for those of you against the war on iraq

[Mathew]

I'm glad my teaching career was brief. Historical and geographical knowledge are lost. Maybe forever.

Care to elaborate?

[zach23]

WW II- decisive victory over Japan upon development of Nuclear Bomb.

Now I agree that this impending "war" with Iraq is b.s., but how can you slap the veterans of WWII in the face by saying they had little to do with the outcome of that war? Here are some casualty statistics .

It looks to me as if there were a lot of American lives lost overseas in that war. As opposed to American soldiers, how many non-American soldiers were left lying dead on the beaches of Normandy, on the island of Iwo Jima, or in the Ardennes during the Battle of the Bulge? Here are some of the divisions that fought in the Ardennes, and here is a little bit about who had how many caualties. Please tell me which country supplied the bulk of the 67 allied divisions? How can you tell the men of the 101st Airborne division that bailed out the British airborne in Montgomery's failed "Market Garden" plan that they didn't have a major role in WWII? Please take a look at this bit about Omaha beach and tell me which soldiers were part of the invasion that was the bloodiest and cost the most lives?

Like I said, I won't argue that this current invasion of Iraq is senseless, but I can't just watch as someone dishonors the brave men from this country that had a HUGE impact on the liberation of Europe in WWII. I will agree with you that the other allied countries of Europe had a much bigger role in WWI and that Korea and Vietnam were countries America should have stayed out of (like Iraq today). I am not trying to attack you personally, but you should check a little bit of history before you reduce America's involvement in WWII to simply "decisive victory over Japan upon development of Nuclear Bomb."

[cwsox]

Thats bulls*** who do you think funds the damn war thats right the people at home living there everyday lives by paying taxes etc

The high school crowd - I pay no taxes on my 1040, I live at home, and I support the war but damned if I'll enlist when I graduate crowd -

 

the I support the ecomony because I buy cds and Play station 2 cartridges and that is all I need to do to support America crowd -

 

who is paying for this war?

 

Let's see - the current budget deifict is projected at $360 billion foir this fiscal year withoiut calculkating costs of tax cuts nor of any proposed war and its current buioldup - not my numbers, but the CBO's and the administarion's nuymbers -

 

so no one is paying for the war now, it is all deficit spending and that means massive borrowing via the bond market and good times for big investors and foreign interests that buy those bombs -

 

I guess I am that Mr. and Mrs. America by the way, I do all the payroll for this ofice which emans I do all the tax calculations and paying the 941s and the other taxes - and I do pay taxes

 

write to me from boot camp - so I'll know the testacles have descended -

[cwsox]

WW II- decisive victory over Japan upon development of Nuclear Bomb.

Now I agree that this impending "war" with Iraq is b.s., but how can you slap the veterans of WWII in the face by saying they had little to do with the outcome of that war? Here are some casualty statistics .

It looks to me as if there were a lot of American lives lost overseas in that war. As opposed to American soldiers, how many non-American soldiers were left lying dead on the beaches of Normandy, on the island of Iwo Jima, or in the Ardennes during the Battle of the Bulge? Here are some of the divisions that fought in the Ardennes, and here is a little bit about who had how many caualties. Please tell me which country supplied the bulk of the 67 allied divisions? How can you tell the men of the 101st Airborne division that bailed out the British airborne in Montgomery's failed "Market Garden" plan that they didn't have a major role in WWII? Please take a look at this bit about Omaha beach and tell me which soldiers were part of the invasion that was the bloodiest and cost the most lives?

Like I said, I won't argue that this current invasion of Iraq is senseless, but I can't just watch as someone dishonors the brave men from this country that had a HUGE impact on the liberation of Europe in WWII. I will agree with you that the other allied countries of Europe had a much bigger role in WWI and that Korea and Vietnam were countries America should have stayed out of (like Iraq today). I am not trying to attack you personally, but you should check a little bit of history before you reduce America's involvement in WWII to simply "decisive victory over Japan upon development of Nuclear Bomb."

Zach, riight on big time.

 

Thank you so very much.

 

By the way, the Joint Chief of Staffs commissioned a bombing survey after WW2 to see what the real effect of the nuclear bombs was, and it was found to be negligible, the droipping of atomin combs as totally not necessary for Jaoan's surrender -

 

that is not the myth by the way but I'll go with the military's own study over the myth -

 

Japan hadn't surrendered yet because in Japanese the term "uinconditional surfrender" meant the right to kill all the women and children - so once that had been worked out, they would have surrendered -

 

that nation was a smoking wreck with no transportation, no communications, no industrial capabilities, no armaments, they were done, over, and finished - so much so that is why when the first bomb was dropped on August 6 there was no response - the news hadn't reached Toyko by August 9th -

 

knowing my father was a troop ship from Italy to tyhe East at that time always gives me pause, but the atomic bombs were not necessary, nor was a massive invasion, once the translations were finished they would have surrendered - so says the Joint Chief of Staffs -

 

which means that the war in the East as in the West was won by those who sacrificed all, exactly as you posted, and thank you again my brother

[BrandoFan]

I am not trying to attack you personally, but you should check a little bit of history before you reduce America's involvement in WWII to simply "decisive victory over Japan upon development of Nuclear Bomb."

 

Now take those numbers and compare them to the 20-25 million dead Soviets who absorbed a HUGE porttion of Fascist military over many years before US deemed it "sensible" to get involved . OF COURSE, US made a tremendeous contribution in '45 , but let's not overstate it when talking about "non-US world/ foreign policy. Spare me all that's maudlin: if Hitler would have siezed unilateral control of the peninsula in '43 as he planned, then after a few years of recuperation and diplomacy he, along with Japanese, would have EASILY overtaken Bomb-less US...Speaking of democratically-altruistic international causes, wasn't IBM suplying Nazi's with tabulating equipment used in genocides and a few corporations- Bush dynasty in particular--were involved in tricky-dicky operations if I remember correctly. CIA ain't clean, either. We are no angels, which is fine in terms of survival, economy-building and preservation and expansion, but not enough to claim moral superiority over "those damned Frenchies".

 

Kusos to ballsy cwsox for standing up to "you fight, we watch" cowardly bastards. As some who would NEVER enlist volunterily in this situation (dying over 10 cents lower gas prices? No, thanks!) , I have no right to dictate others on the matter. Bottomline: If Iraq has WMD, we shouldhave been there YESTERDAY because then it's a matter of global survival. If they don't, then it's not the war that needs to be fought, certainly not without UN's support. No need to play national version of Mother Teresa , especially if under the nun's cloak is Cheney with an oil-probing cyringe. This war is not only immoral, but also deeply impractical/unnnecesary...Show me facts, then I'll change my opinion/

 

Oh, and theoldroman needs to grow up and fill up on some history and political science. Pronto. It's that bad.

[zach23]

Now take those numbers and comapre them to the 20-25 million Soviets who absorbed a HUGE porttion of Fascist military over manj years before US saw it "sensibe" to get involved no small thanks to the FDR's cabibet and Churchill's prescient rhetoric.  US made a tremendeous contributiuon in '45, but let's not overstate it when talking about "non-US world" anf foreign policy.  Wasn't iBM suplying Nazi's with tabulating equipment used in genocides and Bush's own dynasty is also involved in tricky-dicky operaitons.  CIA ain't clean, either.  We are no angels.

 

 

Kusos to ballsy Eminemfan for standing up to "you fight, we watch" cowardly bastards. As some who would NEVER enlist volunterily (dying over 10 cents lower gas prices? No, thanks!) , I have no right to dictate others on the matter. Bottomline: If Iraq has WMD, we shouldhave been there YESTERDAY because then it's a matter of global survival.  If they don't, then it's not the war that needs to be fought, certainly not without UN's support.  No need to play national version of Mother Teresa , especially if under the nun's cloack is Cheney with an oil-probing cyringe.  This war is not only immoral, but also deeply impractical/unnnecesary...Show me facts, then I'll change my opinion/

 

Oh, and oldroman needs to grow up and fill up on some history and political science.  Pronto.  It's that bad.

Now take those numbers and comapre them to the 20-25 million Soviets who absorbed a HUGE porttion of Fascist military over manj years before US saw it "sensibe" to get involved no small thanks to the FDR's cabibet and Churchill's prescient rhetoric.

 

So in other words, the U.S. was desperately needed to bail out the Soviet Union before they finally broke and fell to the Nazis? How then did we not play a major part in bailing out the rest of the world in that war?

 

Wasn't iBM suplying Nazi's with tabulating equipment used in genocides and Bush's own dynasty is also involved in tricky-dicky operaitons.  CIA ain't clean, either.  We are no angels.

 

I never said we have been angels throughout history, I was merely stating that we had a bigger involvement in WWII than just "decisive victory over Japan upon development of Nuclear Bomb." It is wrong to devalue the contribution made by our veterans of that war by making that generalized statement. The fact that hundreds of thousands of American soldiers fought and died to liberate Europe from a madman has nothing to do with what is happening today with Iraq. We shouldn't be sending troops to die in Iraq.....we had really no other choice in WWII. The two situations are not even close to being the same.

About the U.S. not getting involved until they saw it "sensible", don't forget that there were anti-war movements in the 40's. Up until the attack on Pearl Harbor the majority of American citizens felt it was none of our business to save Russia and the U.K., and our only concerns should have been ending the depression and taking care of things here at home. WWI had ended only 22 years before Hitler started taking over Europe, and many people didn't want us involved in Europe's affairs again. Even after we entered WWII there was still a small part of the population that thought we should not be overseas. F.D.R. was under pressure from the people of the U.S. to stay out of the war, and that didn't change until Pearl Harbor. Did he know about Pearl Harbor in advance? Did Churchill? Perhaps, who knows. But think of how much longer the war would have dragged on and how many more lives lost had we not been involved before the Nazis had even more of a foothold and more resources. Had they taken Stalingrad and had access to the vast oil fields beyond the Volga river, their war machine may never have been stopped. If not for being stretched to the limits in a two front war that would most likely have happened.

By the way, I never heard that about IBM, do you have a link to that? I am always interested in learning something new.

[cwsox]

Zach, yeah that is true on IBM but I have no link.

 

What was it they were doing then, key punch or something - that technology was rapidly developed as the Nazis needed to track down and keep track of the Jews - it was a great leap forward in technology and the death of 6,000,000 - IBM made a fortune off of it all.

[BrandoFan]

Had they taken Stalingrad and had access to the vast oil fields beyond the Volga river, their war machine may never have been stopped

 

Thanks you; acknowledging such basic fact is in no way devaluing "US lives lost", but if you re-read my edited post more closely you'd see a POINT somehwere in there. Pertaining to Iraq and our brave world-saving ideals and whatnot.

 

BTW. US communists weer much more vociferous before Hiler attacked Poland then they were during 40's when most left-wing intellectual peacenicks shut their traps all too fast.

 

I take it you're also sceptical about true motives behind the military action in Iraq...

[zach23]

I take it you're also sceptical about true motives behind the military action in Iraq...

Yes I am. I don't beleive it is about oil however, and I beleive that those in charge go above and beyond our elected officials. There are people on the planet with a lot more power.

[Mathew]

Guilty of over simplifing troop casualties in WW II, to make a different and not relevent point and for that I appoligize. I intended no slight on any troops, if anything quite the opposite, I lost a grandfather in the WW II and therefore I felt that all those who fought were being overlooked in statements like, "we bailed their asses out twice, that's good enough". My point was simpl put that too many Americans over look the sacrifice of their allies, unfortunately this generalization does not apply to those of you who understand some truths and for that I humbly appoligize.

[baggio202]

Wow... what an interesting discussion with such a wide variety of opinions.  So, let mt throw a little more gas on the fire.  Regarding France, yes, they were instrumental in helping us win the "rebellion" or Revolutionary War.  And yes, they did have their own agenda in mind.   They certainly didn't do it for any idealistic reasons about weather or not we should have taxation without representation.   So, even given the fact that they did help us win our liberty , we have, in the past century, at least helped them preserve, re-establish is probably a more appropriate word, their liberty.   We have paid that debt twice over, already.  Then, we bailed them out in Nam.  If France is our ally, then I don't want anymore like them.  

 

You young guys that are screaming fight, but say you won't join.... you have that right.  But, know that you have that right because those others that have joined, and the ones that came before them, are and/or were defending that right for you.  And remember this too .... if this war turns sour on us, you just might end up being drafted and putting your ass on the line whether you want to or not.

 

And to those that are armed forces members, or have loved ones in the services.... God Bless you and yours.

not me ill be moving to jamaca to taste the fine crons over there i wont fight a war.

So you'll try do be a draft dodger, and you support this war? Pardon me if I'm incorrect I simply don't follow the logic if that is it.

 

 

Pardon me for a second but I am going to throw my own brand of fire starter. We (as one representative of the non U.S.A.) are constantly bombarded with this notion that the U.S. consider themselves the country that has twice saved the world from hostile occupation. The problem I have with that is that American troops in the first world war spent less that 100 days in actual combat. A contribution that was invaluable and a sacrifice that can't be repaid for many, however to take credit for the outcome of that war is very self serving and insulting. Likewise in the Second World war where the U.S. take credit for the liberation of Rome and have declared themselves winners of that war despite the fact that the months of fighting the German occupation to make the liberation of Italy possible was done by Kiwi's, Aussies, Brits and Canadians. The politics of the situation ordered that American troops take Rome and with it the credit for the liberation. Forgive me if I am incorrect as I will defer to the fact that I am not officially a high school graduate and therefore my history could have been misrepresented to me. My eventual point is that the American Empire may in fact be untouchable today, but to have this notion that your country was resposible for winning the Two World wars (the assault on Japan not withstanding), does not do the situation justice. The U.S. by most people outside America's account is not batting 1.000 in forein wars.

 

WW I- Not much of a factor

WW II- decisive victory over Japan upon development of Nuclear Bomb.

Korea- Victory in South Korea, defeat in North Korea

Vietnam- Brutal defeat.

 

Again I reiterate that I am not looking to offend, merely give a different opinion on the debate ongoing.

you seem to be equating time with invovement...just because the US wasnt there from day one doesnt mean you can lesson the role played...90,000( i beleive thats the number , please correct me if im wrong) american soldiers are buried in cemetaries in france as a reminder of how "minor" our role was

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Zach, yeah that is true on IBM but I have no link.

 

What was it they were doing then, key punch or something - that technology was rapidly developed as the Nazis needed to track down and keep track of the Jews - it was a great leap forward in technology and the death of 6,000,000 - IBM made a fortune off of it all.

There is a book called "IBM and the Holocaust". It's a very good read.

[zach23]

Thanks apu, I already did some searching and found it.

 

For anyone else, here it is Edwin Black

[BrandoFan]

There is a book called "IBM and the Holocaust". It's a very good read.

 

Those liberals with their damned slantoric and propaganda of lies and deceipt. And their facts.

 

I don't think anyone can sincerely argue that US (along with Canada, Aussie, etc) didn't play a HUGE role in preserving Allies victory in 1944-45. Those 90,000 human sacrifizes were as clutch as any in history of warfare (well, except for the courageous 3rd and 10, 12-yard run-n-slide by Jonn Elway with the game tied with 2 minutes to go in the 4th Q. to keep the ball out of Farve's hands during the '97 Super Bowl...but I digress). Trust me, you don't want to imagine Hitler winning those pivotal battles in the Western theater...But then there was the rest of the world having it's blood drained out of it and saying that US "graciously bailed the now ungrateful UN out many time" is either disingenuous or deeply fact-ignoring or both.

 

Stop hatin' on France in other words.

[baggio202]

Guilty of over simplifing troop casualties in WW II, to make a different and not relevent point and for that I appoligize.  I intended no slight on any troops, if anything quite the opposite, I lost a grandfather in the WW II and therefore I felt that all those who fought were being overlooked in statements like, "we bailed their asses out twice, that's good enough".  My point was simpl put that too many Americans over look the sacrifice of their allies, unfortunately this generalization does not apply to those of you who understand some truths and for that I humbly appoligize.

disregaurd my post right under yours mathew...we must have posted right after one another and your point is well taken

[baggio202]

There is a book called "IBM and the Holocaust". It's a very good read.

 

Those liberals with their damned slantoric and propaganda of lies and deceipt. And their facts.

 

I don't think anyone can sincerely argue that US (along with Canada, Aussie, etc) didn't play a HUGE role in preserving Allies victory in 1944-45. Those 90,000 human sacrifizes were as clutch as any in history of warfare (well, except for the courageous 3rd and 10, 12-yard run-n-slide by Jonn Elway with the game tied with 2 minutes to go in the 4th Q. to keep the ball out of Farve's hands during the '97 Super Bowl...but I digress). Trust me, you don't want to imagine Hitler winning those pivotal battles in the Western theater...But then there was the rest of the world having it's blood drained out of it and saying that US "graciously bailed the now ungrateful UN out many time" is either disingenuous or deeply fact-ignoring or both.

 

Stop hatin' on France in other words.

can we all agree WW2 team effort???...minus the french

[Mathew]

Good enough, sorry for all wrong doing thank you for your effort, and understanding, can't we all just get along?

[DonkeyKongerko]

I just want to say there are alot of things that I don't like:

 

I don't like it when people die in fires.

I'm not going to become a fireman.

 

I don't like it when people get murdered.

I'm not going to become a policeman.

 

I don't like it when people die of cancer.

I'm not going to become a doctor.

 

 

 

I don't really like Saddam Hussein.

I'm not going to join the army.

 

Ok I've given 3 examples. Each gives an example of bad things happening to people followed by an occupation out to protect those people. The fourth example is the pro-war premise. Please stop telling everyone who is pro-war that they can't be unless they are in the army. There are anti-war people in the army and there are pro-war people not in the army. You do little to back up your argument when you attack other people's opinions, character, occupation and tell them they can't feel that way unless they follow up and join the army. That's all I want to say.

[DonkeyKongerko]

Sorry one more historical note:

 

Operation Torch (September 1942)

 

The US is trying to gain a foothold in Africa to support Monty's boys in the East for a pincer attack on the vaunted Afrika Korps. An American force is preparing to land at Morocco when someone (guess who?) intervenes. It's the Vichy French Army and Navy. Anyways they didn't put up much of a fight in all instances and eventually joined the right side but how many people know that some 600 odd Americans were killed by French forces on purpose during this invasion in a war we were fighting to liberate their country?

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Sorry one more historical note:

 

Operation Torch (September 1942)

 

The US is trying to gain a foothold in Africa to support Monty's boys in the East for a pincer attack on the vaunted Afrika Korps.  An American force is preparing to land at Morocco when someone (guess who?) intervenes.  It's the Vichy French Army and Navy.  Anyways they didn't put up much of a fight in all instances and eventually joined the right side but how many people know that some 600 odd Americans were killed by French forces on purpose during this invasion in a war we were fighting to liberate their country?

I think we all know the best Operation of WW II was "Operation Cold Douche"

 

It was the name for a British bombing campaign.

[1549]

LOL that is a pretty funny name for a battle...I am new to the boards so I haven't really familiarized myself with the various personalities on the boards yet, but sideshowapu I am curious to know where your political views sit. I see you want bush impeached (that makes absolutely no sence, but I am not here to attack your views) based on your candidate choice I dont think you are a democrat, and based on the picture of that sign and added with everything else you are obviously anti-war. So what exactly are you politically speaking?

[LowerCaseRepublican]

LOL that is a pretty funny name for a battle...I am new to the boards so I haven't really familiarized myself with the various personalities on the boards yet, but sideshowapu I am curious to know where your political views sit.  I see you want bush impeached (that makes absolutely no sence, but I am not here to attack your views) based on your candidate choice I dont think you are a democrat, and based on the picture of that sign and added with everything else you are obviously anti-war.  So what exactly are you politically speaking?

Political leaning I am a democratic socialist. Impeaching Bush makes a lot of sense if you read the articles about it. I basically don't like all the bulls*** that the one party state masquerading as a two party state tries to pull, favoring corporations and whatnot.

[YASNY]

I basically don't like all the bulls*** that the one party state masquerading as a two party state tries to pull, favoring corporations and whatnot.

 

As often as I disagree with your views, this statement is one that I find very insightful and one that I wholeheartedly agree with you on.

[popeye089]

I liked it to. But why when we had a chance to give it to them last presidential election didn't any body vote for Nader?

[YASNY]

I liked it to.  But why when we had a chance to give it to them last presidential election didn't any body vote for Nader?

Because he's Nader?