-
This past weekend, Saudi Arabia rounded up, arrested or kiled, 7 terrrorist cells, linked to Al-Queda, totaling 172 men, dug up caches of weapons and explosives , and $5+ MILLION from the desert sands.
Their reported training, recently, in IRAQ.
Their reported goals, destruction of Saudi OIL PRODUCTION, in hijacked airliner-style attacks (a-la-9/11).
Just how much Saudi oil production would have to be destroyed to immediately send the price of a barrell of oil to $100+???
I'd wager that 172 guys, in a number of aircraft, could destroy PLENTY of it.
Try $6 a gallon gasoline.
$7 a gallon diesel.
Double the cost of heating oil.
Try adding 50% to doubling the cost of just about everything due to that doubled diesel fuel transport cost.
Still gonna buy an airline ticket when the price of THAT sucker doubles from the doubled fuel cost?
Still gonna DRIVE on that vacation at double the gasoline cost?
Apparently our govt has (very rightly) been "war-gaming" the war on terror, to try to predict moves, to try to come up with counter-moves to terrorist acts, and the one thing they haven't been able to find a work-arround to is a sudden spike in oil pricing to $11-$120 a barrell. The US economy FOLDS.
They don't have to come HERE Ultra, this should concern you.
-
This past weekend, Saudi Arabia rounded up, arrested or kiled, 7 terrrorist cells, linked to Al-Queda, totaling 172 men, dug up caches of weapons and explosives , and $5+ MILLION from the desert sands.
Their reported training, recently, in IRAQ.
Their reported goals, destruction of Saudi OIL PRODUCTION, in hijacked airliner-style attacks (a-la-9/11).
Just how much Saudi oil production would have to be destroyed to immediately send the price of a barrell of oil to $100+???
I'd wager that 172 guys, in a number of aircraft, could destroy PLENTY of it.
Try $6 a gallon gasoline.
$7 a gallon diesel.
Double the cost of heating oil.
Try adding 50% to doubling the cost of just about everything due to that doubled diesel fuel transport cost.
Still gonna buy an airline ticket when the price of THAT sucker doubles from the doubled fuel cost?
Still gonna DRIVE on that vacation at double the gasoline cost?
Apparently our govt has (very rightly) been "war-gaming" the war on terror, to try to predict moves, to try to come up with counter-moves to terrorist acts, and the one thing they haven't been able to find a work-arround to is a sudden spike in oil pricing to $11-$120 a barrell. The US economy FOLDS.
They don't have to come HERE Ultra, this should concern you.
Smokin,
I'm not buyin it. Here area couple of paragraphs from the article:
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia - Saudi Arabia announced Friday that an anti-terrorism sweep netted 172 Islamic extremists and stopped plans to mount air attacks on the kingdom's oil refineries, break militants out of jail and send suicide attackers to kill government officials.
oil refineries.
The militants were detained in successive waves, with one group confessing and leading security officials to another group as well as caches of weapons, al-Turki said. He told the privately owned Al-Arabiya television channel that some of those arrested were not Saudis.
Since when do these martyr, suicide types roll over on themselves?
Sounds like hype to me
Smokin, we keep hearing that we are in Iraq fighting terrorists so that we don't have to fight them on US soil. Isn't this what Mr. Bush wants us all to believe? IMO it's all political BS about US control of mid-east oil. The tens of thousands of people killed in this mislabled war doesn't follow the one of the basics of the Chrstian faith. KILLING PEOPLE! The US troops have done a fine job in Iraq and the mess we have created in Iraq is surely not the fault of our troops. The belief that the US military is going to bring piece to a region where groups have been at odds with each other forever, is unrealistic. We will never be able to desttroy all of the terrorists, and therefore they will alwyas exist. The Iraqi offensive is doing little in the way of defense of the American people here at home. Secure our borders Secure our borders Secure our borders . The
1st basic is protecting our country continues to be ignored.
-
Smokin,
I'm not buyin it. Here area couple of paragraphs from the article:
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia - Saudi Arabia announced Friday that an anti-terrorism sweep netted 172 Islamic extremists and stopped plans to mount air attacks on the kingdom's oil refineries, break militants out of jail and send suicide attackers to kill government officials.
oil refineries.
The militants were detained in successive waves, with one group confessing and leading security officials to another group as well as caches of weapons, al-Turki said. He told the privately owned Al-Arabiya television channel that some of those arrested were not Saudis.
Since when do these martyr, suicide types roll over on themselves?
Sounds like hype to me
Smokin, we keep hearing that we are in Iraq fighting terrorists so that we don't have to fight them on US soil. Isn't this what Mr. Bush wants us all to believe? IMO it's all political BS about US control of mid-east oil. The tens of thousands of people killed in this mislabled war doesn't follow the one of the basics of the Chrstian faith. KILLING PEOPLE! The US troops have done a fine job in Iraq and the mess we have created in Iraq is surely not the fault of our troops. The belief that the US military is going to bring piece to a region where groups have been at odds with each other forever, is unrealistic. We will never be able to desttroy all of the terrorists, and therefore they will alwyas exist. The Iraqi offensive is doing little in the way of defense of the American people here at home. Secure our borders Secure our borders Secure our borders . The
1st basic is protecting our country continues to be ignored.
Very well put, but falls on deaf ears, smokin is in this up to his neck and cant see anything but what is spoon fed to him on fox and cnn.
Btw, America is the great satan.
Nice cut and paste thou.
-
Smokin,
Secure our borders Secure our borders Secure our borders . The
1st basic is protecting our country continues to be ignored.
On this we can agree, but what do we do when the Repubs ignore illegal immigration and the Dems are actually seeking policies, that promote and encourage more of it (ie giiving in state tuition in colleges, pushing for legislation to give illegals Ca drivers lics and other benifits of Ca citizenship, etc)??
Would you support voting agianst both Democrats and Repulicians?
Or would you place priority on getting rid of the Dems first (as the biggest promoters of ilegal immigration) and then pressuring the Rebulicians to grow a pair and stand up to the Dems better? Remember how our states Democratic leadership freaked out when Arnold said we need to secure our borders and remember how he caved in and softened his tone after the Dem's massive outcry???
-
I'm glad they caught the bad guys! another success in the war on terror.
CC
-
On this we can agree, but what do we do when the Repubs ignore illegal immigration and the Dems are actually seeking policies, that promote and encourage more of it (ie giiving in state tuition in colleges, pushing for legislation to give illegals Ca drivers lics and other benifits of Ca citizenship, etc)??
Would you support voting agianst both Democrats and Repulicians?
Or would you place priority on getting rid of the Dems first (as the biggest promoters of ilegal immigration) and then pressuring the Rebulicians to grow a pair and stand up to the Dems better? Remember how our states Democratic leadership freaked out when Arnold said we need to secure our borders and remember how he caved in and softened his tone after the Dem's massive outcry???
I do not support providing for illegals, in any way at all. I will vote against any party or politician that supports any form of handout to illegals. Saying that one party or the other is better or worse is not something I can do. Both parties continue to operate from a position of being politically correct and not what is necessarily correct for the American people. It makes me totally crazy. BTW, I strongly support the reduction of legal immigration, as it by itself is making a huge mess out of this Country.
-
I do not support providing for illegals, in any way at all. I will vote against any party or politician that supports any form of handout to illegals. Saying that one party or the other is better or worse is not something I can do. Both parties continue to operate from a position of being politically correct and not what is necessarily correct for the American people. It makes me totally crazy. BTW, I strongly support the reduction of legal immigration, as it by itself is making a huge mess out of this Country.
To a point you can say that, on a national level, but not on the state level here in Ca.
In our states legislature there is a clear differance. All of those who favor providing state support for illegal (ie in state tuition and drivers lics etc) are democrats and almost 100% of the opposition on these things is from the Republicians. Furthermore, all of the efforts to restrict illegal aliens access to government services are being pushed by Republicians and are opposed by Democrats. Oh no, at the state level there actually is a very clear differance on how the two parties vote on illegal immigration related issues. You just need to pay attention to state politics to see it.:idea:
-
To a point you can say that, on a national level, but not on the state level here in Ca.
In our states legislature there is a clear differance. All of those who favor providing state support for illegal (ie in state tuition and drivers lics etc) are democrats and almost 100% of the opposition on these things is from the Republicians. Furthermore, all of the efforts to restrict illegal aliens access to government services are being pushed by Republicians and are opposed by Democrats. Oh no, at the state level there actually is a very clear differance on how the two parties vote on illegal immigration related issues. You just need to pay attention to state politics to see it.:idea:
I researched this a while back and in CA we are not providing Govt services to illegals, with the exception of medical. In CA you must provide a SS # to obtain a driver's license. Most forms of govt assistance require that the recipient have a SS #. This is not to say that illegals don't have bogus SS #'s. But this suggests that this is not endorsed by one political side or another. I don't think you have your facts in order with regard to illegals and govt services. If you are referring to public schools, any child born in the US is a US citizen. This is federal law not state. The US provides public education to all US citizens.
As I stated previously, I will not vote for anyone who supports aid or rights for illegals, end of story.
-
I researched this a while back and in CA we are not providing Govt services to illegals, with the exception of medical. In CA you must provide a SS # to obtain a driver's license. Most forms of govt assistance require that the recipient have a SS #. This is not to say that illegals don't have bogus SS #'s. But this suggests that this is not endorsed by one political side or another. I don't think you have your facts in order with regard to illegals and govt services. If you are referring to public schools, any child born in the US is a US citizen. This is federal law not state. The US provides public education to all US citizens.
As I stated previously, I will not vote for anyone who supports aid or rights for illegals, end of story.
I'm not talking at all about anyone born in the United States of America or the K-12 public schools that federal courts have ruled are required to be available to all children residing in the US legally or not (not just citizens as you erroniously assertained).
Nope, I just know that "In State" Tuition rates for Community Colleges and State Universities is a State subsidized rate, therefore any student who pays the "in state" tuition rate is recieving a major state government service. Democrats BY STRAIGHT PARTY LINE VOTE AND GRAY DAVIS'S signature have made it Ca state law that illegal immigrant students who can show they currently reside in Ca can pay the "in state" rate and the proof Ca residency requirements for U.S. citizens is waived for them. That is not only a goverment service, it is one that most U.S. citizens (and legal immigrants) can not recieve. And it was done by and still strongly supported by Ca's legislative democrats.
You obviously are not following the proposed bills in our state legislature and you do not have a clear picture of what the 2 parties are proposing and or how members of the parties are voting in the legislature. There is a major differance between what the 2 parties are proposing and supporting in the State Legislature. You are correct that illegals are not legally recieving many services, but that is largely because Democratic legislative efforts have thus far failed to gain traction with the public and there have been just enough Republicians and a very small minority of legislative Dems, in the legislature to thwart them.....You really need to follow what goes on in the legislature and the Ca Democratic party. All of their (the Ca Democrats) current proposals (and there are several) are in direct opposition to what your stated beliefs are on the illegal immigration issue.
-
I'm not talking at all about anyone born in the United States of America or the K-12 public schools that federal courts have ruled are required to be available to all children residing in the US legally or not (not just citizens as you erroniously assertained).
Nope, I just know that "In State" Tuition rates for Community Colleges and State Universities is a State subsidized rate, therefore any student who pays the "in state" tuition rate is recieving a major state government service. Democrats BY STRAIGHT PARTY LINE VOTE AND GRAY DAVIS'S signature have made it Ca state law that illegal immigrant students who can show they currently reside in Ca can pay the "in state" rate and the proof Ca residency requirements for U.S. citizens is waived for them. That is not only a goverment service, it is one that most U.S. citizens (and legal immigrants) can not recieve. And it was done by and still strongly supported by Ca's legislative democrats.
You obviously are not following the proposed bills in our state legislature and you do not have a clear picture of what the 2 parties are proposing and or how members of the parties are voting in the legislature. There is a major differance between what the 2 parties are proposing and supporting in the State Legislature. You are correct that illegals are not legally recieving many services, but that is largely because Democratic legislative efforts have thus far failed to gain traction with the public and there have been just enough Republicians and a very small minority of legislative Dems, in the legislature to thwart them.....You really need to follow what goes on in the legislature and the Ca Democratic party. All of their (the Ca Democrats) current proposals (and there are several) are in direct opposition to what your stated beliefs are on the illegal immigration issue.
I am aware of some of what has been proposed and as I stated, in answer to your question, I will not vote for a dem or rep who standing for govt aid for illegals. I am also aware that it is mainly the dems who have suggested such nonsense. I'm not for it period. When my Son went to Cal State Fullerton, as I recall, it wasn't quite as simple as you make it sound. What haven't I
answered?
current proposals (and there are several) are in direct opposition to what your stated beliefs are on the illegal immigration issue And your point is what?
-
I am aware of some of what has been proposed and as I stated, in answer to your question, I will not vote for a dem or rep who standing for govt aid for illegals. I am also aware that it is mainly the dems who have suggested such nonsense. I'm not for it period. When my Son went to Cal State Fullerton, as I recall, it wasn't quite as simple as you make it sound. What haven't I
answered?
current proposals (and there are several) are in direct opposition to what your stated beliefs are on the illegal immigration issue And your point is what?
Thanks.
I wasn't making a point. I was just asking for clarification of an apparent ambiguity, between your stated position and the positions of those you seem to otherwise support. I wasn't seeking a gotcha, just a better understanding.
As for something not being as simple as I make it sound. That is a given, as I try to be clear, but I can't possibly cover the complexity of most things in the very short time I spend on these posts.
What haven't you answered?? You haven't given me next weeks winning lottery numbers and I want you to know I'm getting pissed about it..;)
-
Secure our borders Secure our borders Secure our borders . The
1st basic is protecting our country continues to be ignored.
Just how, exactly, does a secure border, protect this country's economy from as sudden DOUBLING OF THE COST OF ENERGY AND TRANSPORTATION???
Ultra, you seem to prefer to diatribe as opposed to answering a simple question. What's it gonna be this time? I'll hit the NY Times thread tomorow.
-
Very well put, but falls on deaf ears, smokin is in this up to his neck and cant see anything but what is spoon fed to him on fox and cnn.
Btw, America is the great satan.
Nice cut and paste thou.
Nope, no position, and no lucidity either. Why am I not surprised? :rolleyes:
-
Just how, exactly, does a secure border, protect this country's economy from as sudden DOUBLING OF THE COST OF ENERGY AND TRANSPORTATION???
Ultra, you seem to prefer to diatribe as opposed to answering a simple question. What's it gonna be this time? I'll hit the NY Times thread tomorow.
Diatribe? You arrogant ass. The lives of human beings vs. the economy? You're one sick bastard. The price of gasoline is up nearly 40% and the price of crude is lower. Obviously, we are way the fu*** off course. Don't you think it's time you get a grip. As I recall you claim to be Christian. You sure as hell don't sound like it. ?? Or are you some new kind of Christian that believes killing is OK? Your attitude about how to handle the middle east is similarly radical, to those we are supposed to be at war against. I see terrorists as the lowest form of human life. They're killers. Responding to terrorists at their level (killing them), aint much better. I guess killing is Christlike if you view it as preventive genocide. Not!
-
Or are you some new kind of Christian that believes killing is OK? Your attitude about how to handle the middle east is similarly radical, to those we are supposed to be at war against. I see terrorists as the lowest form of human life. They're killers. Responding to terrorists at their level (killing them), aint much better. I guess killing is Christlike if you view it as preventive genocide. Not!
Killing is totally different than murder. Terrorists are murderers. You can stay above the fray as long as others volunteer to do your fighting and dying for you...That way you can claim to have the moral high ground.
There is nothing "radical" about using violence. This world is ruled by violence and there's nothing more we can do about it than pray for peace and pass the ammunition.
I would love a world without war and killing...one day when man is gone from the planet it will exist. You can put a flower in the muzzle of a rifle but it won't make the lead taste any better!
-
Diatribe? You arrogant ass. The lives of human beings vs. the economy? You're one sick bastard. The price of gasoline is up nearly 40% and the price of crude is lower. Obviously, we are way the fu*** off course. Don't you think it's time you get a grip. As I recall you claim to be Christian. You sure as hell don't sound like it. ?? Or are you some new kind of Christian that believes killing is OK? Your attitude about how to handle the middle east is similarly radical, to those we are supposed to be at war against. I see terrorists as the lowest form of human life. They're killers. Responding to terrorists at their level (killing them), aint much better. I guess killing is Christlike if you view it as preventive genocide. Not!
You see in church they teach you that you need gas in your car and boat and it dont matter how many of them a rabs you kill cuz they aint like us wonderful christians. You know the ones that cut womens tits off if they didn't convert, or burned their feet, or put them in an iron maidon. These are the roots of these god fearing spinless ****s that think it ok to kill.
-
Killing is totally different than murder. Terrorists are murderers. You can stay above the fray as long as others volunteer to do your fighting and dying for you...That way you can claim to have the moral high ground.
There is nothing "radical" about using violence. This world is ruled by violence and there's nothing more we can do about it than pray for peace and pass the ammunition.
I would love a world without war and killing...one day when man is gone from the planet it will exist. You can put a flower in the muzzle of a rifle but it won't make the lead taste any better!
Killing is totally different than murder
By deifinition the main difference is murder is illegal killing
Killing in self defense is one thing. Killing to protect our economy, as Smokin suggests and what caused my rant, is something very different.
How many civilians have been killed/murdered by the US in Iraq? I see little difference.
There is nothing "radical" about using violence. This world is ruled by violence
Intelligence is what should rule the world and can. Violence is the most primative form of rule.
You can stay above the fray as long as others volunteer to do your fighting and dying for you...
I don't want others fighting and dying for me and I surely don't want any more loss of American life in the vat of shit called Iraq.
The majority of the people in the US want us out of Iraq. Again, the majority
To date th US has lost 3300 lives and we have spent nearly a trillion dollars, fighting in Iraq.
Have we created a peacful Iraq?
Have we created a better and/or safer quality of life for the Iraqi people?
Have we rebuilt what we destroyed in Iraq?
Have there been fewer terrorist attacks?
NO
We have managed to keep the oil flowing assuring the highest oil company profits in history, at the cost 3330 military lives, the lives of 10's of thousands of Iraqis and the American consumer
The war in Iraq, isn't about defending you or me it's about control of Iraqi oil. The only winners to date in Iraq, are the oil companies.
Have you ever givin any thought to what investing a trillion dollars in US systems, education, roads, military, securtity alternative energy, etc. would do for this Country? I asssure you that we would be far better off than we are today.
The majority of the people in the US want us out of Iraq for good reason
-
Smokin,
I'm not buyin it. Here area couple of paragraphs from the article:
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia - Saudi Arabia announced Friday that an anti-terrorism sweep netted 172 Islamic extremists and stopped plans to mount air attacks on the kingdom's oil refineries, break militants out of jail and send suicide attackers to kill government officials.
oil refineries.
The militants were detained in successive waves, with one group confessing and leading security officials to another group as well as caches of weapons, al-Turki said. He told the privately owned Al-Arabiya television channel that some of those arrested were not Saudis.
Since when do these martyr, suicide types roll over on themselves?
Sounds like hype to me
Smokin, we keep hearing that we are in Iraq fighting terrorists so that we don't have to fight them on US soil. Isn't this what Mr. Bush wants us all to believe? IMO it's all political BS about US control of mid-east oil. The tens of thousands of people killed in this mislabled war doesn't follow the one of the basics of the Chrstian faith. KILLING PEOPLE! The US troops have done a fine job in Iraq and the mess we have created in Iraq is surely not the fault of our troops. The belief that the US military is going to bring piece to a region where groups have been at odds with each other forever, is unrealistic. We will never be able to desttroy all of the terrorists, and therefore they will alwyas exist. The Iraqi offensive is doing little in the way of defense of the American people here at home. Secure our borders Secure our borders Secure our borders . The
1st basic is protecting our country continues to be ignored.
i agree with alot of this other than this statement "doesn't follow the one of the basics of the Chrstian faith. KILLING PEOPLE!". christians have killed more people for "faith" than any other religion i know of(remember the spanish inquistion, or the cursades). our country is being crippled by christian "faith" and values.
get our troops outta iraq and get our borders locked down!!!then i'll feel safe at home in the u.s. again!
-
i agree with alot of this other than this statement "doesn't follow the one of the basics of the Chrstian faith. KILLING PEOPLE!". christians have killed more people for "faith" than any other religion i know of(remember the spanish inquistion, or the cursades). our country is being crippled by christian "faith" and values.
get our troops outta iraq and get our borders locked down!!!then i'll feel safe at home in the u.s. again!
doesn't follow the one of the basics of the Chrstian faith. KILLING PEOPLE I wasn't suggesting that it hasn't been happening forever, just that killing doesn't follow one of their big 10.
-
doesn't follow the one of the basics of the Chrstian faith. KILLING PEOPLE I wasn't suggesting that it hasn't been happening forever, just that killing doesn't follow one of their big 10.
gotcha. all religions lax their values when it comes to self interests, just seems that the christian faith does it more than most and history seems to back that up lol:D christian"s views on the big 10 are hilarious to me. seems like everyday some evangelist gets caught poking little boys or with a needle in his arm, or hooker on it:D i just want a country that's sticks to the "seperation of church and state" so we can get on with cancer cure, let woman have abortions if they want em(hell, its their body!!!), let gays get married if it makes them happier and better people.
the saudies got er done with alittle torture i bet, maybe we need to take lessons;)
-
christians have killed more people for "faith" than any other religion i know of(remember the spanish inquistion, or the cursades). our country is being crippled by christian "faith" and values.
get our troops outta iraq and get our borders locked down!!!then i'll feel safe at home in the u.s. again!
I disagree. Agnostics have killed more than any religion; Nazis, Communists, Japanese (unless you believe the Emperor to be a deity) Maoists, DPRK, Cambodia, and others who, by their own doctrine, are Godless.
The Chinese are forcing women to have abortions and kill their little girls due to a one child per family rule. A holocaust that would baffle Hitler. At least the inquisitors would give you a chance to renounce your "other" faith as will some Muslims.
Perhaps you'd care to give some examples of how Christianity is crippling our country. That is all a bunch of commie rant anyway. Christians and other religious men built this country and gave you freedoms/responsibilities that exist no where else on the planet. Communist and other "one worlders" seek to enslave you one judicial order at a time under the guise of "equality" and "protecting you from yourself".
It reads as if you're against violence...I understand and agree. But you can't escape the harsh reality that true power flows from the barrel of a gun. Violence is used because it works! You could promote your ideas by volunteering to spread your message of intellectualism and peace in Iraq, Liberia, Turkey, or down the street at Chino.
This is a religious war to be sure. You'd do well to realize that and back the home team or maybe you should invest in Kevlar neckties.
I wish the war was primarily about oil...we'd be done years ago after installing another strong man. Maybe ya'll are right and it is about oil...that would explain why Persia and Syria are infiltrating Iraq and killing (excuse me), murdering people for no apparent reason. Me thinks not.
The primary difference between killing and murder is who wins. There would be no Nuremberg trials if the Nazis had won! Stalin, that great hero of yours is loosely quoted, "one death is a tragedy, one million a statistic".
We could negotiate like that most celebrated great leader Gorbechav...Where are all of the statues erected to him? Or we could win like Churchill, Truman, and Reagan.
As for feeling safe...not like you did on 9/10! me neither.
-
" But you can't escape the harsh reality that true power flows from the barrel of a gun."
A large part of what's wrong with our Country is this mentality.
Your wrong. True power must come from intelligence!
-
" But you can't escape the harsh reality that true power flows from the barrel of a gun."
A large part of what's wrong with our Country is this mentality.
Your wrong. True power must come from intelligence!
I guess that is why such a high percentage of Germany's brightest people died in concentration camps...:idea: Imagine that. They suffered and died rather than let the world see their true power.:rolleyes:
-
I guess that is why such a high percentage of Germany's brightest people died in concentration camps...:idea: Imagine that. They suffered and died rather than let the world see their true power.:rolleyes:
How can you continue to compare WWII to the mess in Iraq??
-
Diatribe? You arrogant ass. The lives of human beings vs. the economy? You're one sick bastard. The price of gasoline is up nearly 40% and the price of crude is lower. Obviously, we are way the fu*** off course. Don't you think it's time you get a grip. As I recall you claim to be Christian. You sure as hell don't sound like it. ?? Or are you some new kind of Christian that believes killing is OK? Your attitude about how to handle the middle east is similarly radical, to those we are supposed to be at war against. I see terrorists as the lowest form of human life. They're killers. Responding to terrorists at their level (killing them), aint much better. I guess killing is Christlike if you view it as preventive genocide. Not!
Since you feel I'm an arrogant ass, I'll give you Arrogant Ass, starting now. I've had good opportunity to study one.
The above is diatribe, since I asked Just how, exactly, does a secure border, protect this country's economy from as sudden DOUBLING OF THE COST OF ENERGY AND TRANSPORTATION??? and not a word of your diatribe answer corresponds to the question.
diatribe definition
n.
A bitter, abusive denunciation.
diatribe synonyms
noun
A long, violent, or blustering speech, usually of censure or denunciation
Ouch!
Diatribe. Try english 101, or better yet, a dictionary.
Gonna answer my question NOW?
You also won't answer which human beings you want to sacrifec to the terrorists, Armed Soldiers who kill terrorists about 100:1, or unarmed civilians, who terrorists kill about 300:1. WHY NOT?
The price of gasoline is up nearly 40% and the price of crude is lower
You have no idea the price of crude vs the price of gasoline, do ya? No, you don't. I'd show ya the stupidity of this statement, but I'm arrogant, so I no longer have to prove myself. I'll just bloviate, like some others.
Since you know so much about hte bible, and Christian belief systems, you better go back to bible school, and this time take No-Doz.
Copied from the NY Times thread where you started in on Christians can't Kill.
Oh, and Ultra, on Christians being prevented from "killing" by the comandment you want to quote "Thou shalt not kill.", is a mis-translation, and a misunderstanding, by you, and many others. Check a bible. GOD had many people killed, GOD'S followers, killed people, at his vengeful orders. At times, GOD KILLED BY HIS OWN HAND.
The proper understanding is "Thou shalt not MURDER." Christians ARE ALLOWED TO KILL, those who threaten them, but not to commit murder of the defenceless.
Perhaps you should look up "agent (or avenger) of wrath" instead.
Book of Roman's, 13:4
"For he is a minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is a minister of God, an agent for wrath to him that doeth evil."
As poor as MY biblical skills are Ultra, I am surprised to find someone whose comprehension is WORSE than mine, well, no, not really.
Yes Ultra, I realize this complicates your life, yet again. But I enjoy it, because I am an arrogant ass.
killing doesn't follow one of their big 10.
Wrong, yet again. See above. It's easiest with the little wheel on the mouse, to "scroll" the screen with.
Sorry CC, killing will NOT end with man's dissapearance from planet Earth. Nature kills constantly, and in some pretty inhumane ways (but all very animalistic).
I don't want others fighting and dying for me
Too bad, sux to be you. They all volunteered to risk dying to protect you, and your house, your boat, your truck, your right to be as asanine as you wish. Don't liek that, step up then and join up, protect YOURSELF so those Agents Of Wrath like me won't have to give you a guilty concience.
Since Iraq is solely about oil, more from the NY Times thread:
I'll type this slowly Ultra, so you can follow along.
Ultra, 9/11/01, was committed by AL-Queda, by their own statements, but you ignore this. Stupidity.
Ultra, On 9/11/01, Al-Queda was opperating FROM AFGHANISTAN, WITH THE SUPPORT OF THE TALIBAN GOVERNMENT, but you ignore this. Stupidity.
Ultra, After overthrowing the Taliban, and HURTING Al-QUEDA (but not, well, you know, the evil "e"-word), Al-Q went into hiding, yet you ignore this. Stupidity.
Ultra, After we overthrew the Hussein govt in Iraq, AL-QUEDA AND IRAN want to controll Iraq, to resurect ancient Babylon, so we are FIGHTING AL-QUEDA IN IRAQ, yet you ignore this. Yet more stupidity.
stupid definition
adj. stu·pid·er, stu·pid·est
1. Slow to learn or understand; obtuse.
2. Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes.
3. Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless: a stupid mistake.
4. Dazed, stunned, or stupefied.
5. Pointless; worthless:
True power must come from intelligence!
How can you continue to compare WWII to the mess in Iraq??
Ok, lets go after the mid 50's MAOISTS who killed all the teachers/professors/anyone with an education in China, in the name of "cultural revolution". Is that OK, or is it bad since I used a country involved in WWII. but not a government or a date involved in WWII?
Inteligence is not worth a damn if you don't have the muscle to STAY ALIVE TO USE IT.
Note to self, WWII is verboten, ooops, FORBIDDEN (used German lingo, bad likely) as a reference to man's behavior.
-
Wow smokin you really need a life.
Christians ARE ALLOWED TO KILL, those who threaten them, could you show me where and when them iraqis done threaten us?
-
I researched this a while back and in CA we are not providing Govt services to illegals, with the exception of medical. In CA you must provide a SS # to obtain a driver's license. Most forms of govt assistance require that the recipient have a SS #. This is not to say that illegals don't have bogus SS #'s. But this suggests that this is not endorsed by one political side or another. I don't think you have your facts in order with regard to illegals and govt services. If you are referring to public schools, any child born in the US is a US citizen. This is federal law not state. The US provides public education to all US citizens.
As I stated previously, I will not vote for anyone who supports aid or rights for illegals, end of story.
What about:
Police
Fire Department
Public Roads
All ready mentioned Medical
Prisons
court system
On a federal level i think it was figure that an illegal houshold cost about 2,000 more a year then what they paid in all taxes.
-
could you show me where and when them iraqis done threaten us?
What has Al-Queda done to threaten us?
Al-Queda has sworn they are in, and want to controll, Iraq.
Tighten the helmet chin strap blown, you are posting stupidity again, no, wait, that didn't help last time either. :rolleyes:
Gawd your idiot english language mastery sucks to read.
-
What has Al-Queda done to threaten us?
Al-Queda has sworn they are in, and want to controll, Iraq.
Tighten the helmet chin strap blown, you are posting stupidity again, no, wait, that didn't help last time either. :rolleyes:
Gawd your idiot english language mastery sucks to read.
They are in? they were in at the time when we attacked iraq? funny everything I have read from the gubment says that al queda and sadam didn't really care for each other. So please o smart one show me where and when them iraqis threatend us in 2003. I am dumbing it down so you can understand as I am sure you and a hand ball share the same iq.
-
-
So Smokin, Christians are allowed to kill. Your pastor should be very proud of you. You're a very sick man Smokin. You need help.
Where I come from killing in the name of self defense is the only time it is even remotely OK.
Again dude, you really need help.
-
How can you continue to compare WWII to the mess in Iraq??
It's easy if you know the history??
Why does it bother you??
Why don't you just sit at your computer and roll your eyes and say to yourself "oh no, there goes Eliminatedsprinter getting all historical again"??:rolleyes: ;)
In case you haven't noticed I have a decent background and education in history and social studies. A little bit of historical perspective is what I try to bring to the table in these little debates.
One thing that the supporters of oppression, and apeasment of oppressors, know is necessary to their cause, is that we forget the lessons that were learned from previous conflicts esp WWII. I will never forget those lessons. The civilized world must never forget. I work every day with people who fought in WWII and saw first hand the cost of appeasement of evil. Jihadism is evil. It is as evil as Nazism and it shares many of the same goals. It is just as uresponsive to compromise (it only sees it as a Western weakness to exploit) and islamists are just as untrustworthy and unable to be negotiated with as Hitler was.
I'll tell you what Ultra, you go ahead and forget...:squiggle:
I'll remember for the both of us.:idea:
-
It's easy if you know the history??
Why does it bother you??
Why don't you just sit at your computer and roll your eyes and say to yourself "oh no, there goes Eliminatedsprinter getting all historical again"??:rolleyes: ;)
In case you haven't noticed I have a decent background and education in history and social studies. A little bit of historical perspective is what I try to bring to the table in these little debates.
One thing that the supporters of oppression, and apeasment of oppressors, know is necessary to their cause, is that we forget the lessons that were learned from previous conflicts esp WWII. I will never forget those lessons. The civilized world must never forget. I work every day with people who fought in WWII and saw first hand the cost of appeasement of evil. Jihadism is evil. It is as evil as Nazism and it shares many of the same goals. It is just as uresponsive to compromise (it only sees it as a Western weakness to exploit) and islamists are just as untrustworthy and unable to be negotiated with as Hitler was.
I'll tell you what Ultra, you go ahead and forget...:squiggle:
I'll remember for the both of us.:idea:
Good post, Jihad is more then just blowing people up it is very political to reach there goal. I would date it all the way back to the Ottoman Empire. I would guess most people roll there eyes at that being a reality again. Over 70% muslims would disagree though.
-
Good post, Jihad is more then just blowing people up it is very political to reach there goal. I would date it all the way back to the Ottoman Empire. I would guess most people roll there eyes at that being a reality again. Over 70% muslims would disagree though.
How does what is going on now correlate with the Ottoman Empire??
-
It's easy if you know the history??
Why does it bother you??
Why don't you just sit at your computer and roll your eyes and say to yourself "oh no, there goes Eliminatedsprinter getting all historical again"??:rolleyes: ;)
In case you haven't noticed I have a decent background and education in history and social studies. A little bit of historical perspective is what I try to bring to the table in these little debates.
One thing that the supporters of oppression, and apeasment of oppressors, know is necessary to their cause, is that we forget the lessons that were learned from previous conflicts esp WWII. I will never forget those lessons. The civilized world must never forget. I work every day with people who fought in WWII and saw first hand the cost of appeasement of evil. Jihadism is evil. It is as evil as Nazism and it shares many of the same goals. It is just as uresponsive to compromise (it only sees it as a Western weakness to exploit) and islamists are just as untrustworthy and unable to be negotiated with as Hitler was.
I'll tell you what Ultra, you go ahead and forget...:squiggle:
I'll remember for the both of us.:idea:
ES, The iissues involved in WWII were far greater than the just the Nazis in Germany.
Cause of war in Asia
Main articles: Events preceding World War II in Asia and Japanese expansionism
Following the policies adopted after the Treaty of Versailles by occidental powers toward the recognition of Japan as a colonial power, many politicians and militarist leaders such as Fumimaro Konoe and Sadao Araki promoted the idea that Japan had a right to conquer Asia and unify it, under the rule of Emperor Hirohito.
Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931 and China in 1937 to bolster its meager stock of natural resources, to relieve Japan from population pressures and to extend its colonial realm to a wider area. Conquered areas of China became subject to a harsh occupation, with many atrocities against civilians.
The United States, United Kingdom, Australia and the Netherlands (which controlled the oil of the Dutch East Indies), reacted by instituting embargoes on exports of natural resources to Japan. The western powers also began making loans to China and providing covert military assistance.
Japan was faced with the choice of withdrawing from China, negotiating some compromise, buying what they needed somewhere else, or going to war to conquer territories that contained oil, iron ore, bauxite and other resources. Japan's leaders believed that the existing Allies were preoccupied with the war against Germany, and that the United States would not be war-ready for years and would compromise before waging full-scale war. Japan thus proceeded with its plans for the war in the Pacific by launching nearly simultaneous attacks on Malaya, Thailand, Hong Kong, Hawaii, the Phillipines, and Wake Island.
For propaganda purposes, Japan's leaders stated that the goal of its military campaigns was to create the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. This, they claimed, would be a co-operative league of Asian nations, freed by Japan from European imperialist domination, and liberated to achieve autonomy and self-determination. In practice, occupied countries and peoples were completely subordinate to Japanese authority.
Cause of war in Europe
Main article: Events preceding World War II in Europe
Germany and France had been struggling for dominance in Continental Europe for fifty years, and fought two previous wars, the Franco-Prussian War, and World War I. Meanwhile the power of the Soviet Union threatened to eclipse them both as industrialization spread to this massive country. World War I had been a preemptive war by Germany against the precursor to the Soviet Union, the Russian Empire,[2] but it ended in catastrophe for the Germans, with millions dead, the loss of some peripheral territory, and economic hardships.
Molotov signs the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in Moscow. Behind him are Shaposhnikov, Ribbentrop, and Stalin.In the six years preceding World War II, Adolf Hitler, leading the Nazi Party, took power in Germany and eliminated its democratic government, the Weimar Republic. As stated in Mein Kampf, an autobiographical book outlining his plans for the future, Hitler's goal was to invade and conquer lands around Germany, and to make them German. He railed against Communists and ethnic minorities, such as Jews. After taking power, he prepared Germany for another war with large political rallies and speeches.
The Spanish Civil War between 1936 and 1939 saw a democratic government supported largely by the Soviet Union and other members of the League of Nations get overthrown by a Nazi supported Nationalist party lead by General Franco.
During the late 1930s Hitler abrogated the Treaty of Versailles, which had brought peace after WWI. He re-militarized the Rhineland, and increased the size of the German army, navy, and air force.
The British and French governments followed a policy of appeasement in order to avoid a new European war, out of concern for perceived war-weariness of their populations due to the huge death tolls of the first World War. This policy culminated in the Munich Agreement in 1938, in which the seemingly inevitable outbreak of the war was averted when the United Kingdom and France agreed to Germany's annexation and immediate occupation of the German-speaking regions of Czechoslovakia. In exchange for this, Hitler gave his word that Germany would make no further territorial claims in Europe.[3][4] Chamberlain declared that the agreement represented "peace for our time." In March 1939, Germany invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia, effectively killing any notions of appeasement.
Hideki Tojo of Imperial Japan.The failure of the Munich Agreement showed that negotiations with Hitler could not be trusted, as his aspirations for dominance in Europe went beyond anything that the United Kingdom and France would tolerate. Poland and France pledged on May 19, 1939 to provide each other with military assistance in the event either was attacked. The British had already offered support to Poland in March.
On August 23, 1939, Germany and the Soviet Union signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. The Pact included a secret protocol that would divide Central Europe into German and Soviet areas of interest, including a provision to partition Poland. Each country agreed to allow the other a free hand in its area of influence, including military occupation. The deal provided for sales of oil and food from the Soviets to Germany, thus reducing the danger of a British blockade such as the one that had nearly starved Germany in World War I. Hitler was then ready to go to war with Poland and, if necessary, with the United Kingdom and France. He claimed there were German grievances relating to the issues of the Free City of Danzig and the Polish Corridor, but he planned to conquer all Polish territory to incorporate it into the German Reich. The signing of a new alliance between the United Kingdom and Poland on August 25 did not significantly alter his plans.
On September 1, 1939, Germany invaded Poland, causing France and the United Kingdom to declare war. The United Kingdom brought with it the huge British Empire, and most members of the British Commonwealth joined the war soon after.
Iraq didn't attack the US, prior to our insavion. Iraq didn't threaten to attack the US. Iraq wasn't behind 9/11. Our main goal in Iraq is control of Iraqi oil and to impose western control in a mid-east country Our invasion of Iraq was not sanctioned by the United Nations, the organisation formed in 1945, as a result of WWII, to prevent war. The Iraqi war doesn't resemble a world war, similar to WWII or any other world war for that matter. Death toll from WWII over 30 million and in a similar time frame to that of the mess in Iraq
While there might be similarities to ceertain factions of WWII, comparing the Iraqi war to WWII is like comparing a nuclear bomb to a firecracker.
No real comparrison at all.
One of the main lessons learned as a result of WWII and the loss of 30 million plus lives was that the world must do everything possible to avoid war as opposed looking for ways to start war, just as we did in Iraq..
Our "bring it on" dumb fu** cowboy President is the one who needs a lesson in history.
We've turned a mess into a huge pile of shi*. I don't the US coming away from iraq, this year on in 10 years without smelling and looking like shi* to the rest of the world.
-
ES, The iissues involved in WWII were far greater than the just the Nazis in Germany.
Cause of war in Asia
Main articles: Events preceding World War II in Asia and Japanese expansionism
Following the policies adopted after the Treaty of Versailles by occidental powers toward the recognition of Japan as a colonial power, many politicians and militarist leaders such as Fumimaro Konoe and Sadao Araki promoted the idea that Japan had a right to conquer Asia and unify it, under the rule of Emperor Hirohito.
Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931 and China in 1937 to bolster its meager stock of natural resources, to relieve Japan from population pressures and to extend its colonial realm to a wider area. Conquered areas of China became subject to a harsh occupation, with many atrocities against civilians.
The United States, United Kingdom, Australia and the Netherlands (which controlled the oil of the Dutch East Indies), reacted by instituting embargoes on exports of natural resources to Japan. The western powers also began making loans to China and providing covert military assistance.
Japan was faced with the choice of withdrawing from China, negotiating some compromise, buying what they needed somewhere else, or going to war to conquer territories that contained oil, iron ore, bauxite and other resources. Japan's leaders believed that the existing Allies were preoccupied with the war against Germany, and that the United States would not be war-ready for years and would compromise before waging full-scale war. Japan thus proceeded with its plans for the war in the Pacific by launching nearly simultaneous attacks on Malaya, Thailand, Hong Kong, Hawaii, the Phillipines, and Wake Island.
For propaganda purposes, Japan's leaders stated that the goal of its military campaigns was to create the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. This, they claimed, would be a co-operative league of Asian nations, freed by Japan from European imperialist domination, and liberated to achieve autonomy and self-determination. In practice, occupied countries and peoples were completely subordinate to Japanese authority.
Cause of war in Europe
Main article: Events preceding World War II in Europe
Germany and France had been struggling for dominance in Continental Europe for fifty years, and fought two previous wars, the Franco-Prussian War, and World War I. Meanwhile the power of the Soviet Union threatened to eclipse them both as industrialization spread to this massive country. World War I had been a preemptive war by Germany against the precursor to the Soviet Union, the Russian Empire,[2] but it ended in catastrophe for the Germans, with millions dead, the loss of some peripheral territory, and economic hardships.
Molotov signs the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in Moscow. Behind him are Shaposhnikov, Ribbentrop, and Stalin.In the six years preceding World War II, Adolf Hitler, leading the Nazi Party, took power in Germany and eliminated its democratic government, the Weimar Republic. As stated in Mein Kampf, an autobiographical book outlining his plans for the future, Hitler's goal was to invade and conquer lands around Germany, and to make them German. He railed against Communists and ethnic minorities, such as Jews. After taking power, he prepared Germany for another war with large political rallies and speeches.
The Spanish Civil War between 1936 and 1939 saw a democratic government supported largely by the Soviet Union and other members of the League of Nations get overthrown by a Nazi supported Nationalist party lead by General Franco.
During the late 1930s Hitler abrogated the Treaty of Versailles, which had brought peace after WWI. He re-militarized the Rhineland, and increased the size of the German army, navy, and air force.
The British and French governments followed a policy of appeasement in order to avoid a new European war, out of concern for perceived war-weariness of their populations due to the huge death tolls of the first World War. This policy culminated in the Munich Agreement in 1938, in which the seemingly inevitable outbreak of the war was averted when the United Kingdom and France agreed to Germany's annexation and immediate occupation of the German-speaking regions of Czechoslovakia. In exchange for this, Hitler gave his word that Germany would make no further territorial claims in Europe.[3][4] Chamberlain declared that the agreement represented "peace for our time." In March 1939, Germany invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia, effectively killing any notions of appeasement.
Hideki Tojo of Imperial Japan.The failure of the Munich Agreement showed that negotiations with Hitler could not be trusted, as his aspirations for dominance in Europe went beyond anything that the United Kingdom and France would tolerate. Poland and France pledged on May 19, 1939 to provide each other with military assistance in the event either was attacked. The British had already offered support to Poland in March.
On August 23, 1939, Germany and the Soviet Union signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. The Pact included a secret protocol that would divide Central Europe into German and Soviet areas of interest, including a provision to partition Poland. Each country agreed to allow the other a free hand in its area of influence, including military occupation. The deal provided for sales of oil and food from the Soviets to Germany, thus reducing the danger of a British blockade such as the one that had nearly starved Germany in World War I. Hitler was then ready to go to war with Poland and, if necessary, with the United Kingdom and France. He claimed there were German grievances relating to the issues of the Free City of Danzig and the Polish Corridor, but he planned to conquer all Polish territory to incorporate it into the German Reich. The signing of a new alliance between the United Kingdom and Poland on August 25 did not significantly alter his plans.
On September 1, 1939, Germany invaded Poland, causing France and the United Kingdom to declare war. The United Kingdom brought with it the huge British Empire, and most members of the British Commonwealth joined the war soon after.
Iraq didn't attack the US, prior to our insavion. Iraq didn't threaten to attack the US. Iraq wasn't behind 9/11. Our main goal in Iraq is control of Iraqi oil and to impose western control in a mid-east country Our invasion of Iraq was not sanctioned by the United Nations, the organisation formed in 1945, as a result of WWII, to prevent war. The Iraqi war doesn't resemble a world war, similar to WWII or any other world war for that matter. Death toll from WWII over 30 million and in a similar time frame to that of the mess in Iraq
While there might be similarities to ceertain factions of WWII, comparing the Iraqi war to WWII is like comparing a nuclear bomb to a firecracker.
No real comparrison at all.
One of the main lessons learned as a result of WWII and the loss of 30 million plus lives was that the world must do everything possible to avoid war as opposed looking for ways to start war, just as we did in Iraq..
Our "bring it on" dumb fu** cowboy President is the one who needs a lesson in history.
We've turned a mess into a huge pile of shi*. I don't the US coming away from iraq, this year on in 10 years without smelling and looking like shi* to the rest of the world.
Very nice.
Now go out and read "The Rise And Fall of the Third Reich", "Mein Kamph", and a few hundred more articles like the above, but on more specific aspects of history from 1900-1955. Then read "The Prince" (Don't worry it's a short book) by Nicolo Machiavelli. Then you might start to understand..;) ;)
Sorry your point (or lack thereof, isn't valid). There is a lot of history that the polical left would like us to forget.... I won't fall into that trap....
Why is it so important for you to reject historical comparisons...Shoot I wouldn't care if you chose to compare "Iraq Freedom" to "The Punitive Expidition" I'll bet there were lessons learned from that one that can be applied too, who knows, it might be fun??. :)
-
ES, The iissues involved in WWII were far greater than the just the Nazis in Germany.
Cause of war in Asia
Main articles: Events preceding World War II in Asia and Japanese expansionism
Following the policies adopted after the Treaty of Versailles by occidental powers toward the recognition of Japan as a colonial power, many politicians and militarist leaders such as Fumimaro Konoe and Sadao Araki promoted the idea that Japan had a right to conquer Asia and unify it, under the rule of Emperor Hirohito.
Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931 and China in 1937 to bolster its meager stock of natural resources, to relieve Japan from population pressures and to extend its colonial realm to a wider area. Conquered areas of China became subject to a harsh occupation, with many atrocities against civilians.
The United States, United Kingdom, Australia and the Netherlands (which controlled the oil of the Dutch East Indies), reacted by instituting embargoes on exports of natural resources to Japan. The western powers also began making loans to China and providing covert military assistance.
Japan was faced with the choice of withdrawing from China, negotiating some compromise, buying what they needed somewhere else, or going to war to conquer territories that contained oil, iron ore, bauxite and other resources. Japan's leaders believed that the existing Allies were preoccupied with the war against Germany, and that the United States would not be war-ready for years and would compromise before waging full-scale war. Japan thus proceeded with its plans for the war in the Pacific by launching nearly simultaneous attacks on Malaya, Thailand, Hong Kong, Hawaii, the Phillipines, and Wake Island.
For propaganda purposes, Japan's leaders stated that the goal of its military campaigns was to create the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. This, they claimed, would be a co-operative league of Asian nations, freed by Japan from European imperialist domination, and liberated to achieve autonomy and self-determination. In practice, occupied countries and peoples were completely subordinate to Japanese authority.
Cause of war in Europe
Main article: Events preceding World War II in Europe
Germany and France had been struggling for dominance in Continental Europe for fifty years, and fought two previous wars, the Franco-Prussian War, and World War I. Meanwhile the power of the Soviet Union threatened to eclipse them both as industrialization spread to this massive country. World War I had been a preemptive war by Germany against the precursor to the Soviet Union, the Russian Empire,[2] but it ended in catastrophe for the Germans, with millions dead, the loss of some peripheral territory, and economic hardships.
Molotov signs the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in Moscow. Behind him are Shaposhnikov, Ribbentrop, and Stalin.In the six years preceding World War II, Adolf Hitler, leading the Nazi Party, took power in Germany and eliminated its democratic government, the Weimar Republic. As stated in Mein Kampf, an autobiographical book outlining his plans for the future, Hitler's goal was to invade and conquer lands around Germany, and to make them German. He railed against Communists and ethnic minorities, such as Jews. After taking power, he prepared Germany for another war with large political rallies and speeches.
The Spanish Civil War between 1936 and 1939 saw a democratic government supported largely by the Soviet Union and other members of the League of Nations get overthrown by a Nazi supported Nationalist party lead by General Franco.
During the late 1930s Hitler abrogated the Treaty of Versailles, which had brought peace after WWI. He re-militarized the Rhineland, and increased the size of the German army, navy, and air force.
The British and French governments followed a policy of appeasement in order to avoid a new European war, out of concern for perceived war-weariness of their populations due to the huge death tolls of the first World War. This policy culminated in the Munich Agreement in 1938, in which the seemingly inevitable outbreak of the war was averted when the United Kingdom and France agreed to Germany's annexation and immediate occupation of the German-speaking regions of Czechoslovakia. In exchange for this, Hitler gave his word that Germany would make no further territorial claims in Europe.[3][4] Chamberlain declared that the agreement represented "peace for our time." In March 1939, Germany invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia, effectively killing any notions of appeasement.
Hideki Tojo of Imperial Japan.The failure of the Munich Agreement showed that negotiations with Hitler could not be trusted, as his aspirations for dominance in Europe went beyond anything that the United Kingdom and France would tolerate. Poland and France pledged on May 19, 1939 to provide each other with military assistance in the event either was attacked. The British had already offered support to Poland in March.
On August 23, 1939, Germany and the Soviet Union signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. The Pact included a secret protocol that would divide Central Europe into German and Soviet areas of interest, including a provision to partition Poland. Each country agreed to allow the other a free hand in its area of influence, including military occupation. The deal provided for sales of oil and food from the Soviets to Germany, thus reducing the danger of a British blockade such as the one that had nearly starved Germany in World War I. Hitler was then ready to go to war with Poland and, if necessary, with the United Kingdom and France. He claimed there were German grievances relating to the issues of the Free City of Danzig and the Polish Corridor, but he planned to conquer all Polish territory to incorporate it into the German Reich. The signing of a new alliance between the United Kingdom and Poland on August 25 did not significantly alter his plans.
On September 1, 1939, Germany invaded Poland, causing France and the United Kingdom to declare war. The United Kingdom brought with it the huge British Empire, and most members of the British Commonwealth joined the war soon after.
Iraq didn't attack the US, prior to our insavion. Iraq didn't threaten to attack the US. Iraq wasn't behind 9/11. Our main goal in Iraq is control of Iraqi oil and to impose western control in a mid-east country Our invasion of Iraq was not sanctioned by the United Nations, the organisation formed in 1945, as a result of WWII, to prevent war. The Iraqi war doesn't resemble a world war, similar to WWII or any other world war for that matter. Death toll from WWII over 30 million and in a similar time frame to that of the mess in Iraq
While there might be similarities to ceertain factions of WWII, comparing the Iraqi war to WWII is like comparing a nuclear bomb to a firecracker.
No real comparrison at all.
One of the main lessons learned as a result of WWII and the loss of 30 million plus lives was that the world must do everything possible to avoid war as opposed looking for ways to start war, just as we did in Iraq..
Our "bring it on" dumb fu** cowboy President is the one who needs a lesson in history.
We've turned a mess into a huge pile of shi*. I don't the US coming away from iraq, this year on in 10 years without smelling and looking like shi* to the rest of the world.
Very nice.
Now go out and read "The Rise And Fall of the Third Reich", "Mein Kamph", and a few hundred more articles like the above, but on more specific aspects of history from 1900-1955. Then read "The Prince" (Don't worry it's a short book) by Nicolo Machiavelli. Then you might start to understand..;) ;)
Sorry your point (or lack thereof, isn't valid). There is a lot of history that the polical left would like us to forget.... I won't fall into that trap....
Why is it so important for you to reject historical comparisons? Shoot I wouldn't care if you chose to compare "Iraq Freedom" to "The Punitive Expidition" I'll bet there were lessons learned from that one that can be applied too, who knows, it might be fun??. :)
-
One of the main lessons learned as a result of WWII and the loss of 30 million plus lives was that the world must do everything possible to avoid war as opposed looking for ways to start war, just as we did in Iraq..
So one of the main lessons you take from your knowledge of WWII is that N. Chamberlain was right???:rolleyes: ;)
-
:idea:
Our President is the one who needs a lesson in history.
Could this be a sigh you are starting understand me a tiny bit???
Of course he does, as do Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.:idea:
President Bush also need to re-read some Machiavelli, so he can get a clue as to what Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are doing to him as well...
-
:idea:
Could this be a sigh you are starting understand me a tiny bit???
Of course he does, as do Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.:idea:
President Bush also need to re-read some Machiavelli, so he can get a clue as to what Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are doing to him as well...
Doing to him? seems as thou he is a good read, divide and concour?? ring a bell?