Kudos to Bush by dreamtrove

Quote:
Originally posted by Citizen:

You're giving a guy who supports ID 65?

Yeah, cause he used to be really really good.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 19, 2006 12:00 AM

CITIZEN

So was Tony Blair.

Then we elected him in '97.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity. But I know none, and therefore am no beast.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 19, 2006 8:44 AM

I thought you were posting proof

Kodos = Bush

Same Dull Lifeless Look

Same Drool

Both follow a power mad tyrannt

Cheney = Kang theory to follow.......

" Over and in, last call for sin
While everyone's lost, the battle is won
With all these things that I've done "

The Killers

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/killers/allthesethingsthativedone.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 19, 2006 6:30 PM

Nah, I actually think he did something right, and that it wasn't actually his fault that our relationship with Iran had been deteriorating. I was naturally suspicious because of how an invasion of Iran is in the original PNAC documents, written up by now VP Cheney, not a conspiracy theory, but an established fact. To some extent, therefore, Cheney is to blame, because that certainly made the Iranians nervous. One thing I've noticed about Iran in reading their press. These guys are sharp. I mean like tacks. They're a step apart from many of their neighbor states, they're real shrewd people. They miss nothing. The Afghans and the Iraqis and even Al Jazeera sometimes misunderstands Americans and their motives, the Iranians never seem to, they always know what's up, and while they are occassionally wrong, they're not off in left field thinking that The US president has been picked by Israel and stuff like that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 19, 2006 6:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Nah, I actually think he did something right, and that it wasn't actually his fault that our relationship with Iran had been deteriorating. I was naturally suspicious because of how an invasion of Iran is in the original PNAC documents, written up by now VP Cheney, not a conspiracy theory, but an established fact. To some extent, therefore, Cheney is to blame, because that certainly made the Iranians nervous. One thing I've noticed about Iran in reading their press. These guys are sharp. I mean like tacks. They're a step apart from many of their neighbor states, they're real shrewd people. They miss nothing. The Afghans and the Iraqis and even Al Jazeera sometimes misunderstands Americans and their motives, the Iranians never seem to, they always know what's up, and while they are occassionally wrong, they're not off in left field thinking that The US president has been picked by Israel and stuff like that.

Back in 1956 the Iranians had an elected government overthrown by the US for oil amongst overthings, and the Shah installed who ran the place largely to his own benefit and came down hard on anyone who disagreed......

The Hostage crisis back in 1979 was about two things.... keeping the US from stepping in again, and demanding the Shah be handed over for trial. Now, the trial would likely have been about the same as Saddam is getting now, but lacking the ICC
they should have been able to do that...

And then of course the support and help the US gave Iraq when they decided to attack Iran.....

Reality has kicked them in the head repeatedly already, Iran has many reasons to be nervous....

If they don't have nukes yet, they will soon... and with a hostile superpower who says one thing and does another..... I would want nukes

Hell, I'm Canadian and I am saying we should have nukes ( If we don't already )

" sometimes misunderstands Americans and their motives "

Does anyone really understand ?

" Over and in, last call for sin
While everyone's lost, the battle is won
With all these things that I've done "

The Killers

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/killers/allthesethingsthativedone.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 20, 2006 6:06 AM

I think they're serious about the nuclear power. They want to stop consuming their own oil so they can sell it overseas.

But for defense, I wouldn't want nukes. I think a missile defense system would be a much better idea. It would have to be one which not only could shoot down a nuke, but capture it unharmed, or redirect it.

I remember in videogames as a kid, you never wanted to pull out your big spells against anything that had a reflection power, the same logic applies here. If someone had a defense system so good that lobbing a nuke at them would be giving them a nuke, or lobbing a nuke at yourself, that would be discouraging enough.

Then maybe we could segue out of this escalating armageddon.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 20, 2006 7:16 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

Same Dull Lifeless Look

Same Drool

Both follow a power mad tyrannt

Who do I sue here?

I hurt myself when I fell off my chair from laughing so hard...

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 20, 2006 5:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I think they're serious about the nuclear power. They want to stop consuming their own oil so they can sell it overseas.

But for defense, I wouldn't want nukes. I think a missile defense system would be a much better idea. It would have to be one which not only could shoot down a nuke, but capture it unharmed, or redirect it.

I remember in videogames as a kid, you never wanted to pull out your big spells against anything that had a reflection power, the same logic applies here. If someone had a defense system so good that lobbing a nuke at them would be giving them a nuke, or lobbing a nuke at yourself, that would be discouraging enough.

Then maybe we could segue out of this escalating armageddon.

If you were fighting the US a defensive missile system is useless....

All you can do is give up, raise the pot high enough to make you fold... or go all in, and let someone else pick up the pieces.

And giving up isn't likely

" Over and in, last call for sin
While everyone's lost, the battle is won
With all these things that I've done "

The Killers

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/killers/allthesethingsthativedone.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 20, 2006 5:30 PM

Chris

I believe that would be Bush, or the people who made him, being Condi and Karl, for copywrite violation. They thought they had created an original dominar, but actually he was a cheap copy of Kodos.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 20, 2006 6:25 PM

Quote:
If you were fighting the US a defensive missile system is useless....

Nah, I disagree. I think it's exactly what you need. The US has squat in the way of ground power these days compared with other large military powers. I mean, 160,000 combat forces mobilized at one time is less than Saddam Hussein had, and he was the tin plated dictator of the back forty. America's power is air, and if you stop that, you're looking pretty good.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 20, 2006 6:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Quote:
If you were fighting the US a defensive missile system is useless....

Nah, I disagree. I think it's exactly what you need. The US has squat in the way of ground power these days compared with other large military powers. I mean, 160,000 combat forces mobilized at one time is less than Saddam Hussein had, and he was the tin plated dictator of the back forty. America's power is air, and if you stop that, you're looking pretty good.

2/3 of your strategic weapons....

ICBMs, SSBNs, B1s are within easy reach of our borders... Without them, I think what economic power you have left will fall apart. Europe, Russia, China will stand up and put you in your place...

Defensive Missile system....

hahaha, it doesn't work anyway

" Over and in, last call for sin
While everyone's lost, the battle is won
With all these things that I've done "

The Killers

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/killers/allthesethingsthativedone.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 3:59 AM

Gino,

On this I think you're just plain wrong. The US Nuclear Asernal accomplishes nothing. We're certainly not stopping China now. If the US had no military whatsoever, no one would conquer it. Ever. No one would even try. Aside from the huge ocean gap, the fact remains that it's not particularly easy to conquer a country without a military, as we found out in Somalia and are now finding out in Iraq. And it's not like Dubai is getting it's economic success due to it's military. It's not like Korea Japan Taiwan and Hong Kong are either. In fact, almost the reverse is true. I believe the countries with the strongest military:citizen ratio in asia are N. Korea and Vietnam, both relatively destitute.

Missile defense doesn't work only because we haven't invested in the idea. Instead we just lob bombs at other bombs in hopes of hitting them. That's not going to work.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 5:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Quote:
If you were fighting the US a defensive missile system is useless....

Nah, I disagree. I think it's exactly what you need. The US has squat in the way of ground power these days compared with other large military powers. I mean, 160,000 combat forces mobilized at one time is less than Saddam Hussein had, and he was the tin plated dictator of the back forty. America's power is air, and if you stop that, you're looking pretty good.

I disagree. American ground combat power is all about force multipliers. Since WW2 we have devoted ourselves to qualitiy over quantity. Thats why America toppled Saddam in 2003 in a matter of days with a single Mechanized division and a few support troops.

Air power is only a single factor in the mix. Our artillery is now so powerful that we can create a constant rolling barrage that decimates enemy formations even as the army advaces. Special forces can now operate with near impunity to disrupt enemy supply lines and command and control operations. Real time satalite and drone technology allows for unprecidented command and control of ongoing operations. Our logistics system moves mountains of supplies across the world making our soldiers the best supplied soldiers in the field even in the heart of enemy territory.

Also a missile defense system alone would be of little use against our fleet of sub-launched ground-hugging cruise missiles, or stealth technology aircraft, or planes whose sole purpose is to disrupt and destroy air defense networks (the best of which is based on twenty-year old Soviet technology).

That said, I agree we need a larger ground army. I've always said that Clinton cut the army by too much. We should have kept a couple more light infantry formations like the old 6th and 7th light infantry divisions and at least one more heavy division like the old 24th Mechanized. All those units were long ago part of the Rapid Deployment Force and I think we could have used them (especially the 6th and 7th ID's) back in 2003 to help garrison Iraq.

Nowadays we have what...the 10th Mountain, 101st, and 82nd to cover all of our potential emergencies and provide troops for Iraq and Afganistan. They're spread thin and the Guard isn't designed to fill the gap. But its a Clinton decision and you can't blame Bush, he campaigned in 2000 on this very issue but 9/11 happened before the Defense Department could complete the review they started when Bush took office or implement the military buildup Bush had in mind. Its like Rumsfeld said...'you go to war with the army you have'.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 5:41 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

'you go to war with the army you have'.

Please explain to this naive and unsophisticated (Militarily) soul why we couldn't have sent in units of Special Ops along with needed air support to go take out actual terrorist groups without sending the whole gorram army in...?

Or have I just watched 'Predator' too many times Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 5:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
And it's not like Dubai is getting it's economic success due to it's military. It's not like Korea Japan Taiwan and Hong Kong are either.

They have their economic successes because we have agreed to defend them.

Make no mistake. The US military commitments in the Gulf have checked would-be agressors like Iran, the Soviet Union, and Iraq. Just check out the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait for a practical example.

In Korea, American military power has secured the independence of a favorite ally and trading partner for over fifty years from a hostile and aggressive North Korean regime (read about the Korean War and then tell me you honostly think the North would have held off if we hadn't stayed to make it so).

US power has kept a constantly beligerant and threatening China from conquering another democratic American ally and trading partner, Taiwan (even now China continues its military buildup opposite Taiwan).

In Japan both communist China and the former Soviet Union had post WW2 cravings for video games and anime (the Russians still own a disputed portion of Japanese territory and China would love some WW2 payback).

And you forget to mention Europe where American military presense has secured the longest period of sustained peace in European history, including stopping cold a cycle of conflicts that was growing in both size, world reach, and destructive potential.

In North America our neighbors don't invade us, not because we all love each other, but because we are the strongest and have been since about 1845 and they know that they exist at our whim and thank God we are a generous and merciful people and good neighbor to them.

And don't think its all about America. America alone is a world power, but our real strength is NATO. The Western Alliance assures would-be aggressors that not only will they face American might, but the might of a united Europe as well. The split between Europe and America, the blunting of that great threat, is what emboldened Saddam to defy the United Nations and lead to the 2003 invasion of his country. Now we know from captured tapes and documents that such was his strategy...bribes and election manipulation in France to bring about just such a split...so it was a good and well executed strategy, but one the did little to favoribly determine the outcome (mainly because enough of Europe chose to remain with us rather then falling for Saddam's manipulation of the weak willed European powers and the Iraqi-funded interantional peace movement).

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 6:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

'you go to war with the army you have'.

Please explain to this naive and unsophisticated (Militarily) soul why we couldn't have sent in units of Special Ops along with needed air support to go take out actual terrorist groups without sending the whole gorram army in...?

Or have I just watched 'Predator' too many times Chrisisall

Predator...good movie. Try Commando, now if we had a guy like that... But those movies reflect 1980s reality. The Clinton administration would never have approved such people or operations. You can't have the best without programs and people. You can't send in a special warefare unit that doesn't exist (granted most 'don't exist' to some extent...but I mean it literally), or deploy an infantry divison disbanded by the prior administration, or use a weapon never develpoed by a cancelled R&D program.

Now to answer your question. The purpose of the Army is to kill people and break things. Its also to prosecute the nations wars. Wars are ultimately political expression. The navy and the air force have arguably the most powerful weapons on the face of the earth. But a navy and an air force cannot win a war. A ship cannot occupy a hill. Neither can a plane. Sure, they can deny use of certain portions of enemy territory. Perhaps if the enemy is reasonable they can force a negotiated settlement. But if your enemy is determined, unreasonable, and unreachable, then you are left with the need to see the hill, take the hill. Thats a job for soldiers, boots on the ground. Take the hill, kill the enemy until the enemy's will is broken, or their capacity to resist is destroyed, or if necessary until they simply no longer exist. Its like playing 'king of the hill' when we were kids. You can throw things at the guy on top, but the only way you can really be sure that he's going down is to go up there yourself and drag his sorry ass down. For that you need a whole gorram army...or a handfull of Marines.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 9:17 AM

FLETCH2

Hero, interesting interpretation but if you look at the direction the current administration is going in it is towards smaller, rapid deployment style formations. What Clinton did is just the first stage in retasking the military from an organisation set up to oppose one huge enemy to one able to deal with smaller flash points. I can't imagine any president, even Reagan, being able to sell the idea that you should keep big mechanised units it a world where there are few chances to use them.

Ironically Iraq is probably the last time we will fight that kind of big land war. It was unfortunate that it came at about the time the restructuring was taking place.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 10:09 AM

REAVERMAN

Quote:
I believe the countries with the strongest military:citizen ratio in asia are N. Korea and Vietnam, both relatively destitute.

Actually, the nation with the highest military:civilian ratio is switzerland. Every Swiss citizen by law is given military training, rank, and serial number. Every two years, they have to redo basic training. Each citizen is issued a rifle, while some are given heavier things(I saw a special where one guy had a full blown heavy artillery piece w/ammo in his barn).
What, you thought they stayed neutral by making everyone happy? Noone fucks with the Swiss.
As for N.Korea, they are actually more advanced and deadly than people realize.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 3:43 PM

Hero,

I used to believe that we had superior combat value per man, but since I've seen it in action, though not up close, I'm not overwhelmingly impressed. A creative guerilla campaign is a decent match for a better equipped and better trained regimental force. That our nation exists is a testiment to this fact.

Secondly, I said "a missile defense system" not specifically the soviet ABM. I think, ideally, a missile defense system could be designed to take out all airborne offensives with certainly or near certainty of success. Furthermore, a decent air defense system would by necessity have to deflect the attack back on the attacker. If it did not, failure would be an invitation to try again, but if it did so, the cost of failure would prevent future attempts to breach the barrier.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 4:15 PM

Chris,

Because a small elite special forces unit wouldn't be able to steal the oil, or assemble a mid east union. Also, it might fix the problem, thus ending a reign of terror, by removing an enemy which the American people fear. No. I don't have a tinfoil hat, and yes, I actually do believe this.

Hero,

Quote:
They have their economic successes because we have agreed to defend them.

I'm not impressed with our defense of Taiwan and Hong Kong against the only enemy they have had since WWII.

Quote:
Make no mistake. The US military commitments in the Gulf have checked would-be agressors like Iran, the Soviet Union, and Iraq. Just check out the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait for a practical example.

Iran is not an aggressive expansionist power, that's not even remotely the case. Iraq, under Saddam Hussein was. The Soviet Union was, and we failed to be a check to that. I think you're giving credit where almost none is due. Here's a list of what we protected: South Korea, I'm sure their very happy. Kuwait, I'm sure they are too.

Quote:
In Korea, American military power has secured the independence of a favorite ally and trading partner for over fifty years from a hostile and aggressive North Korean regime (read about the Korean War and then tell me you honostly think the North would have held off if we hadn't stayed to make it so).

Not arguing this. Or to put it another way, I really agree. But if you really believed this, why would you support Bush?

Bush has not only pulled troops our of S. Korea, but he turned a blind eye to N. Korea's nuclear program. S. Korea sticks by us because we're the only ally it's got capable of stopping N.K. aka China. But we're not sticking by them half as well as we should. Myself, I'd be happy to impeach Bush over his Korea policy, if he had done nothing else wrong.

Quote:
US power has kept a constantly beligerant and threatening China from conquering another democratic American ally and trading partner, Taiwan (even now China continues its military buildup opposite Taiwan).

Quote:
In Japan both communist China and the former Soviet Union had post WW2 cravings for video games and anime (the Russians still own a disputed portion of Japanese territory and China would love some WW2 payback).

This is apropo of what exactly?

We not only didn't defend Japan against the USSR, we were the ones attacking Japan. Sure, we occupied it for a while, but it isn't like Japan needs us to defend them, or ever did.

Quote:
And you forget to mention Europe where American military presense has secured the longest period of sustained peace in European history, including stopping cold a cycle of conflicts that was growing in both size, world reach, and destructive potential.

This seems quite doubtful. Has there really been no peace longer than 44 years in the history of Europe? Also, bear in mind there were several minor conflicts throughout that time, But from the megadeath to megadeath, genocide to genocide. I think the cold war kept the balance, it was the absense of te soviet union, and with the presence of the united states, that war finally did break out in europe, and bear in mind, it was US forces who were running guns *into* that yugoslav conflict. And doing so in cooperation with Iran.

I'm just playing devils advocate here, but I think the picture you've painted is not the world in which we live.

Quote:
In North America our neighbors don't invade us, not because we all love each other, but because we are the strongest and have been since about 1845 and they know that they exist at our whim and thank God we are a generous and merciful people and good neighbor to them.

This is absurd. I mean, if this were true, we would invade them, following Neitzsche's rule. The fact is, we get along fine with Canada and Mexico, our allies. We're not just lucky, we're skillfull, we made allies of our neighbors. Yay us.

Quote:
weak willed European powers and the Iraqi-funded interantional peace movement).

I thought this was a little to kind to European leaders who I think are more corrupt than weak willed, and a little too unkind to the peace movement. Every war has it's peace movement because everyone else including me and a majority of both the republican and democratic parties, favor peace over war. Beside, let me address the absurdity: With what? What great resource did Iraq, a nation of 24 million people with a GDP of 36 billion dollars, that's $1500 a person, have to fund an international peace movement? Is this a reference to Galloway? I think Mr. Galloway was trying to feed the people of Iraq, who were being starved to death by a blockade of of our military which was ordered to do so by William Jefferson Clinton, in what is most likely the highest number of US inflicted civilian casualties since Truman dropped the bombs on Japan.

And Clinton, I might point out, like Truman, is also the opposition.

I'm really just kind of sounding off here, I'm not against US deployed forces for international stability, on the contrary, I'm for it, but I am not about to go and credit us with everyone's prosperity. If we had actually defended Taiwan in its recent subjegation, or Hong Kong for that matter, against the agressor, Communist China.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 4:18 PM

Reaverman

Just in case your post was intended to refute mine, which it was worded in such a way:

Switzerland isn't in Asia.

Furthermore, Joss makes fun of the swiss army. I think he might have a point. Swiss neutrality was always far more of a ruse than a reality, they bribed people off. Having a standing army of your entire population doesn't do a lot of good without an arsenal to match. But I haven't really looked into it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 5:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
This is absurd. I mean, if this were true, we would invade them, following Neitzsche's rule. The fact is, we get along fine with Canada and Mexico, our allies. We're not just lucky, we're skillfull, we made allies of our neighbors. Yay us.

We did invade them. Both of them. In one case we invaded, conquered and annexed nearly half our southern neighbor's territory. Then we stopped, we were not stopped, we just stopped. Because it turns out we're nice fellows who only want peace, liberty and justice. We never conquered Canada because back when we were in the conquer'n mood the British would have whu'pd our asses if we'd tried it. By the time there was military parity we were all friends. But MExico and all the little islands...they were ours for the taking.

US military power has dictated the course of North American history for better then 200 years, European history for the last 100 and world history for the last 60 or so. The rise of American influence has allowed prosperity, liberty, democracy, and peace to flourish. Peace especially.

There has been less war in the last half century then at any time in recorded history. The reason is America's pledge to defend to the death a variety of allies. No would-be tyrant moves without first considering how the US will respond. Thats because they have seen with Hitler, the Soviet Empire, and Saddam...among others, the price of failure levied by a free world to which all peoples have a God given right to belong.

I'm not claiming perfection in American culture or policy...just 'more perfect' then anything that has come before and as it was designed to function from day one, line one.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 5:32 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Because a small elite special forces unit wouldn't be able to steal the oil, or assemble a mid east union. Also, it might fix the problem, thus ending a reign of terror, by removing an enemy which the American people fear.

Oh.
I thought it might just be because we couldn't really do it.
I guess a real solution to our international problems would pose an even greater threat to the status-quo that I'm aware of....

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 2:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

[easily one of the dumbest arguments I've seen on this board]

I'm not arguing that America has, overall, been a positive influence in the 20th century, with the exception of Japan, and questionable conflicts in Vietname, and now Iraq. But the rest of this argument is rediculous.

The US History in the 18th and 19th centuries has less to do with our relationships today than the political doctrines of the USSR have to do with our current public policy.

But this was my personal favorite:

Quote:
There has been less war in the last half century then at any time in recorded history.

This one boggled my mind. With the world in an almost constant state of genocidal war, in at least one spot or another, and often more - this is your supreme peace?

I'd hate to think what you thought the world was like before!

Seriously, wars of the distant past were mostly minor affairs. Massive warfare has risen only a few times. In the ancient babylonian era, the Roman era, the crusades, the inquisition and recently. Major european wars of the middle ages had casualty figures in the thousands and sometimes tens of thousands. Many other conflicts had hundreds or fewer deaths. The millions of deaths types of wars went on only a few notable times pior to WWI. After WWI and WWII the world almost instantly spiraled into endless war.

The Korean conflict was one of many Chinese expansion conflicts claiming in excess of 10 million lives.

The collapse of colonial Africa flung an entire continent into almost constant guerilla warfare claiming tens of millions of lives.

Constant Soviet-US cold waring led to enless revolutions and may have aided in the massive death squad slaughter of millions in latin america.

In just the past fifteen years alone, in Europe, over a million people have been genocidally slaughtered, over ten million in Africa, over a million in our own conflicts in Iraq (Clinton included) and millions more total when you add all the conflicts in wartorn countries such as Nepal, Bhutan, Indonesia, Haiti, and undoubtedly countless other conflicts I'm neglecting at the moment.

So, we've never had it so good? We've never had it so bad!

In short, I think you're post is just factually innaccurate, and maybe before you make such sweeping generalizations you should bone up a little on the global situation.

Did you know in the past 15 years one country has had a genocide as-bad-as or worse-than the holocaust in terms of sheer number killed?

I'll open this up to anyone, who can tell me the name of this country?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 3:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove

I'll open this up to anyone, who can tell me the name of this country?

How about which countries had troops on the ground there ?, yelling for help when they had indications of what was coming... and then what two countries blocked any chance of that help being sent ?

Then those troops were stuck in the middle of that mess with no hope of helping at all.....

" Over and in, last call for sin
While everyone's lost, the battle is won
With all these things that I've done "

The Killers

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/killers/allthesethingsthativedone.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 6:01 PM

VETERAN

Don't squat with your spurs on.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
...., but on the scale of zero to 100, where Andrew jackson is a zero and eisenhower is 100, ....

ummm, I don't grok. What's your beef with Andrew Jackson?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 23, 2006 4:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Seriously, wars of the distant past were mostly minor affairs.

Wow. Tell that to the dead. Or even the proportionatly dead for comparison.

Up until 1945 you couldn't live a generation in peace in Europe. The wars fought by them (and to a lesser extent with very notable exceptions by non-Euopeans) for thousands of years have little in common save that each generation of warfare was larger, more destructive, and involved more of the outside world then the ones that came before. Entire nations, entire peoples swept away into fires of war.

In 1945 those wars reached the height of their potential power. For fifty years the next great war loomed and threatened an end to human existance. Why did it not come? Every other time in history of Europe the war has come. The answer to why this one did not was the unprecedented commitment of American military might to the defense of our European allies.

I do not deny that wars still rage. But they are now the lamented exception, not the inevitable tide.

And yes, a million people have dies in a matter of some 15 years in a particular nation. But such a statistic cannot be compared with the casualty figures, both civilian and military of even the lesser of the two last great wars.

The real problem we face today is not the low intensity conflicts around the world. The real problem is this reemergence of old European thinking that is dividing Western Europe and American interests. Standing with America made this a more peaceful and democratic world. Standing alone Europe invites a return of other old ideas...like war.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 23, 2006 4:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Veteran:

ummm, I don't grok. What's your beef with Andrew Jackson?

Hmm...could be the indian thing, the bank thing, the nullification thing, or the censure thing.

I just never cared for the Florida thing...but that was before he was elected.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 23, 2006 5:35 AM

Quote:
Quote:
What's your beef with Andrew Jackson?

Hmm...could be the indian thing, the bank thing, the nullification thing, or the censure thing.

ROFL

Hero,

We have our difference, sure, but this cracked me up. Well said. I mean, waht's wrong with AJ? in short, where do I start?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 24, 2006 10:10 AM

Hero,

I actually got my degree in the subject, I'm not just shooting my mouth off. There were a few major conflicts, and the crusades etc, I'm not saying it was 1000 years of peace, but the 20th century was certainly a high point of war, and it by no means ended with WWII. This is just a totally naive picture you painted. Also proportional to what? I mean a population of 1 million people is a population of one million people, sometimes it's in a city, other times it's over a continent. There were cities of a million then too. You really lack a basis for comparison, since all conflicts are a subset. But overall, deaths are up, way up, because of the increase in killing technology.

Quote:
And yes, a million people have dies in a matter of some 15 years in a particular nation. But such a statistic cannot be compared with the casualty figures, both civilian and military of even the lesser of the two last great wars.

Do you even read my posts? Or anyhthing at all? No one did mention the nation with the holocasut was the Congo, with six million deaths over the last 15 years. Several countries lost over a million, including Iraq, and including a few in europe, You still seem to have not acknowledged that a major multinational war took place in Europe quite recently with millions of casualties, and another in indonesia, several in africa, the list goes on. I wouldn't care to say right off the bat that more people died in the 2nd half of the 20th century than the first in wars, but it's not guaranteed to be false either. One would actually have to do a tally. The truth is that in other points in recorded history, wars have sometimes had much ower casualty levels than they do these days, even percentagewise of the global population.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 24, 2006 12:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
deaths are up, way up, because of the increase in killing technology.

I diagree. Precision weapons, medical care, even logistical support services have caused the deaths to dramtically plummet.

Nowadays if you bomb a city the city is still there when its over (minus a building here and there). Hundreds might die to accomplish what tens of thousands died for in previous wars.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 24, 2006 2:32 PM

VETERAN

Don't squat with your spurs on.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Quote:
Quote:
What's your beef with Andrew Jackson?

Hmm...could be the indian thing, the bank thing, the nullification thing, or the censure thing.

ROFL

Hero,

We have our difference, sure, but this cracked me up. Well said. I mean, waht's wrong with AJ? in short, where do I start?

I can't help feeling a little like Kaylee in Shindig....
"I didn't know." But then again, not so much.

What I do know was the Old Hickory was regarded as a hero of the common man, he is credited with creating the "Modern Presidency", and I thought the censure thing was revoked. Inspite of being sickly he foiled his own attempted assaination by beating the assain with his cane (ok the guy misfired twice but still) I suppose it's politically incorrect to side with him on Indian affairs but I beleive some historians argue that he was doing what he thought was best for both parties. Did I mention he founded the Democratic Party and was the only President to preside over the United States with no national debt?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 24, 2006 6:33 PM

Quote:
I diagree. Precision weapons, medical care, even logistical support services have caused the deaths to dramtically plummet.

That's like disagreeing that the Earth is round. you can choose not to accept the facts, but the facts are still the facts. It's not an opinion, the deaths are a solid reality which can be counted.

I agree, medical case has improved, but this is totally dwarfed by the increase in killing power. The post roman viking soldier had a steal sword if he was lucky. Today he has an f16 with carpetbombing capability.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 24, 2006 6:39 PM

Quote:
Did I mention he founded the Democratic Party
Quote:

I thought of mentioning it in his sins, but thought it wouldn't be fair

I do think that is a big problem with the party though. I realize some people are democrats, and I sympathize. Actually, there are a lot of decent democrats around, but overall, the party has a long vicious streak. I still think in its present form, or past one, it's still not a viable option even when the state of the republican party is as woefully sad as it is.

Anyway, I guess everyone needs their fans, even Andrew Jackson.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 25, 2006 1:37 PM

VETERAN

Don't squat with your spurs on.

Dreamtrove,

Yeah, I thought you would think establishing the Democratic Party was of his sins.

But there must be some others in the 'verse who think highly of AJ, otherwise he wouldn't appear on the $20 bill.

On a different tack, did you ever get the notion that at some time between the start of Reconstruction and the end of the Depression that Jacksonian Democrats became the Republican Party and Lincoln Republicans became the Democratic Party?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 25, 2006 4:14 PM