Forums > Social Chat > An open debate
Login/Join to ParticipateEnter a "Title" here:
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
Posted:
"The USA has done it's best to promote peace in the world."
That is the topic of this debate, please debate weather or not you believe this (Pro) or you do not believe this (Con).
I will like to lay down some ground rules, do not worry they go double for me!
Please keep all posts emotion free
Please do not be rude
Please state that you are either Pro or Con/Anti at the top of every post (This is just to keep people from getting confused)
Please stay on topic
Please refrain from starting a flame war.
Please completly read the post you are responding to before you respond.
I do have some requests; please try to prove your point using links or references to a source that you may have quoted.
Please try to answer any and all questions, the advantages of doing this online is that you can say your whole piece without interruption.
If you feel that you have a third stance on this issue please feel free to say it, I only ask that you outline it in a simple sentence at the top of your post.
The reason why I am starting this debate is because I saw a great debate about the same subject on C-SPAN that took place in the British House of Commons. Unfortunately I say only the last 20 minutes or so. There were several diverse people there, a young woman from Kosovo, a young American man on a sort of student exchange, an older man who was an American immigrant, several British students and a handful of others.
I began thinking of how diverse HOP is and how it was the only place that I could find a group of people who I feel are capable of representing all view points of this topic. I have a feeling that current events will dominate the topic, but please keep in mind that this is not just another opportunity to slander Bush, it is an opportunity to voice your opinion and your ideas about the entire 220+ years of American history.
I have asked NYC to make the first post and I ask that nobody post untill he after he does, unless he chooses to decline, then the first post will belong to the (shock and amazement) first person.
"The USA has done it's best to promote peace in the world."
That is the topic of this debate, please debate weather or not you believe this (Pro) or you do not believe this (Con).
I will like to lay down some ground rules, do not worry they go double for me!
Please keep all posts emotion free
Please do not be rude
Please state that you are either Pro or Con/Anti at the top of every post (This is just to keep people from getting confused)
Please stay on topic
Please refrain from starting a flame war.
Please completly read the post you are responding to before you respond.
I do have some requests; please try to prove your point using links or references to a source that you may have quoted.
Please try to answer any and all questions, the advantages of doing this online is that you can say your whole piece without interruption.
If you feel that you have a third stance on this issue please feel free to say it, I only ask that you outline it in a simple sentence at the top of your post.
The reason why I am starting this debate is because I saw a great debate about the same subject on C-SPAN that took place in the British House of Commons. Unfortunately I say only the last 20 minutes or so. There were several diverse people there, a young woman from Kosovo, a young American man on a sort of student exchange, an older man who was an American immigrant, several British students and a handful of others.
I began thinking of how diverse HOP is and how it was the only place that I could find a group of people who I feel are capable of representing all view points of this topic. I have a feeling that current events will dominate the topic, but please keep in mind that this is not just another opportunity to slander Bush, it is an opportunity to voice your opinion and your ideas about the entire 220+ years of American history.
I have asked NYC to make the first post and I ask that nobody post untill he after he does, unless he chooses to decline, then the first post will belong to the (shock and amazement) first person.
Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"
member
279 posts
Location: Bath, UK
279 posts
Location: Bath, UK
Posted:
Nah.
You promote peace by BEING peaceful yourself. At the end of the day, going in and blowing things up is just going to cause upset.
Nah.
You promote peace by BEING peaceful yourself. At the end of the day, going in and blowing things up is just going to cause upset.
Magnus... pay it forward
old hand
829 posts
Location: Brigadoon
829 posts
Location: Brigadoon
Posted:
i strongly disagree.
obviously the american government isn't the only collection of militaristic imperialists on the planet but, once they've blown up all the others, they will be.
now, i'm not going to come round here and start laying blame - that's neither my business nor my concern. but the plain fact is that any government that declares war (as opposed to going to war because war has been declared on them) is doing absolutely nothing to promote peace.
i strongly disagree.
obviously the american government isn't the only collection of militaristic imperialists on the planet but, once they've blown up all the others, they will be.
now, i'm not going to come round here and start laying blame - that's neither my business nor my concern. but the plain fact is that any government that declares war (as opposed to going to war because war has been declared on them) is doing absolutely nothing to promote peace.
wherever you go, there you are.
member
1,591 posts
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
1,591 posts
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
Posted:
So what if france, britain and her colonies, russia, america and china formed a coalition agaisnt germanys aggression? Instead of appeasing everything hitler wanted.
I am guessing hitler never could have got as far as he did and the bloodiest war we have ever seen would have been prevented.
So what if france, britain and her colonies, russia, america and china formed a coalition agaisnt germanys aggression? Instead of appeasing everything hitler wanted.
I am guessing hitler never could have got as far as he did and the bloodiest war we have ever seen would have been prevented.
SILVER Member
Classic 90's Fire Dancer... Poi, Staff, Doubles, and Breathing
743 posts
Location: South Lake Tahoe, USA
Classic 90's Fire Dancer... Poi, Staff, Doubles, and Breathing
743 posts
Location: South Lake Tahoe, USA
Posted:
Hitler, Sadam, Bush, Hitler, Sadam, Bush, at least bush is not killing innocent people!!
Hold on, he might.
The US has Been the leader in Peace with a Few Presidents, But NOT the Bush Boys!
(The Good Ol'Boys)
Its like they want to Proove something?!? I agree there has to be some thing done, but they should have killed Sadam a decade ago.
There are Major Corrilations between Hitler and Sadam, its very scarry!!
Back to discussion:
Granted I think Carter did more out of Presidency than in. Ragen built up our forces 100 fold or more to win the cold war (peacefully). Then when Bush Sr. jumped in, he had to parrade his new forces around, and picked Irac ovoiusly because he is neck deep in oil (I wish they would all drow in it! Oil=Money+Greed (sorry my oppinion))
I think we where doing well with Clinton! Not only was he expanding gov. jobs here, but near the end of his term, he was trying his hardest to make peace with the Palisinians, Jews, and Muslems in the Middle East.
(So What he screwed around with some girls!! Almost Every President in the US has had one or more Mistresses!! )
Clinton was a Very Smart Man, Unlike the coke snorting, below average, Cheater President we have now!!!
But lets Face It, The US was founded by Rebles, I don't see how we can be the leaders of World Peace with that hanging over us, I mean I still Hear Civil War Garbage comming out of peoples Mouths!! (Just Last Night Infact)
How can we Unite the World, when we can't even Unite Ourselves!!!
We have a Very Hipocritacle Nation!! We want Irac to disarm their wepons of mass distruction, when we have hundreds, and are pointing them at Irac.
I know this might sound Stupid, But in order to lead, we should be the first to Disarm!!!!
Sorry if I broke some rules in the discussion, But This is what I believe, and I'll say it!
[ 11. March 2003, 07:59: Message edited by: FireSpirit ]
Hitler, Sadam, Bush, Hitler, Sadam, Bush, at least bush is not killing innocent people!!
Hold on, he might.
The US has Been the leader in Peace with a Few Presidents, But NOT the Bush Boys!
(The Good Ol'Boys)
Its like they want to Proove something?!? I agree there has to be some thing done, but they should have killed Sadam a decade ago.
There are Major Corrilations between Hitler and Sadam, its very scarry!!
Back to discussion:
Granted I think Carter did more out of Presidency than in. Ragen built up our forces 100 fold or more to win the cold war (peacefully). Then when Bush Sr. jumped in, he had to parrade his new forces around, and picked Irac ovoiusly because he is neck deep in oil (I wish they would all drow in it! Oil=Money+Greed (sorry my oppinion))
I think we where doing well with Clinton! Not only was he expanding gov. jobs here, but near the end of his term, he was trying his hardest to make peace with the Palisinians, Jews, and Muslems in the Middle East.
(So What he screwed around with some girls!! Almost Every President in the US has had one or more Mistresses!! )
Clinton was a Very Smart Man, Unlike the coke snorting, below average, Cheater President we have now!!!
But lets Face It, The US was founded by Rebles, I don't see how we can be the leaders of World Peace with that hanging over us, I mean I still Hear Civil War Garbage comming out of peoples Mouths!! (Just Last Night Infact)
How can we Unite the World, when we can't even Unite Ourselves!!!
We have a Very Hipocritacle Nation!! We want Irac to disarm their wepons of mass distruction, when we have hundreds, and are pointing them at Irac.
I know this might sound Stupid, But in order to lead, we should be the first to Disarm!!!!
Sorry if I broke some rules in the discussion, But This is what I believe, and I'll say it!
[ 11. March 2003, 07:59: Message edited by: FireSpirit ]
FIRE IS ALIVE!
IT LIVES AND BREATHS!
IT CONSUMES, AND DISTROYS!
BUT WE CONTROL IT,
AND DANCE WITH FIRE!!
NYC
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Posted:
I guess I declined.
I guess I declined.
Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]
SILVER Member
100 characters max...
2,996 posts
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia
100 characters max...
2,996 posts
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia
Posted:
"The USA has done it's best to promote peace in the world."
USA: By the USA, I am going to ask people to assume we are not just talking the US government, rather we are talking the USA as a nation of people, over time from its very beginnings.
Promote peace: Any action (this includes speaking or rallying for a cause, or even diplomatic efforts) that can be proven to have brought about peace in a nation for a period of time.
The World: Any nation, not just UN member countries
So go for it, remember this is not just a thread about current events, this is about the USA as a nation over time. And remember to state whether you are pro or con, or why you are neither.
quote:Just re-posting the terms of the debate. I am not going to put in a statement pro or con. rather this post is going to serve as further definition, although please feel free to challenge it:
"The USA has done it's best to promote peace in the world."
That is the topic of this debate, please debate whether or not you believe this (Pro) or you do not believe this (Con).
ground rules
I will like to lay down some ground rules, do not worry they go double for me!
Please keep all posts emotion freePlease do not be rudePlease state that you are either Pro or Con/Anti at the top of every post (This is just to keep people from getting confused)Please stay on topicPlease refrain from starting a flame war.Please completly read the post you are responding to before you respond.
I do have some requests;
please try to prove your point using links or references to a source that you may have quoted.Please try to answer any and all questions, the advantages of doing this online is that you can say your whole piece without interruption.If you feel that you have a third stance on this issue please feel free to say it, I only ask that you outline it in a simple sentence at the top of your post.
"The USA has done it's best to promote peace in the world."
USA: By the USA, I am going to ask people to assume we are not just talking the US government, rather we are talking the USA as a nation of people, over time from its very beginnings.
Promote peace: Any action (this includes speaking or rallying for a cause, or even diplomatic efforts) that can be proven to have brought about peace in a nation for a period of time.
The World: Any nation, not just UN member countries
So go for it, remember this is not just a thread about current events, this is about the USA as a nation over time. And remember to state whether you are pro or con, or why you are neither.
It was a day for screaming at inanimate objects.
What this calls for is a special mix of psychology and extreme violence...
member
1,591 posts
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
1,591 posts
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
Posted:
Con.
Heh So you think bush sr. and jr. are big war mongers because they want to invade iraq and not reagan? Where do you think iraq got those weapons of mass destruction? Reagan gave them to saddam to protect US interests. I guess you forgot about that part eh? Reagon didn't bring a peaceful resolution to the cold war. The arms race continuing from the end of ww2 to reagons term in office is what happened to end the cold war. So the man was in the right place at the right time. Congrats on being lucky reagan.
You forgot about all the horrible planned air strikes clinton called in. Remember the ones that destroyed civilian targets all over the middle east including a pharmasutical plant?
Oh and don't forget america and britains wonderful idea of putting czech's and slovaks together in the same country. Or the creation of israel. That really brought a shineing age of peace and glory to the middle east.
Con.
Heh So you think bush sr. and jr. are big war mongers because they want to invade iraq and not reagan? Where do you think iraq got those weapons of mass destruction? Reagan gave them to saddam to protect US interests. I guess you forgot about that part eh? Reagon didn't bring a peaceful resolution to the cold war. The arms race continuing from the end of ww2 to reagons term in office is what happened to end the cold war. So the man was in the right place at the right time. Congrats on being lucky reagan.
You forgot about all the horrible planned air strikes clinton called in. Remember the ones that destroyed civilian targets all over the middle east including a pharmasutical plant?
Oh and don't forget america and britains wonderful idea of putting czech's and slovaks together in the same country. Or the creation of israel. That really brought a shineing age of peace and glory to the middle east.
Enter a "Title" here:
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
Posted:
Hehe, sorry about that NYC, I tried to keep the wolves at bay.
Please remember this is a debate not a place to rant.
I am glad to see that people, Astar, are thinking past the two Bush administrations.
Please remember to back up your posts with something concrete.
Millions of dollars are spent by US citizens to help needy people accross the globe. Starving people in Africa, medicine, books things we take for granted. The Red Cross gives aid to people all over the world, earthquakes in Peru, Volcanos, floods you name it if it is a natural disaster and that countries government lets them in the Red Cross will be there.
Peace can also be obtained by a showing of force.
I give my signature as an example, atleast there was peace for another day. After the US Civil War, mail cars on trains were being robbed almost daily, Marines were placed to guard the mail cars, the robberies quickly stopped.
Some people fight for peace, I know it is an oxymoron but it can be done. I give you the American Revolutionary War and the war with Mexico. Two wars that have brought peace between those two countries.
Hehe, sorry about that NYC, I tried to keep the wolves at bay.
Please remember this is a debate not a place to rant.
I am glad to see that people, Astar, are thinking past the two Bush administrations.
Please remember to back up your posts with something concrete.
Millions of dollars are spent by US citizens to help needy people accross the globe. Starving people in Africa, medicine, books things we take for granted. The Red Cross gives aid to people all over the world, earthquakes in Peru, Volcanos, floods you name it if it is a natural disaster and that countries government lets them in the Red Cross will be there.
Peace can also be obtained by a showing of force.
I give my signature as an example, atleast there was peace for another day. After the US Civil War, mail cars on trains were being robbed almost daily, Marines were placed to guard the mail cars, the robberies quickly stopped.
Some people fight for peace, I know it is an oxymoron but it can be done. I give you the American Revolutionary War and the war with Mexico. Two wars that have brought peace between those two countries.
Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"
member
1,591 posts
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
1,591 posts
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
Posted:
You do realize the majority of aid given to countries is in the form of loans or in other formats which actually make money for the US (and canada) in the long run. You think it is a great humanitarian action for the US to give 2000 john dear tractors to somalia so they can get their argriculture back on it's feet? Not really when you consider that a john deer tractor has lots of complicated and fragile parts which the somalians can't manufacture themselves or repair when they break. So the tractors run for 5 years and then they need to spend more money then they have to fix them. Guess where they buy those parts from? John deer. It's like a gift that keeps on giving. Only instead of giving to the receipient it gives to the person who gave it.
The loans. Can't forget the wonderful loans. Give a poor country like ethiopia a nice big loan of 50 million. Even though ethiopia can't possibly pay it back. 15 years latter they got 40 million paid back but the interest keeps building up. They owe 80 million. They can't spend any money on solving their own problems, it's all going back to the wonderful united states (or the world bank). Or maybe they donate 50 million dollars but they have to do several favors for the united states which are in no way in their best interest.
Now don't get me wrong, some of the aid has no strings attached (namely the emergency aid) but more often then not it's not nearly as great of a deal for the recipients as it sounds. Also I tended to use the united states as an example in this thread but the fact is all major nations do this. Canada, america, england, germany and france probably others. Sure canada does it to a lesser extent but it's like 1% of a diffrence. If you look at the actual percentage of the gross national product we are giving to these countrys it is absolutly pathetic, and really it makes a patheticly small impact on the third world.
Do you know who the biggest aid givers are in the world? Brunei and saudi arabia. The rich middle eastern countries sitting on oil. They are giving more money to help 3rd world countries then we are, even though we are towering over them in terms of economic standing.
So don't kid yourself and think your country or my country is doing anything substantial to help the 3rd world.
You do realize the majority of aid given to countries is in the form of loans or in other formats which actually make money for the US (and canada) in the long run. You think it is a great humanitarian action for the US to give 2000 john dear tractors to somalia so they can get their argriculture back on it's feet? Not really when you consider that a john deer tractor has lots of complicated and fragile parts which the somalians can't manufacture themselves or repair when they break. So the tractors run for 5 years and then they need to spend more money then they have to fix them. Guess where they buy those parts from? John deer. It's like a gift that keeps on giving. Only instead of giving to the receipient it gives to the person who gave it.
The loans. Can't forget the wonderful loans. Give a poor country like ethiopia a nice big loan of 50 million. Even though ethiopia can't possibly pay it back. 15 years latter they got 40 million paid back but the interest keeps building up. They owe 80 million. They can't spend any money on solving their own problems, it's all going back to the wonderful united states (or the world bank). Or maybe they donate 50 million dollars but they have to do several favors for the united states which are in no way in their best interest.
Now don't get me wrong, some of the aid has no strings attached (namely the emergency aid) but more often then not it's not nearly as great of a deal for the recipients as it sounds. Also I tended to use the united states as an example in this thread but the fact is all major nations do this. Canada, america, england, germany and france probably others. Sure canada does it to a lesser extent but it's like 1% of a diffrence. If you look at the actual percentage of the gross national product we are giving to these countrys it is absolutly pathetic, and really it makes a patheticly small impact on the third world.
Do you know who the biggest aid givers are in the world? Brunei and saudi arabia. The rich middle eastern countries sitting on oil. They are giving more money to help 3rd world countries then we are, even though we are towering over them in terms of economic standing.
So don't kid yourself and think your country or my country is doing anything substantial to help the 3rd world.
SILVER Member
100 characters max...
2,996 posts
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia
100 characters max...
2,996 posts
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia
Posted:
"The USA has done it's best to promote peace in the world."
Okay to recap some of the points made at this time:
For:
The USA both at a government level, and at the level of ordinary citizens, sends money and resources to other nations
Against:
Aid given is often in the form of loans. This loans allow the USA (and other nations) to have a controlling stake in the government of those countries it gives aid to.
Against:
A government that declares war is doing nothing to promote peace
For:
Sometimes peace can be obtained through a show of force, which prevents further fighting.
I haven't fully outlined these points. I am hoping that their authors will elaborate on them further with more supporting info and references.
[ 11. March 2003, 18:10: Message edited by: Rozi ]
"The USA has done it's best to promote peace in the world."
Okay to recap some of the points made at this time:
For:
The USA both at a government level, and at the level of ordinary citizens, sends money and resources to other nations
Against:
Aid given is often in the form of loans. This loans allow the USA (and other nations) to have a controlling stake in the government of those countries it gives aid to.
Against:
A government that declares war is doing nothing to promote peace
For:
Sometimes peace can be obtained through a show of force, which prevents further fighting.
I haven't fully outlined these points. I am hoping that their authors will elaborate on them further with more supporting info and references.
[ 11. March 2003, 18:10: Message edited by: Rozi ]
It was a day for screaming at inanimate objects.
What this calls for is a special mix of psychology and extreme violence...
Enter a "Title" here:
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
Posted:
I am Pro.
Not all aid is in the form of loans.
Also it would be a grant if it wasn't supposed to be paid back.
If one life is saved, is that not substancial?
((please refrain from getting personal))
Does it help though? If you give someone a tractor to help the grow crops, does it help them? Yes it does, even if it is for only as long as the tractor works.
Here is a question for you, do you have to give aid?
If you dont, then isnt any and all aid that you give a good thing?
If someone is down on their luck and I give them $5 it wont get them back on their feet, but it might feed them.
The amount of aid isnt the whole thing, how it is given isnt the whole thing, the fact that it is given is what is important.
After WWII France, Germany, UK and other war torn countries in that region were given billions. Dents have barly been made in those loans. We funded the rebuilding of London, but what has been returned? When the French railway was in trouble, who helped them? The US. Now that Amtrak is bankrupt who has come to their aid? Nobody.
We have helped our allies and our old enimies.
Germany (or atleast the Demorcatic side) was brought back up from the ashes, the econimy returned to its proper place. It was the US, with other allies that did this and peace achived in Germany.
While the other half squanderd.
I am Pro.
Not all aid is in the form of loans.
Also it would be a grant if it wasn't supposed to be paid back.
If one life is saved, is that not substancial?
((please refrain from getting personal))
Does it help though? If you give someone a tractor to help the grow crops, does it help them? Yes it does, even if it is for only as long as the tractor works.
Here is a question for you, do you have to give aid?
If you dont, then isnt any and all aid that you give a good thing?
If someone is down on their luck and I give them $5 it wont get them back on their feet, but it might feed them.
The amount of aid isnt the whole thing, how it is given isnt the whole thing, the fact that it is given is what is important.
After WWII France, Germany, UK and other war torn countries in that region were given billions. Dents have barly been made in those loans. We funded the rebuilding of London, but what has been returned? When the French railway was in trouble, who helped them? The US. Now that Amtrak is bankrupt who has come to their aid? Nobody.
We have helped our allies and our old enimies.
Germany (or atleast the Demorcatic side) was brought back up from the ashes, the econimy returned to its proper place. It was the US, with other allies that did this and peace achived in Germany.
While the other half squanderd.
Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"
110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
3,149 posts
Location: London
3,149 posts
Location: London
Posted:
Just a quick comment on the last post before I post a proper reply:
Yes, the USA helped rebuild the German economy after WWII but the USA also played a major role in setting the Reparations after WWI that destroyed the German economy and helped Hitler into power in the first place.
Just a quick comment on the last post before I post a proper reply:
Yes, the USA helped rebuild the German economy after WWII but the USA also played a major role in setting the Reparations after WWI that destroyed the German economy and helped Hitler into power in the first place.
"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."
SILVER Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,899 posts
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,899 posts
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Posted:
Sorry, I usually stay out of political threads, but WWI and WWII history are areas of personal interest.
The treaty of Versailles which ended WWI is largly based on President Woodrow Wilson's "Fourteen Points", but was however made much more harsh, particularly in the inclusion of reparations. Point in fact, the United States never ratified the treaty, as both President Wilson and the US congress thought it was generally a bad idea to so seriously penalize Germany. President Wilson also worked hard to form the Leauge of Nations, but in the end, the United States refused to become a member of that organization - again due to the severe treatment of Germany.
Sorry, I usually stay out of political threads, but WWI and WWII history are areas of personal interest.
The treaty of Versailles which ended WWI is largly based on President Woodrow Wilson's "Fourteen Points", but was however made much more harsh, particularly in the inclusion of reparations. Point in fact, the United States never ratified the treaty, as both President Wilson and the US congress thought it was generally a bad idea to so seriously penalize Germany. President Wilson also worked hard to form the Leauge of Nations, but in the end, the United States refused to become a member of that organization - again due to the severe treatment of Germany.
-v-
Wiederstand ist Zwecklos!
110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
3,149 posts
Location: London
3,149 posts
Location: London
Posted:
Has the USA done its best to promote peace in the world?
Ummm, yes. But its been very very very wrong about the best way to achieve peace on a number of occasions.
The USA does what it views as being best for itself. It doesn't promote peace for the good of man, but for the good of Americans first, everone else second. I don't mean that as a negative criticism though, as I wouldn't expect a nation to be run any other way.
The USA is the biggest kid in the playground. That means that it'll come under criticism all the time from people saying it's not doing enough to help others, or that its throwing its weight around too much. Basically it can't win, and just has to try to strike a balance.
We'll see what happens during/after this Iraq business. Of course, the USA will only get the credit if it all goes wrong
OK thats enough wild generalisations for now. Nice thread Ray (& Rozi)
Has the USA done its best to promote peace in the world?
Ummm, yes. But its been very very very wrong about the best way to achieve peace on a number of occasions.
The USA does what it views as being best for itself. It doesn't promote peace for the good of man, but for the good of Americans first, everone else second. I don't mean that as a negative criticism though, as I wouldn't expect a nation to be run any other way.
The USA is the biggest kid in the playground. That means that it'll come under criticism all the time from people saying it's not doing enough to help others, or that its throwing its weight around too much. Basically it can't win, and just has to try to strike a balance.
We'll see what happens during/after this Iraq business. Of course, the USA will only get the credit if it all goes wrong
OK thats enough wild generalisations for now. Nice thread Ray (& Rozi)
"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."
110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
3,149 posts
Location: London
3,149 posts
Location: London
Posted:
whoops, bad call on the treaty of Versailles.
My GCSE History teacher would kick my ass if he saw that
Thanks Vanize
whoops, bad call on the treaty of Versailles.
My GCSE History teacher would kick my ass if he saw that
Thanks Vanize
"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."
SILVER Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,899 posts
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,899 posts
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Posted:
As for replying to the original post "the US has done its best to promote peace in the world", here is what I think.
Definitely not. The USA has done a lot in that direction, and clearly some in the opposite. Much of the latter was probably inteded as the former, but hindsight is 20-20.
Overall, I would say the US has been, on average, more on the side of peace.
Have we done our best? My answer to that is no. I expect more out of the States than what I have seen, so I would not say we've done our best.
As for replying to the original post "the US has done its best to promote peace in the world", here is what I think.
Definitely not. The USA has done a lot in that direction, and clearly some in the opposite. Much of the latter was probably inteded as the former, but hindsight is 20-20.
Overall, I would say the US has been, on average, more on the side of peace.
Have we done our best? My answer to that is no. I expect more out of the States than what I have seen, so I would not say we've done our best.
-v-
Wiederstand ist Zwecklos!
member
382 posts
Location: Southampton
382 posts
Location: Southampton
Posted:
Here's some fact to help paint the picture of what the US govt is like, draw your own conculsions about peacemaking from it:
The US govt were not prepared to intervene in WWII until there was a real tangible threat posed to their own economic and national position.
The US govt only intervened in Vietnam when they came to the presumption that it was a communist domino effect which might eventually travel thousands of miles to their shores. And let's not forget that it wasn't even communism, it was nationalism...doh!
The US govt did indeed sells arms to Iraq and helped to finance and support Saddam's rise to power in the hope that it would ensure nice oil relations in the future for the US. When Saddam didn't comply, war erupted.
During the Cold War the US govt financed and trained Afghanistan, they effectively taught Al Qaeda everything they know and utilised in the tragic terrorist attacks.
After the first Gulf War ended the US recommended to an opposing Iraqi Muslim group to Saddam's that this was their opportunity to attack and take over. Massively outnumbered, they met their death quickly, desperate for support from the US govt which promised them a backing and then simply walked away.
If the US were peace makers why did they never intervene in the hideous mass genocide in Cambodia, why did they not take Pol Pot out? Are these newly found morals motivated elsewhere? Of course.
When the US govt has drained the Iraqi land of oil, they'll find an excuse to attack Africa, as that'll be one of the only places left on Earth where the oil supply hasn't been depleted.
I apologise if my words here are harsh and to the point but this isn't a marmite versus nutella argument, this is the future of our planet we're talking about and war is imminent, one which most people down't want a part of. Also, I don't want this to appear as if I am accusing the American people, who I am fond of, merely the coniving, disgusting capitalists in power.
Peace, let's hope,
Salinger
Here's some fact to help paint the picture of what the US govt is like, draw your own conculsions about peacemaking from it:
The US govt were not prepared to intervene in WWII until there was a real tangible threat posed to their own economic and national position.
The US govt only intervened in Vietnam when they came to the presumption that it was a communist domino effect which might eventually travel thousands of miles to their shores. And let's not forget that it wasn't even communism, it was nationalism...doh!
The US govt did indeed sells arms to Iraq and helped to finance and support Saddam's rise to power in the hope that it would ensure nice oil relations in the future for the US. When Saddam didn't comply, war erupted.
During the Cold War the US govt financed and trained Afghanistan, they effectively taught Al Qaeda everything they know and utilised in the tragic terrorist attacks.
After the first Gulf War ended the US recommended to an opposing Iraqi Muslim group to Saddam's that this was their opportunity to attack and take over. Massively outnumbered, they met their death quickly, desperate for support from the US govt which promised them a backing and then simply walked away.
If the US were peace makers why did they never intervene in the hideous mass genocide in Cambodia, why did they not take Pol Pot out? Are these newly found morals motivated elsewhere? Of course.
When the US govt has drained the Iraqi land of oil, they'll find an excuse to attack Africa, as that'll be one of the only places left on Earth where the oil supply hasn't been depleted.
I apologise if my words here are harsh and to the point but this isn't a marmite versus nutella argument, this is the future of our planet we're talking about and war is imminent, one which most people down't want a part of. Also, I don't want this to appear as if I am accusing the American people, who I am fond of, merely the coniving, disgusting capitalists in power.
Peace, let's hope,
Salinger
A conspiracy of silence speaks louder than words...
AnonymousPLATINUM Member
Posted:
err- I guess the US has been doing a lot to promote world peace, if you count all the times its arranged for nonUS supporting leaders to be assassinated/arrested and US puppets put in place.
I'd call it securing vested interests rather than promoting world peace.
After all,
"The American Way of Life is Not Negotiable"
- G W Bush.
If you dont believe me check this site;
www.ima-brainwashed-american.org
Josh
err- I guess the US has been doing a lot to promote world peace, if you count all the times its arranged for nonUS supporting leaders to be assassinated/arrested and US puppets put in place.
I'd call it securing vested interests rather than promoting world peace.
After all,
"The American Way of Life is Not Negotiable"
- G W Bush.
If you dont believe me check this site;
www.ima-brainwashed-american.org
Josh
AnonymousPLATINUM Member
Posted:
and about the aid; if you loan someone more money than they can possibly pay back, and then start manipulating their policy decisions through the influence you gain from holding the debt over them - its not really aiding them now is it?
Josh
and about the aid; if you loan someone more money than they can possibly pay back, and then start manipulating their policy decisions through the influence you gain from holding the debt over them - its not really aiding them now is it?
Josh
Enter a "Title" here:
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
Posted:
*Puts on his topic creater special privledges hat*
Wowsers people are actually debating!! Me so happy
*takes off his had*
Should a country be expected to drop everything to help everyone out?
We may not have rushed into Cambodia, but we were there in Kosovo and in other areas.
In WWII, the US was tired of war and wanted to just keep to ourself, a practice that is not fround upon since Switzerland has been nuetral for years. We started slacking in our oil supply to Japan to help out the UK and France so that caused Japanesse involvment. A German sub sank a cruise liner and that brought the US into the war, officialy. We had been sending arms and munitions for quite some time though. We were already involved unofficially when the perverbial "shit hit the fan".
Josh your link did not work, sorry can you try to fix that for us?
Honestly, if Bush did say that, it wouldnt supprise me. In a way it is not negotiable, but it is only non-negotiable in America, weather he meant that or not I dont know.
Just like any good bank, the US loaned money out but they made sure that they would get some of it back even if it took along time.
Now you must realise, the US at any time could bankrupt several countries just by calling up all of its loans.
I think the US has done alot to bring peace to the world.
US citizens have died on every clime and place where they could take a gun, just so that someone else could live better. S. Korea now has a stable economy even though its communist neighbor starves. Japan has recoverd and they are ruling themselves even though America was well within it's rights to set up a ruling class. They may not have a military, but they are in controle of their own country.
We give alot and dont get much in return, when we do ask for what we gave back (loans more specifically), we are seen as cruel. How could a country as poor as that return all that money you loaned them. It was our money to do with as we please, why is it seen as bad to ask that it gets paid back? If a country cant pay it back then why did they accept the loan?
After WWI, Germany was left holding the bag, even though they really didnt start it. The US and it's allies did not want to see this happen again, so we tried to keep things like military production very low. The Germans decided to ignore this and divert capital from their citzens to build an army. We let them and the econimy sufferd while their army grew. WWII breaks out and 6 million people are killed because of their religion and because they were not effected by the sanctions therfore their businesses flurished while native German businesses failed.
Without US aid all of Western Europe would be speeking German right now. I cant tell you if the US went to war for its own interests or not, I just dont have that knowlege.
*Puts on his topic creater special privledges hat*
Wowsers people are actually debating!! Me so happy
*takes off his had*
quote:Salinger, can you back that up with a link or something? That is the first time that I have heard anything about that.
After the first Gulf War ended the US recommended to an opposing Iraqi Muslim group to Saddam's that this was their opportunity to attack and take over. Massively outnumbered, they met their death quickly, desperate for support from the US govt which promised them a backing and then simply walked away.
Should a country be expected to drop everything to help everyone out?
We may not have rushed into Cambodia, but we were there in Kosovo and in other areas.
In WWII, the US was tired of war and wanted to just keep to ourself, a practice that is not fround upon since Switzerland has been nuetral for years. We started slacking in our oil supply to Japan to help out the UK and France so that caused Japanesse involvment. A German sub sank a cruise liner and that brought the US into the war, officialy. We had been sending arms and munitions for quite some time though. We were already involved unofficially when the perverbial "shit hit the fan".
Josh your link did not work, sorry can you try to fix that for us?
Honestly, if Bush did say that, it wouldnt supprise me. In a way it is not negotiable, but it is only non-negotiable in America, weather he meant that or not I dont know.
Just like any good bank, the US loaned money out but they made sure that they would get some of it back even if it took along time.
Now you must realise, the US at any time could bankrupt several countries just by calling up all of its loans.
I think the US has done alot to bring peace to the world.
US citizens have died on every clime and place where they could take a gun, just so that someone else could live better. S. Korea now has a stable economy even though its communist neighbor starves. Japan has recoverd and they are ruling themselves even though America was well within it's rights to set up a ruling class. They may not have a military, but they are in controle of their own country.
We give alot and dont get much in return, when we do ask for what we gave back (loans more specifically), we are seen as cruel. How could a country as poor as that return all that money you loaned them. It was our money to do with as we please, why is it seen as bad to ask that it gets paid back? If a country cant pay it back then why did they accept the loan?
After WWI, Germany was left holding the bag, even though they really didnt start it. The US and it's allies did not want to see this happen again, so we tried to keep things like military production very low. The Germans decided to ignore this and divert capital from their citzens to build an army. We let them and the econimy sufferd while their army grew. WWII breaks out and 6 million people are killed because of their religion and because they were not effected by the sanctions therfore their businesses flurished while native German businesses failed.
Without US aid all of Western Europe would be speeking German right now. I cant tell you if the US went to war for its own interests or not, I just dont have that knowlege.
Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"
member
41 posts
Location: UK
41 posts
Location: UK
Posted:
Finally a discussion thats actually made me think. I am not anti-war, but I am anti-bullying. Strange word I know but if you watched the news reports in England and listened to how British people feel, we are being bullied by our "leader" into following him as Blair is being bullied by Bush. Surely a government can make their own desicion and not have to "scratch" one another's backs?
Straight away, I generally agree with Astar, mainly regarding aid to 3rd world countries. Its a disgrace and the debt needs to be erased. Now. (I dont think Astar wanted debt erased, I'm couldnt tell but just wanted to say this)
Salinger, I see your point, but would like to see more evidence to situations in iraq.
The USA in my opinion(remember this please)has not done enough to promote peace within the world. I unfortunatly have the feeling that Bob Geldof and Bono have had a bigger part (waits for the intake of breath... you finished... cool)in aiding countries that their governments have given up on.
The recent demonstrations in London have proved that democracy means shit to this government, esp regarding political stance. When you were in school, weren't you taught that from left wing to right wing - Social, Labour, Conservative, Nazis
So why has labour let us down.
Oops this is about america sorry, let me continue...
Ray, I have a slight problem with your declaration (and it may just be a way of phrasing to you)that America had "every right" to set up a ruling class in Japan.
Did they? Because of their actions did they have the right to walk in and take over the situation?If Iraq (what is it with the pre-occupation of spelling that "irac", its bloody Iraq!) beat this current coalition, would they have the right to come to America and set up a new ruling class? Would they have the "right"to tell you how to live? No, we wouldnt call it that, we would call it a dictatorship. that is certainly not democracy and defintly not that way peace is promoted.
Also, FireSpirit, re: they should have "killed" Saddam years ago? At that point I dont think it was politically viable, his son (potentially more dangerous) would have taken his place and Saddam would have been made a martyr.
"Killed" is a choice of word I would not have used. It is not the only option, Saddam is an old man now and an ill one, he should not be allowed the escape that Hitler had (death through suicide)but should be made to live with his crimes.
Why should we kill for political reasons as he has done? Does that make us any better? Like Milosevic he should be tried for war crimes and made to live remembering he lost an empire. An eye for an eye is what normally begins a war, not ends it.
Oh and I have to comment that Ray made the dangerous error of posting the ominous theme of America coming to the rescue of Europe and we would have capitulated without them. GARGH!!! One more person says that to me and I will flip. Its not in any way personal, its just one of my pet hates
Finally, although I'm not happy about the war, there is no way I would tell a soldier that what I thought they were doing is pointless. And I hope that some of these little creeps that are constantly demostrating and spitting at people because they aren't of the same opinion get called up and begin to feel some sort of pride for their country. If this does go to war, the forces will fight for us; i didnt ask them individually to do this so i wont expect to bow down to them, but they have my upmost respect and support. They are the peacekeepers, not the countries, the forces do what has to be done and its their actions that will decide the outcome.
This was written in five minutes before a lecture so when I come back (in 45mins) i expect some sort of list of faults which i can research and say yay or nay... cheers!!
sol xx
[ 12. March 2003, 23:44: Message edited by: Soleil ]
Finally a discussion thats actually made me think. I am not anti-war, but I am anti-bullying. Strange word I know but if you watched the news reports in England and listened to how British people feel, we are being bullied by our "leader" into following him as Blair is being bullied by Bush. Surely a government can make their own desicion and not have to "scratch" one another's backs?
Straight away, I generally agree with Astar, mainly regarding aid to 3rd world countries. Its a disgrace and the debt needs to be erased. Now. (I dont think Astar wanted debt erased, I'm couldnt tell but just wanted to say this)
Salinger, I see your point, but would like to see more evidence to situations in iraq.
The USA in my opinion(remember this please)has not done enough to promote peace within the world. I unfortunatly have the feeling that Bob Geldof and Bono have had a bigger part (waits for the intake of breath... you finished... cool)in aiding countries that their governments have given up on.
The recent demonstrations in London have proved that democracy means shit to this government, esp regarding political stance. When you were in school, weren't you taught that from left wing to right wing - Social, Labour, Conservative, Nazis
So why has labour let us down.
Oops this is about america sorry, let me continue...
Ray, I have a slight problem with your declaration (and it may just be a way of phrasing to you)that America had "every right" to set up a ruling class in Japan.
Did they? Because of their actions did they have the right to walk in and take over the situation?If Iraq (what is it with the pre-occupation of spelling that "irac", its bloody Iraq!) beat this current coalition, would they have the right to come to America and set up a new ruling class? Would they have the "right"to tell you how to live? No, we wouldnt call it that, we would call it a dictatorship. that is certainly not democracy and defintly not that way peace is promoted.
Also, FireSpirit, re: they should have "killed" Saddam years ago? At that point I dont think it was politically viable, his son (potentially more dangerous) would have taken his place and Saddam would have been made a martyr.
"Killed" is a choice of word I would not have used. It is not the only option, Saddam is an old man now and an ill one, he should not be allowed the escape that Hitler had (death through suicide)but should be made to live with his crimes.
Why should we kill for political reasons as he has done? Does that make us any better? Like Milosevic he should be tried for war crimes and made to live remembering he lost an empire. An eye for an eye is what normally begins a war, not ends it.
Oh and I have to comment that Ray made the dangerous error of posting the ominous theme of America coming to the rescue of Europe and we would have capitulated without them. GARGH!!! One more person says that to me and I will flip. Its not in any way personal, its just one of my pet hates
Finally, although I'm not happy about the war, there is no way I would tell a soldier that what I thought they were doing is pointless. And I hope that some of these little creeps that are constantly demostrating and spitting at people because they aren't of the same opinion get called up and begin to feel some sort of pride for their country. If this does go to war, the forces will fight for us; i didnt ask them individually to do this so i wont expect to bow down to them, but they have my upmost respect and support. They are the peacekeepers, not the countries, the forces do what has to be done and its their actions that will decide the outcome.
This was written in five minutes before a lecture so when I come back (in 45mins) i expect some sort of list of faults which i can research and say yay or nay... cheers!!
sol xx
[ 12. March 2003, 23:44: Message edited by: Soleil ]
HEEEEEEEEED!!
member
382 posts
Location: Southampton
382 posts
Location: Southampton
Posted:
"In most of the cities in the south like Basra, because they're Shiite Muslims and they hate Saddam, they've tried to get rid of him. In 1991 Bush Senior said, "Rise up and get rid of Saddam". So they did and took seven cities in the south. Then Bush and the State Department suddenly thought, these are Shiite Muslims and if they take over they could team up with Iran and be anti-American and we won't get any oil and so on. So they let Saddam crush it and 30,000 people were killed by the end of that".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/axis.shtml
quote:Somehow managed to find a link for this Raymund, it was on a very good tv programme called Axis on Evil investifating the link that Bush purports and here's what it says:
Originally posted by Raymund P.:
quote:Salinger, can you back that up with a link or something? That is the first time that I have heard anything about that.
After the first Gulf War ended the US recommended to an opposing Iraqi Muslim group to Saddam's that this was their opportunity to attack and take over. Massively outnumbered, they met their death quickly, desperate for support from the US govt which promised them a backing and then simply walked away.
[/QB]
"In most of the cities in the south like Basra, because they're Shiite Muslims and they hate Saddam, they've tried to get rid of him. In 1991 Bush Senior said, "Rise up and get rid of Saddam". So they did and took seven cities in the south. Then Bush and the State Department suddenly thought, these are Shiite Muslims and if they take over they could team up with Iran and be anti-American and we won't get any oil and so on. So they let Saddam crush it and 30,000 people were killed by the end of that".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/axis.shtml
A conspiracy of silence speaks louder than words...
AnonymousPLATINUM Member
Posted:
In every war that the US has participated in an alliance, the other members of the alliance have suffered a higher number of casualities than the US troops (relative to the number sent in).
Josh
In every war that the US has participated in an alliance, the other members of the alliance have suffered a higher number of casualities than the US troops (relative to the number sent in).
Josh
DIAMOND Member
The Ministry of Manipulation
2,523 posts
Location: Bristol, United Kingdom
The Ministry of Manipulation
2,523 posts
Location: Bristol, United Kingdom
Posted:
Mark thomas says this
Mark T is a brilliant UK comedian who uses comedy to fight bad things .
Hes good, read above link for much facts and entertainment. He just severd a legal writ on 11 downing street. To the effect that if we got to war without a ratified 2nd UN treaty then he will take blair to court. I love this guy.
Geez it looks like you americans are going to have to start invasions in the name of world peace on your own.
[ 13. March 2003, 07:03: Message edited by: glass ]
Mark thomas says this
Mark T is a brilliant UK comedian who uses comedy to fight bad things .
Hes good, read above link for much facts and entertainment. He just severd a legal writ on 11 downing street. To the effect that if we got to war without a ratified 2nd UN treaty then he will take blair to court. I love this guy.
Geez it looks like you americans are going to have to start invasions in the name of world peace on your own.
[ 13. March 2003, 07:03: Message edited by: glass ]
Enter a "Title" here:
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
Posted:
The reason I phrased it like that, is because Japan attacked the US. It wasnt just a rash decision this was planned out, research was done for months in advance.
It was deliberate and unprovoked. Now when the dust settled after WWII, Japan had surrenderd.
America could have set up it's own government, they had every right to because Japan surrenderd.
In the Revolutionary War, if the Colonies had lost, there would be a British flag flying instead of an American. (Granted the UK has let its settlements rule themselves but this is a hypothetical situation)
I dont mean, that the US would set up a dictatorship, I mean that the US had the right to dissolve the Emperior and set up it's own form of government.
After all that is what the US is gunning for in Iraq, but that is a different situation, we are the aggressers not the defenders.
How would you suppose that we capture Sadam with out a war?
Josh, I dont know if you meant that as the US doesnt send as many people in or that we are just better and dont die but let me tell ya something. How many die doesnt matter in war, its how many live that count. You dont win a war by dieing, you win it by living.
In the Battle of Iwo Jima, the US sufferd a 75% mortality rate. Lets not forget that nobody helped us in the Pacific front of WWII.
In Vietnam we were losing 100 men a day, in the battle of Iwa Jima we lost 10,000 on the beach alone and another 4,000 in taking the island.
It is quite possible that the Russians, French and UK lost more lives combined in WWII, just remember we enterd into that war a bit later than the rest of Europe.
Salinger thanks for backing that up, I dont know the reporter but that sounds very biased to me. It wouldnt supprise me if Bush Sr did think like that but there had to have been another reason other than just the Shiite Muslims in Iran.
My only reply to what Mr. Thomas said is that twelve years ago, a peace treaty was passed that would force Sadam to dissarm. If a violaiton of that treaty were to happen the UN would go back in and take controle. The treaty was violated and the UN did nothing, the inspecters were kicked out and the UN did nothing. Now that somebody has said enough is enough and is forcing the UN to wake up and do what they were supposed to do back when the treaty was first violated.
The reason I phrased it like that, is because Japan attacked the US. It wasnt just a rash decision this was planned out, research was done for months in advance.
It was deliberate and unprovoked. Now when the dust settled after WWII, Japan had surrenderd.
America could have set up it's own government, they had every right to because Japan surrenderd.
In the Revolutionary War, if the Colonies had lost, there would be a British flag flying instead of an American. (Granted the UK has let its settlements rule themselves but this is a hypothetical situation)
I dont mean, that the US would set up a dictatorship, I mean that the US had the right to dissolve the Emperior and set up it's own form of government.
After all that is what the US is gunning for in Iraq, but that is a different situation, we are the aggressers not the defenders.
How would you suppose that we capture Sadam with out a war?
quote:So your saying that if the US hadnt changed its offical stance on WWII, then the UK would have been able to free France and the rest of occupied Europe? I honestly dont think they could have. The Germans were bombing London and every stratigic point on the map. With out the US invention of Radar, the UK would have sufferd more. The UK bombers couldnt reach Berlin and without the US B52s the UK would have had no way to strike back at the heart of Germany.
Oh and I have to comment that Ray made the dangerous error of posting the ominous theme of America coming to the rescue of Europe and we would have capitulated without them. GARGH!!! One more person says that to me and I will flip. Its not in any way personal, its just one of my pet hates
Josh, I dont know if you meant that as the US doesnt send as many people in or that we are just better and dont die but let me tell ya something. How many die doesnt matter in war, its how many live that count. You dont win a war by dieing, you win it by living.
In the Battle of Iwo Jima, the US sufferd a 75% mortality rate. Lets not forget that nobody helped us in the Pacific front of WWII.
In Vietnam we were losing 100 men a day, in the battle of Iwa Jima we lost 10,000 on the beach alone and another 4,000 in taking the island.
It is quite possible that the Russians, French and UK lost more lives combined in WWII, just remember we enterd into that war a bit later than the rest of Europe.
Salinger thanks for backing that up, I dont know the reporter but that sounds very biased to me. It wouldnt supprise me if Bush Sr did think like that but there had to have been another reason other than just the Shiite Muslims in Iran.
My only reply to what Mr. Thomas said is that twelve years ago, a peace treaty was passed that would force Sadam to dissarm. If a violaiton of that treaty were to happen the UN would go back in and take controle. The treaty was violated and the UN did nothing, the inspecters were kicked out and the UN did nothing. Now that somebody has said enough is enough and is forcing the UN to wake up and do what they were supposed to do back when the treaty was first violated.
Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"
member
531 posts
531 posts
Posted:
quote:I thought that it was more along the lines of if Hitler hadn't turned on Stalin we all would be speaking german right now.Good thread though.
Originally posted by Raymund P.:
Without US aid all of Western Europe would be speeking German right now. I cant tell you if the US went to war for its own interests or not, I just dont have that knowlege.
Enter a "Title" here:
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
2,905 posts
Location: San Diego California
Posted:
Ohh I still think that the US had something to do with it
Ohh I still think that the US had something to do with it
Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
Folks, WWII was 60 years ago. There are not even very many people alive today who saw WWII. The world (and the U.S.) was a very different place and the circumstances were very different. The people running the U.S. were not the same people who are running the U.S. now. Nuclear bombs and biological weapons did not exist. Terrorists were not flying jetliners into buildings.
Regardless of how you interpret the significance of the changes that the world has seen in the years since the end of WWII, and regardless of how you view U.S. motives during that period, that war is simply not relevant to our current situation.
Folks, WWII was 60 years ago. There are not even very many people alive today who saw WWII. The world (and the U.S.) was a very different place and the circumstances were very different. The people running the U.S. were not the same people who are running the U.S. now. Nuclear bombs and biological weapons did not exist. Terrorists were not flying jetliners into buildings.
Regardless of how you interpret the significance of the changes that the world has seen in the years since the end of WWII, and regardless of how you view U.S. motives during that period, that war is simply not relevant to our current situation.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
HCH No 2
216 posts
Location: Chester, Cheshire.
216 posts
Location: Chester, Cheshire.
Posted:
CON
*This is the first time I have spotted a hint of a mistake in one of your posts Lightning, so I just had too! *
And also, without the help of the US stopping Hitler, I agree the whole of Western Europe would speak German, but also Eastern Europe and the rest of the World. If the Nazi's unified Europe, they could easy have gone on to Russia and the rest of the world.
The US did the right thing, but there was more than a little self preservation in there too!!
As for anything else, the US was started in a war (with the British) and I guess it will end in one. Not just yet though I hope.
Jim.
CON
quote:I believe that a couple of "Nukes" were dropped by the US in WWII. So they did exist, and so did Bio weapons and chemical weapons, the Nazi's were messing around with Mustard gas (without a great deal of sucess admittedly) in WWI.
Nuclear bombs and biological weapons did not exist
*This is the first time I have spotted a hint of a mistake in one of your posts Lightning, so I just had too! *
And also, without the help of the US stopping Hitler, I agree the whole of Western Europe would speak German, but also Eastern Europe and the rest of the World. If the Nazi's unified Europe, they could easy have gone on to Russia and the rest of the world.
The US did the right thing, but there was more than a little self preservation in there too!!
As for anything else, the US was started in a war (with the British) and I guess it will end in one. Not just yet though I hope.
Jim.
DIAMOND Member
The Ministry of Manipulation
2,523 posts
Location: Bristol, United Kingdom
The Ministry of Manipulation
2,523 posts
Location: Bristol, United Kingdom
Posted:
hey Ray, you can prove anything with facts:
Theres Heinrich Hertz who in 1886, first to discover radio waves, he was german.
Then there was Sir Robert Alexander Watson-Watt (1892--1973) who invented the radar for detecting aircraft at the British National Physical Laboratory in 1935. he was scottish
Then there was Christian Andreas Doppler who invented doppler radar in 1942. He was austrian.
Oh and I'm not being picky, throughout WWII not one single B52 manage to sucessfully bomb a german target, this is mainly because the B52 was first put in service in 1952, hence the name.
uk bombers were all designed to reach Berlin and further. DOH. Wellington bombers, Lancaster bombers evem mosquitos were doing the bombing very well.
Well I hope that the rest of your facts are not so poorly researched, inaccurate, and poorly refernced as those one.
Come to think of it, I hope that your logic and conculsions are slightly more acurate.
Please stick to guinuine facts in support of your arguments.
Admittedly WWII is off topic, but You seem to have an overinflated view of the power of the US military. you might be the second biggest superpower in the world, but your not indestructable. And act the momnet under the power of bush you are not contributing to world peace.
The reason that since WWone we don't put in puppet governments after wars is because it doesn't work. IT breeds a nation of suffering and dissatisfaction who then rise up and start the mother of all wars. (for examples see history of Germany between the wars - depression and then WW2)
[ 14. March 2003, 08:03: Message edited by: glass ]
hey Ray, you can prove anything with facts:
quote:So lets see:
With out the US invention of Radar, the UK would have sufferd more. The UK bombers couldnt reach Berlin and without the US B52s the UK would have had no way to strike back at the heart of Germany.
Theres Heinrich Hertz who in 1886, first to discover radio waves, he was german.
Then there was Sir Robert Alexander Watson-Watt (1892--1973) who invented the radar for detecting aircraft at the British National Physical Laboratory in 1935. he was scottish
Then there was Christian Andreas Doppler who invented doppler radar in 1942. He was austrian.
Oh and I'm not being picky, throughout WWII not one single B52 manage to sucessfully bomb a german target, this is mainly because the B52 was first put in service in 1952, hence the name.
uk bombers were all designed to reach Berlin and further. DOH. Wellington bombers, Lancaster bombers evem mosquitos were doing the bombing very well.
Well I hope that the rest of your facts are not so poorly researched, inaccurate, and poorly refernced as those one.
Come to think of it, I hope that your logic and conculsions are slightly more acurate.
Please stick to guinuine facts in support of your arguments.
Admittedly WWII is off topic, but You seem to have an overinflated view of the power of the US military. you might be the second biggest superpower in the world, but your not indestructable. And act the momnet under the power of bush you are not contributing to world peace.
The reason that since WWone we don't put in puppet governments after wars is because it doesn't work. IT breeds a nation of suffering and dissatisfaction who then rise up and start the mother of all wars. (for examples see history of Germany between the wars - depression and then WW2)
[ 14. March 2003, 08:03: Message edited by: glass ]
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [open debate] we found the following existing topics.
- Forums > An open debate [52 replies]
- Forums > Social Discussion...open debate or single-sided monologue? [26 replies]
Show more..
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com