with due respect, it's not fair to attribute actions taken in WWII to wild, simply because he resides there, any more than it is fair to attribute the horrors of African-American slavery, of the American Indian marches, or the atrocities of viet nam to TM_Direct (if you live in the US). I haven't seen him support or condone any events of WWII. JMHO.
Bush's Plan to conquer...errrr.....liberate Iraq
- Thread starter OPTIONAL777
- Start date
with due respect, it's not fair to attribute actions taken in WWII to wild, simply because he resides there, any more than it is fair to attribute the horrors of African-American slavery, of the American Indian marches, or the atrocities of viet nam to TM_Direct (if you live in the US). I haven't seen him support or condone any events of WWII. JMHO.
I haven't seen him condem the actions either. I did see him post a link in ET chat to a website that suggested the holocaust was only a "purported event".....
To Madison: You are correct about attributing the actions , however I don't think the German or french leaders or people shouldn't be the ones condemning american actions...especially the Germans....It's kind of like Mike Tyson giving a lecture on how to respect and love one's woman...
In addition, i know you and others will say this is WAY out there but here goes anyway....If it wasn't for the Germans and the French...we probably wouldn't have these problems in the middleast......The German's ( with he help of the French who turned over their Jewish people) massacred between 6-10 million Jews in an attempt to eradicate the Jewish race from the earth...After WWII, while the U.S and England built up Europe they made the decision to move the displaced Jews from Europe into the middleast and set up the Israeli state ....If it wasn't for these actions, I don't think there would be a Israeli state today...The germans could have fought WWII and if they had just fought and lost, the majority of the Jews would still be in Europe...But this is the key to the problem...The Germans and the french are NO different than the fundamentalist ...What is worse, a suicide bomber who takes out himself and 10 people in a market or a group of people that authorized and carried out the attempted elimination of a race of people by all means necessary? This is why It carries no credence with me when posters on here say " Europe disagrees with the U.S."...of course they do , they are no better then the extremists.
In addition, i know you and others will say this is WAY out there but here goes anyway....If it wasn't for the Germans and the French...we probably wouldn't have these problems in the middleast......The German's ( with he help of the French who turned over their Jewish people) massacred between 6-10 million Jews in an attempt to eradicate the Jewish race from the earth...After WWII, while the U.S and England built up Europe they made the decision to move the displaced Jews from Europe into the middleast and set up the Israeli state ....If it wasn't for these actions, I don't think there would be a Israeli state today...The germans could have fought WWII and if they had just fought and lost, the majority of the Jews would still be in Europe...But this is the key to the problem...The Germans and the french are NO different than the fundamentalist ...What is worse, a suicide bomber who takes out himself and 10 people in a market or a group of people that authorized and carried out the attempted elimination of a race of people by all means necessary? This is why It carries no credence with me when posters on here say " Europe disagrees with the U.S."...of course they do , they are no better then the extremists.
Massive U.S. military buildup, billions of dollars, a useless enemy, and no one seems to know why...
Let's be perfectly clear. You cannot have a war when the so-called enemy has done nothing to provoke you and is absolutely no threat to your national safety and has no significant military force and has negligible chance of even setting off a firecracker near your own overwhelming death machines, and whose only weapons of minimal destruction are the rusty short-range warheads and biochemical agents we sold him 20 years ago, and kept selling to him, even after we knew he was gassing his own people....
You cannot have a war when there is nothing to fight against, when it's essentially going to be a huge U.S. military stomping/bombing exercise, when, just like Afghanistan, we stand to suffer zero U.S. casualties (except for those we seem to kill ourselves), and we just bomb and bomb and kill and kill and shrug.
Let us look closer: The U.S. buildup for war with Iraq is the biggest in decades. The Iraq operation, in the words of Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, will be "the most massive precision air campaign in history," because, well, because we can. Because we want to annihilate everything as fast and ruthlessly as possible, simply because the longer such an operation takes and the more expensive and obviously pointless it becomes, the more everyday citizens snap out of it and begin to say, wait, why are we doing this again?
Saddam's meager military, let us be reminded, is a tiny quivering fraction of what it was 10 years ago during Desert Storm, and even then it took U.S. forces less than four days to almost completely annihilate it...
This is a Mack truck versus a Pinto. This is an F-16 versus a paper airplane, a Tomahawk missile versus a spit wad. There is no contest. "War" is exactly the wrong term. The U.S. attack on Iraq will be, of course, a massacre. Go team.
Now let's say you sense this all to be true. Let's say you have a queasy feeling deep in your gut as you realize no one is talking about exactly why we need to launch a second simultaneous war to go along with the unwinnable assault we're still running in Afghanistan.
Remember Afghanistan? Yes, we're still there, warring away. Bombing and attacking and killing. Haven't caught a single al Qaeda leader of note yet. That looks bad for Dubya. Killed a few thousand civilians though. Shrug.
So, let's boil it down:Now let's say you sense this all to be true. Let's say you have a queasy feeling deep in your gut as you realize no one is talking about exactly why we need to launch a second simultaneous war to go along with the unwinnable assault we're still running in Afghanistan.
Remember Afghanistan? Yes, we're still there, warring away. Bombing and attacking and killing. Haven't caught a single al Qaeda leader of note yet. That looks bad for Dubya. Killed a few thousand civilians though. Shrug.
So, let's boil it down: Why go to war with Iraq? Can't find Osama, is one reason. That looks bad. Really, really want to steal all that delicious oil for ShrubCo, is another. Saddam is clearly a very bad guy who kills his own people and snickers in America's general direction, is a third. But then again, so are at least a half-dozen other vile tyrants of the world. Volatile, nuke-ready North Korea? Let's open some talks. Feeble, oil-ready Iraq? Let's massacre. Hmm.
And besides, who needs a reason for a massacre anymore? This is the age of the preemptive-strike, screw-you Bush regime. Who needs, for example, the Monroe Doctrine, that crusty old rag stating how America will go to war only as a last resort, as a defensive measure, and won't become embroiled in unwinnable foreign wars that are none of our business?
Let us wantonly kill innocent civilians and children and thousands of Iraqi soldiers who, let us repeat, did nothing to provoke us. Shall we? Yes let's. Why? Shhh.
Let us be clear. Saddam is not a threat to the U.S., and never has been. He is merely yet another cowardly and murderous thug, much like the countless other despots and autocrats, from Marcos to King Fahd to Ariel Sharon, the U.S. has added to its payroll when it served our needs, and whom we then backhand when we need economic stimulus, or when the president needs a boost to his approval ratings, or when the corporate pals of the Bush WASP mafia need more billion-dollar petrochemical and defense contracts. Aha. Perhaps this is why.
We are not doing it to defeat terrorism (it will have the exact opposite effect), or to make the streets safer for our children, or because they've found big scary WMDs (they haven't -- not a one) -- or even for Iraq's own good. And to believe we are is, quite simply, to be wholly misinformed and openly, flagrantly, deliberately deceived.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2003/01/10/notes011003.DTL
Maybe we will decide to pull out, save face, tell the world, see we forced him to disarm...
I just hope cool heads prevail...
Josh
Let's be perfectly clear. You cannot have a war when the so-called enemy has done nothing to provoke you and is absolutely no threat to your national safety and has no significant military force and has negligible chance of even setting off a firecracker near your own overwhelming death machines, and whose only weapons of minimal destruction are the rusty short-range warheads and biochemical agents we sold him 20 years ago, and kept selling to him, even after we knew he was gassing his own people....
You cannot have a war when there is nothing to fight against, when it's essentially going to be a huge U.S. military stomping/bombing exercise, when, just like Afghanistan, we stand to suffer zero U.S. casualties (except for those we seem to kill ourselves), and we just bomb and bomb and kill and kill and shrug.
Let us look closer: The U.S. buildup for war with Iraq is the biggest in decades. The Iraq operation, in the words of Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, will be "the most massive precision air campaign in history," because, well, because we can. Because we want to annihilate everything as fast and ruthlessly as possible, simply because the longer such an operation takes and the more expensive and obviously pointless it becomes, the more everyday citizens snap out of it and begin to say, wait, why are we doing this again?
Saddam's meager military, let us be reminded, is a tiny quivering fraction of what it was 10 years ago during Desert Storm, and even then it took U.S. forces less than four days to almost completely annihilate it...
This is a Mack truck versus a Pinto. This is an F-16 versus a paper airplane, a Tomahawk missile versus a spit wad. There is no contest. "War" is exactly the wrong term. The U.S. attack on Iraq will be, of course, a massacre. Go team.
Now let's say you sense this all to be true. Let's say you have a queasy feeling deep in your gut as you realize no one is talking about exactly why we need to launch a second simultaneous war to go along with the unwinnable assault we're still running in Afghanistan.
Remember Afghanistan? Yes, we're still there, warring away. Bombing and attacking and killing. Haven't caught a single al Qaeda leader of note yet. That looks bad for Dubya. Killed a few thousand civilians though. Shrug.
So, let's boil it down:Now let's say you sense this all to be true. Let's say you have a queasy feeling deep in your gut as you realize no one is talking about exactly why we need to launch a second simultaneous war to go along with the unwinnable assault we're still running in Afghanistan.
Remember Afghanistan? Yes, we're still there, warring away. Bombing and attacking and killing. Haven't caught a single al Qaeda leader of note yet. That looks bad for Dubya. Killed a few thousand civilians though. Shrug.
So, let's boil it down: Why go to war with Iraq? Can't find Osama, is one reason. That looks bad. Really, really want to steal all that delicious oil for ShrubCo, is another. Saddam is clearly a very bad guy who kills his own people and snickers in America's general direction, is a third. But then again, so are at least a half-dozen other vile tyrants of the world. Volatile, nuke-ready North Korea? Let's open some talks. Feeble, oil-ready Iraq? Let's massacre. Hmm.
And besides, who needs a reason for a massacre anymore? This is the age of the preemptive-strike, screw-you Bush regime. Who needs, for example, the Monroe Doctrine, that crusty old rag stating how America will go to war only as a last resort, as a defensive measure, and won't become embroiled in unwinnable foreign wars that are none of our business?
Let us wantonly kill innocent civilians and children and thousands of Iraqi soldiers who, let us repeat, did nothing to provoke us. Shall we? Yes let's. Why? Shhh.
Let us be clear. Saddam is not a threat to the U.S., and never has been. He is merely yet another cowardly and murderous thug, much like the countless other despots and autocrats, from Marcos to King Fahd to Ariel Sharon, the U.S. has added to its payroll when it served our needs, and whom we then backhand when we need economic stimulus, or when the president needs a boost to his approval ratings, or when the corporate pals of the Bush WASP mafia need more billion-dollar petrochemical and defense contracts. Aha. Perhaps this is why.
We are not doing it to defeat terrorism (it will have the exact opposite effect), or to make the streets safer for our children, or because they've found big scary WMDs (they haven't -- not a one) -- or even for Iraq's own good. And to believe we are is, quite simply, to be wholly misinformed and openly, flagrantly, deliberately deceived.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2003/01/10/notes011003.DTL
Maybe we will decide to pull out, save face, tell the world, see we forced him to disarm...
I just hope cool heads prevail...
Josh
Once again my problem is with the FAR left LIEING as well....If they wan to make a point, make it and stand behind it, however there are a slew of lies and false hoods in this article...
" there hasn't been a significant al quada capture as yet, this is bad for dubbya"
You and i both know that 13 of the 25 most wanted have been captured and or killed.....Why would they say NONE?
" we bombed and killed thousands of civilians in Afghanistan..Shrug"
I don't think we killed thousands of civilians and every time we did hit a known civilian target we apologized...In fact we are one of the few superpowers in world history that plans wars around civilians in an attempt to spare them if possible.
" there hasn't been a significant al quada capture as yet, this is bad for dubbya"
You and i both know that 13 of the 25 most wanted have been captured and or killed.....Why would they say NONE?
" we bombed and killed thousands of civilians in Afghanistan..Shrug"
I don't think we killed thousands of civilians and every time we did hit a known civilian target we apologized...In fact we are one of the few superpowers in world history that plans wars around civilians in an attempt to spare them if possible.
Let us be clear. Saddam is not a threat to the U.S., and never has been. He is merely yet another cowardly and murderous thug, much like the countless other despots and autocrats, from Marcos to King Fahd to Ariel Sharon
Amzing how they throw in marcos and Sharon.........what's their real agenda? Why not Mao? Castro?
Amzing how they throw in marcos and Sharon.........what's their real agenda? Why not Mao? Castro?
The reason is that Socialist don't like to point out the fact that thrie own favorite icons are some of the biggest murders of all time...Castro , Mao, and Lenin and Stalin are ok...but the others aren't ....Let's compare the actions of all.....( for the record Stalin and lenin the founders of the communist movement, killed twice as many people as Hitler)
Bush is hated by the far left.....the fact that Clinton BOMBED Iraq consittenly throughout his two terms is left out of the article...why? Bush to this day has not killed a single Iraqi citizen...yet to read the article, Bush has already butchered them.
If they are aginast the war...say it.....say you are for peace at any and all costs....there's nothing wrong with it.
If you are anti semetic or anti israel...Say it....don't veil it and hide behind these remarks.
Bush is hated by the far left.....the fact that Clinton BOMBED Iraq consittenly throughout his two terms is left out of the article...why? Bush to this day has not killed a single Iraqi citizen...yet to read the article, Bush has already butchered them.
If they are aginast the war...say it.....say you are for peace at any and all costs....there's nothing wrong with it.
If you are anti semetic or anti israel...Say it....don't veil it and hide behind these remarks.
Apocalypse At Dresden -
The Long-Suppressed Story
Of The Worst Massacre In
The History Of The World
The devastation of Dresden in February, 1945, was one of those crimes against humanity whose authors would have been arraigned at Nuremberg if that Court had not been perverted into the instrument of Allied justice. Whether measured in terms of material destruction or by loss of human life, this "conventional" air raid was far more devastating than either of the two atomic raids against Japan that were to follow it a few months later. Out of 28,410 houses in the inner city of Dresden, 24,866 were destroyed, and the area of total destruction extended over 11 square miles.
As for the death roll, the population, as we shall see, had been well night doubled by a last minute influx of refugees fleeing before the Red Army; and even the German authorities - usually so pedantic in their estimates - gave up trying to work out the precise total after some 35,000 bodies had been recognized, labeled and buried. We do know, however, that the 1,250,000 people in the city on the night of the raid had been reduced to 368,519 by the time it was over; and it seems certain that the death toll must have greatly exceeded 71,879 at Hiroshima. Indeed, the German authorities were probably correct who, a few days after the attack, put the total somewhere between 120,000 and 150,000.
...
A rough breakdown is as follows:
37,000 infants and toddlers 46,000 public school children 55,000 wounded and sick people, doctors, nurses, Red Cross helpers, and nurses aides 12,000 firemen, soldiers, medical aides, bunker assistants and anti-aircraft police 330,000 simply listed as "men, women and youth."
more at http://www.rense.com/general20/worst.htm
regards
wild
Dresden was an incendiary bombing attack- on military targets. Unfortunately, severe winds spread the fires beyond the intended target areas.
BTW, do you consider downtown London to be a military target in the early 1940's? What do you think the terror and the attrition was on the London civilian population when they were relentlessly bombed by the German Luftwaffe on 47 consecutive nights?
In any event, using your posted link, one finds this quote:
"What is not known is that Field Marshal Montgomery and other Allied military leaders used the horrors of Dresden and Hamburg to blackmail the Doenitz government (after the suicide of Hitler) into an early surrender by threatening the Germans with more Hamburgs and more Dresdens if they did not unconditionally surrender then and there."
I guess Japan was "blackmailed" into surrender also via Hiroshima. Oops! Sorry, I forgot, it took two nuclear bombs to convince them.
