Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Blix says Iraq better off with Saddam
Topic Started: Apr 6 2004, 01:32 PM (464 Views)
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
ds9074
Apr 7 2004, 02:08 PM
Quote:
 
Australians don't have to really worry about it. If anything bad happens, the USA will always be here to help (ala WWII).


I wouldnt count on in if WW2 is the benchmark. We asked for help defending freedom but it wasnt forthcomming until your own interests were hit. When Great Britain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand et al stood together against Hitler in 1940 where were the US troops?

US troops were here at home where you guys seem to want them these days. There was, however, a very large amount of US equipment helping you guys out.

We jump into someone else's war and you tell us we're throwing our weight around and being unilateral, we stay out for a while and we aren't living up to our responsibility or what ever. Geeze.... enough already.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
I dont want to start a big debate, but when help was requested from a friendly Government to fight against tyranny you might have sent more than equipment. Churchill was asking for the US to join the war effort and send troops right from the start. It just lucky that we were able to hold in the Battle of Britain, otherwise it might have been too late by the time you got involved. Without 'aircraft carrier' Britain the liberation of Europe would have been a whole lot harder.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ANOVA
Vice Admiral
Quote:
 
I can agree with him that in the short-term the invasion of Iraq has left the region more unstable, and Iraqis might be worse off in terms of the tensions, bloodshed and lawlessness we have seen.


The area needs instability. The status quo has allowed for how many mass graves?

This is murder and brutilization on a scale not seen in Iraq since Saddam has been unseated.

A piece of information conveniently missing from Blix's mental calculus.

I still hold to my earlier statement; Blix and his people are murderers. Until some proves to me that the Iraqi who tried to get information to the UN inspection team was unharmed when he was pulled out of the UN vehicle. Remember Blix's statement about the situation. When asked why his people didn't protect the individual Blix said something like "It was a rather ineloquent way of introducing oneself"

Blix didn't want the truth, He wanted to serve French...er...UN...interests in kepping Saddam in power.

ANOVA
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Sgt. Jaggs
Member Avatar
How about a Voyager Movie
ds9074
Apr 7 2004, 04:01 PM
I dont want to start a big debate, but when help was requested from a friendly Government to fight against tyranny you might have sent more than equipment. Churchill was asking for the US to join the war effort and send troops right from the start. It just lucky that we were able to hold in the Battle of Britain, otherwise it might have been too late by the time you got involved. Without 'aircraft carrier' Britain the liberation of Europe would have been a whole lot harder.

Didn't we send Ben Affleck? ;)

Seriously, if I can recall my history, FDR wanted to join the fight sooner but the sentiments of Americans was very anti-war after having fought WW1 and going through the great depression.

Besides, you had the Spanish and the French to help out didn't you???? ;)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
Not the Spanish, and the French only to start with. The Spanish, remember, were under facist rule although they remained neutral. The French were over run and signed a treaty with Hitler. The British army was also overwealmed and was lucky to get back to Britain with so many men, if not their equipment. The situation in 1940 was extremley dire, we were a wisker from defeat.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
ds9074
Apr 7 2004, 04:01 PM
I dont want to start a big debate, but when help was requested from a friendly Government to fight against tyranny you might have sent more than equipment. Churchill was asking for the US to join the war effort and send troops right from the start. It just lucky that we were able to hold in the Battle of Britain, otherwise it might have been too late by the time you got involved. Without 'aircraft carrier' Britain the liberation of Europe would have been a whole lot harder.

So, the USA should only act when Great Britain wants us to. OK, now I understand. Very well, tallyho, keep a stiff upper lip and that sort of thing. Let me bring the laury around and get my blokes out of the loo, so we can send them across the pond to help keep the British end up.

But all joking aside. To put things in a bit of context, the USA had just gotten over loosing tens of thousands of our boys in the European war before that. Probably the prevailing thought was "why can't the Europeans just get along for more than a decade or two without us having to go over there and fight their battles?". The likely voter in the late 1930s probably either lost sons or brothers in WW1 or fought and lost friends in WW1. There was understandable hesitance to get involved in yet another war in Europe. The Japanese attack made the USA painfully aware that this was a far larger war so "we did it before, we'll do it again".

And in the battle of Britain, you had the stupidity of the Nazi government working for you. ;) It could've been much worse if the Nazis had let their military fight the war instead of their politicians. The Luftwafa acted stupidly by focusing on London and the Nazis chose to develop the wrong technology (short range fighters and bombers vs longer range bombers that they had the plans and technology for). Oh, and he picked a fight with the Russians and USA simultaneously, what a genius. :lol:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Sgt. Jaggs
Member Avatar
How about a Voyager Movie
What do laury and loo mean please dude?

Also please define:
Bloke
Chap
Mate
Macaroon

yes I am serious. :unsure:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Batok
Ensign
Want to know why the United States didn't go to war when the rest of the world did?

1) The United States didn't enter the First World War until its closure it is the same reason why they didn't go into the Second. The United States here isolonist and had the Monroe Doctrine. The Munroe Doctrine was a bill that was passed to disallow the United States to enter any European War.

2) The United States entered the First World War on two causes; 1) The sinking of the Bismarck, 2) Germany & Russia sent an offer to Mexicans. However it was intercepted by British Intelligence Officals and was released to the US Public a week afterwards. This brought the United States into the First World War.

3) The United States after the First World War, again re-enacted the Monroe Doctrine, until the bombing of Pearl Harbour when they declared war on Japan. President Roosevelt from the beginning of the war sponsored the Allied cause throughout the war.

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
Okay..... firstly the Monroe Doctrine was made to halt European expansion into North and South America. It was not a cause of American isolationism, it could at best be described as a byproduct of American expansionism.

Also, the Bismark was sunk in WWII, not WWI.

Third, Russia was the enemy of Germany in WWI. After the Russian Revolution, a peace treaty was signed between the two. Though they were no longer at war, Russia was no ally with Germany harbored many bad feelings about losing territories that were later made into the countries of Eastern Europe.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
ds9074
Apr 7 2004, 04:01 PM
I dont want to start a big debate, but when help was requested from a friendly Government to fight against tyranny you might have sent more than equipment. Churchill was asking for the US to join the war effort and send troops right from the start. It just lucky that we were able to hold in the Battle of Britain, otherwise it might have been too late by the time you got involved. Without 'aircraft carrier' Britain the liberation of Europe would have been a whole lot harder.

Before December 7th, 1941, America was an isolationist nation in a defensive posture.

What did we do to aid Britain? Research the Lend Lease program. We were running convoys to Britain long before we entered the war, and our transports and Navy ships were under U-boat attack.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
nztrekkie
Lieutenant
38957
Apr 7 2004, 02:43 PM
We jump into someone else's war and you tell us we're throwing our weight around and being unilateral, we stay out for a while and we aren't living up to our responsibility or what ever. Geeze.... enough already.

The BIG point being lost here is that in Iraq in 2003, the US was the agressor just as Hitler was in 1939, so you're not really jumping IN to a war in Iraq - you're actually starting one.

Sorry if it inflammatory to compare George Bush with Adolf Hitler - it just seems to be the fact of the matter IMHO. (the wars were started for entirely different reasons, but they were started all the same by George and Adolf)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Swidden
Member Avatar
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
^^^
You realize the response you're going to get, right?

Germany, under Hitler, broke out of the conditions set by the Treaty of Versaille (I think that was the document that ended WWI, happily will take correction if in error) on a path towards world domination. We're looking to actually get the Iraqi people to be able to run a reasonably democratic govenrnment of their own, under their own flag. The subtlety of this may be lost on some...
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Jagalom :
wrt to WWI , the American might have changed the balance at the end , BUT IT WAS ONLY at the (the last 12 months if I have my history right) , before that they weren't interested in sending in the troops.

wrt to WWII , I think we discussed this ad - nausium a couple of months ago and I presented plenty of link from informative and reliable military and historical sites to proved that the threat of Japanese invasion of Australia was largely spin and propoganda - though people at the time didn't know that.

Future threats to Australia - I don't think we can count on the USA to come immediately to our assistance if we are attacked or are threatened with an invasion - not unless there is something in it for the USA that is. The allegance between Australia is just an insurance policy that have really out lived its worth.

OK - some buildings in NY and Washington were attacked - and lots of people were killed - this isn't the first time similar attacks have happened is not likely to be last time. Welcome to the real world sonny - it a nasty place and not everyone likes your country's (foreign policy or economic system or political system - so what) It was an autrocity - no one says it wasn't and it was a cowardly attack on soft targets by fanatics - but autrocities happen all the time - look at Sudan right now - pretty quiet about the current genocide that's currently happening there between where an ethnic group of Sudanese are being ethnically cleansed right now.

Mind you - most people generally like Americans as people and individuals (in the main).

You make your bed - you have sleep in it.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
Oh dear, looks like we are going to start talking about this after all. Well a few things to say in reply. I fullly understand that America took an isolationist view in WW2 (and WW1) and so didnt want to get involved early on. I am aware that the lend lease program was of significant assistance to the war effort in 1940/1941. I am also aware that the presence of US troops would have been a far more decisive form of assistance. After Dunkirk we very nearly did what the French had done, sign a treaty with Hitler and give up the fight. There was a lot of support in Cabinet to do just that, particularly from the Foreign Office. Luckly the Prime Minister wouldnt have it :yes:.

Watching a recent program on WW1 it gave the impression, not to underestimate the sacrifice of those that died, that the involvement of the USA in the war was a boost but not decisive. It was saying that while the French were exhausted, by 1918 the British had come up with new tactics and the British 4th Army was the force that really ended the war. Not sure if that is true, partly true or the bias of the program to be honest.

Will try and define these as best as I can:

Laury = Not Sure, if you mean Larry that could mean a loner, someone with no friends. [I felt like a larry when none of you showed up]
Loo = Lavatory, Toilet [just nipping to the loo]
Bloke = Man (modern) [the blokes in the pub said....]
Chap = Man (slightly old-fashioned) [come on old chap]
Mate = Friend, either male or female. Not normally used to describe a romantic relationship. [by best mate came round this afternoon]
Macaroon = now I'm not sure on this one, I believe a Macaroon is a type of biscuit but it usage in language is rare (at least where I live). Best guess would be that its a way of mildly saying you idiot, like you prat [I cant believe you didnt get the joke, you Macaroon] but dont take that as fact. Can anyone else help.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
nztrekkie
Apr 8 2004, 12:18 AM
38957
Apr 7 2004, 02:43 PM
We jump into someone else's war and you tell us we're throwing our weight around and being unilateral, we stay out for a while and we aren't living up to our responsibility or what ever.  Geeze....  enough already.

The BIG point being lost here is that in Iraq in 2003, the US was the agressor just as Hitler was in 1939, so you're not really jumping IN to a war in Iraq - you're actually starting one.

Sorry if it inflammatory to compare George Bush with Adolf Hitler - it just seems to be the fact of the matter IMHO. (the wars were started for entirely different reasons, but they were started all the same by George and Adolf)

What a pantload.

What you are saying here is that we are involved in a hegemonic expansion of our empire while systematically enacting a policy of genocide?

Y'know NZ, I expect to hear stupid, baiting statements from you, but this takes the cake.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus