simply an excuse to justify the inevitable.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: amdfanboy

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: amdfanboy

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: Judgement

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: Judgement

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: Judgement
Honestly, WTF are you talking about?

WWII, Korea, and Vietnam were all proactive.

I don't think the US was proactive in World War 2. Germany invaded its neighbors then Japan attacks the US and minutes later makes demands. The US declares war on Japan. Then Germany and Italy declare war on the US.

Can you in complete honesty think that the only reason we jumped into the war was because Japan attacked us? Japan attacked the U.S. because they knew it was only a matter of time. The simple fact that we had not declared it yet does not change that. Japan knew we were coming and tried to give a critical blow while they had the advantage of us not being involved/expecting the attack. Even if Japan had never attacked it was only a matter of time.

It was still reactive. Proactive would have been to take out Hitler long before he got as powerful as he did.

That would have been a proactive action by one of the strong European powers like England or France, but for the U.S. proactive was not waiting until Europe had been completely conquered to the point where they had no allies left.

yep.

Once again

Proactive
1 A step taken before something happens

not proactive would have been just fighting with Japan, proactive was the whole project.

Well considering that the European countries declared war on us, what the fvck were we going to do ? Ignore it ?

absolutely not, I was working off the statements that Japan enticed us into the war.

 

[Insane3D]

Well, this conversation seems to be going nowhere fast, so you guys have a nice night....I'm going to move on.

 

[Judgement]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: Judgement

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: Judgement


That would have been a proactive action by one of the strong European powers like England or France, but for the U.S. proactive was not waiting until Europe had been completely conquered to the point where they had no allies left.

Look, you may feel that way, and that is your perogative, but the fact is, it's generally accepted WW2 was not proactive.

So what you're saying is that if Japan had never attacked us, we wouldn't have gotten involved in the war until we were provoked?

I can't say what would have happened accurately, nor do I think anyone can. The best guess would be just that...a guess.

Your argument is entirely true, nothing can argue with the facts that say all our involvement was due to the attack by Japan, but IMO it is ignorant to think that we weren't preparing for war and instigating it by supplying and funding our future allies. In my opinion the reason we weren't prepared t pearl harbor was because we were counting on the fear of the opposing nations. We thought they were too scared to get us involved and our government felt they had as long as they wanted to prepare for the war they knew was going to occur.

 

[TechBoyJK]

i'm selling my company, and I'm doing it without ever making a dime. How, strategy. I built up the framework for a company that if funded properly had a distinct and unignorable potential to take market share. Found an investor to fund it. Put everything together, gift wrapped it, and went out telling other companies you can either buy me now before I get market share, or buy when I already have it in order to cure the damage of having market share stollen. I never had to take the investors money. It was all built on "potential".

 

[Judgement]

Originally posted by: Insane3D
Well, this conversation seems to be going nowhere fast, so you guys have a nice night....I'm going to move on.

lol I can respect that, this is the exact reason I stopped visiting the politics forum almost a year ago; it got me over excited and drug me into arguments I didn't intend on/feel like arguing about.

 

[AFB]

Night :moon:

 

[sonambulo]

people who fall prey to their own emotions

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: Judgement

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: Judgement

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: Judgement


That would have been a proactive action by one of the strong European powers like England or France, but for the U.S. proactive was not waiting until Europe had been completely conquered to the point where they had no allies left.

Look, you may feel that way, and that is your perogative, but the fact is, it's generally accepted WW2 was not proactive.

So what you're saying is that if Japan had never attacked us, we wouldn't have gotten involved in the war until we were provoked?

I can't say what would have happened accurately, nor do I think anyone can. The best guess would be just that...a guess.

You're argument is entirely true, nothing can argue with the facts that say all our involvement was due to the attack by Japan, but IMO it is ignorant to think that we weren't preparing for war and instigating it by supplying and funding our future allies. In my opinion the reason we weren't prepared t pearl harbor was because we were counting on the fear of the opposing nations. We thought they were too scared to get us involved and our government felt they had as long as they wanted to prepare for the war they knew was going to occur.

so, it can be argued that we were proactive, just not enough to keep japan from striking? (question,not a statement) so it could be said that we should have been more proactive instead of just saying we should have been (proactive in general)??

 

[TechBoyJK]

yep, im out. night folks, almost 5am here.