bush_cheney2004 Posted March 21, 2007 Report Posted March 21, 2007 I got 'A's in History. Your tortured logic has not improved. and have you even considered giving up that joke about you being a spook who engaged in criminal activities somehow involved with submarines? I mean ... Nope...I have gold dolphins to prove it. You will pay me this month and every month thereafter (until I die) for those "criminal" activities. I get Social Security checks on top of that. I plan to live a very long time, laughing all the way to the bank. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
moderateamericain Posted March 21, 2007 Author Report Posted March 21, 2007 OIY! where did my topic go? So many different topics going on?! One thing I did remember to say, Blackdog Islamic extremist had there chance to take a shot at me in 1998 through 2004, Missed the boat. As of now, your probably right the chances of me having to defend myself from Islamic extremist is remote. But It's not for me that I am worried about it's for the future generations. IE My kids kids. You did use the Churchill quote, but did you see the one I posted? Kind of a flip flop in opinion would you not say? My point is this. Appeasement has failed in regards to aggressive states, nations. Because they have already reached a point that negotiation with them has basically failed. We wouldn't even have to get to the point that we do with most countries that we go to war with, if we did not have a history of looking the other way. Also, Clinton's Appeasement plan with North Korea had failed long before Bush took office. Yes, Bush did hard line them, but North Korea was well on its way to Nuclear refinement. On a side note: I put my thoughts out here to debate it, this is one of the most enjoyable sites to do so in my opinion. If you do not agree with them, thats perfectly okay. You can tell me without throwing out insults at me or each other! Thats why we post peoples! Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 21, 2007 Report Posted March 21, 2007 ...Also, Clinton's Appeasement plan with North Korea had failed long before Bush took office. Yes, Bush did hard line them, but North Korea was well on its way to Nuclear refinement. For sure....Clinton got hoodwinked by the DPRK from day one of the "Agreed Framework" going back to 1994. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
sharkman Posted March 21, 2007 Report Posted March 21, 2007 I noticed that factoid about NK, and thought, why bother. Jimmy Carter and Clinton gave NK NW. And I suppose now we should 'appease' Iran. Quote
Guthrie Posted March 21, 2007 Report Posted March 21, 2007 I got 'A's in History. Your tortured logic has not improved. and have you even considered giving up that joke about you being a spook who engaged in criminal activities somehow involved with submarines? I mean ... Nope...I have gold dolphins to prove it. You will pay me this month and every month thereafter (until I die) for those "criminal" activities. I get Social Security checks on top of that. I plan to live a very long time, laughing all the way to the bank. Gold Dolphins? who gives those as a reward for criminal spook activities involving submarines? Quote “Most middle-class whites have no idea what it feels like to be subjected to police who are routinely suspicious, rude, belligerent, and brutal” - Benjamin Spock MD
Guthrie Posted March 21, 2007 Report Posted March 21, 2007 I looked up Dolphins. So, is your story now that you were a squid in tin a can? and just how does that make you a spy? as noted, it seems nothing but a pathetic fraud you present - shame on you My military ops (Cold War spook) were covert and often illegal, but not CIA "covert operations". If you had a clue, you would know that discussion of same on MapleLeafWeb.com is not sanctioned "protocol". 'sanctioned protocol' - hahahahahahha Quote “Most middle-class whites have no idea what it feels like to be subjected to police who are routinely suspicious, rude, belligerent, and brutal” - Benjamin Spock MD
Mad_Michael Posted March 21, 2007 Report Posted March 21, 2007 1939-1945....World War II Not quite. For the USA, that's 1941-1945. And you are pretty quick to lay claim to ownership of several specifically NATO operations (that the USA generally politically opposed - such as Bosnia). Quote
Drea Posted March 21, 2007 Report Posted March 21, 2007 Like I said...you flunked history:1775-1890....40 major "Indian" wars 1775-1783....American Revolution English Colonists vs. Great Britain 1801-1815....Barbary Wars United States vs. Morocco, Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli 1812-1815....War of 1812 United States vs. Great Britain 1836............War of Texas Independence Texas vs. Mexico 1846-1848....Mexican War United States vs. Mexico 1861-1865....Civil War Union vs. Confederacy 1898............Spanish-American War United States vs. Spain 1917-1918....World War I 1939-1945....World War II 1945-1989....Cold War 1950-1953....Korean War 1954-1975....Vietnam War United States and South Vietnam vs. North Vietnam 1961............Bay of Pigs Invasion United States vs. Cuba 1982-1983....Lebanon War 1983............Grenada United States Intervention 1989............US Invasion of Panama 1990-1991....Persian Gulf War 1995-1996....Intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina 1998............Desert Fox - Bombing of Iraq 1999............NATO's Allied Force against Serbia 2001............Invasion of Afghanistan 2003............Invasion of Iraq This list excludes the many military interventions in the Americas, China, even Russia! "War -- that's what we do"... Anyone else find this kind of disturbing -- war it's what we do... It ain't right -- but its WHAT WE DO damn it! Quote ...jealous much? Booga Booga! Hee Hee Hee
Mad_Michael Posted March 21, 2007 Report Posted March 21, 2007 "War -- that's what we do"...Anyone else find this kind of disturbing -- war it's what we do... It ain't right -- but its WHAT WE DO damn it! I find it equally disturbing and accurate. The USA has become addicted to war. Quote
Black Dog Posted March 21, 2007 Report Posted March 21, 2007 You did use the Churchill quote, but did you see the one I posted? Kind of a flip flop in opinion would you not say? No. Your quote was specific to the circumstances at Munich, when teh Allies, out of weakness, tried to appease someone who could not be appeased. Churchull's later quote reflects a broader view. Appeasement is a tool: appropriate in some circumstances, less so in others. Appeasement has failed in regards to aggressive states, nations. Because they have already reached a point that negotiation with them has basically failed. I've addressed your examples: do you have any others? We wouldn't even have to get to the point that we do with most countries that we go to war with, if we did not have a history of looking the other way. Examples? Also, Clinton's Appeasement plan with North Korea had failed long before Bush took office. Yes, Bush did hard line them, but North Korea was well on its way to Nuclear refinement. Nope. Under Clinton, there were inspections and there was a freeze on the active plutonium processing. There was progress. Under Bush, well, North Korea became a nuclear power. Now, they're back at the baragning table trying to salvage the situation. If they can limit North korea's nuclear arseenal or convince them to give it up, it would be a victory for appeasement. I noticed that factoid about NK, and thought, why bother. Jimmy Carter and Clinton gave NK NW. And I suppose now we should 'appease' Iran. False. Quote
Slavik44 Posted March 21, 2007 Report Posted March 21, 2007 I have a couple of historical problems I would like to address with your original post.... Germany since 1870 had been increasingly agressive.... Well yeah because when you go from non-existant to existant....you tend to automatically become "more" aggressive. As well you tend to ignore the 1870's context..... Germany wasn't the bad guy, The british hated the French, the French hated the British, and Germans just kicked some French ass...are the british going to get pissed off? The British had been fighting the french for a very long time. Germany is going to get a pat on the back...A new natural enemy for the French....great. Colonies This was a whole game of brinkmanship...and at the time there was no rigid alliance between the British, French, and Russian's. You outlined previously how Prussia destroyed France...do you really think France wants to fight Germany again. Germany was not a country to pushed around with in continental affairs....especially by parties that were not officially allies. Colonization by bismarck was very much a diplomatic strategy...It was hoped that it would prove the British were dependant on Germany, or it would get the British and French pissed off at each other...and under Bismarck it very nearly did both. However, by the 1900's Germany was powerful...a war would have been a war, they had machine guns, they had WW1 technology. So now all you are really talking about is moving the war up in time. When war with Germany was possible for Britain, France and Russia...they were not allies (in fact for a long period of that time Germany and Russia were allies). When the triple entente was formed, Germany was a strong continetal millitary power, and the technology at hand would have led to a fairly bloody war. --------------------- WW2 There was one oppurtunity to stop Hitler without bloodshed....that was when he decided to publicly re-millitarize/march into the rhineland...after such an instance, it is very likely....milltary action would be met with millitary re-action. The difference in time and context between czechoslovakia and poland is not so great as to make germany so much strong then it previously was. Yes, it might have been easier to fight a war at that time, but you would still be fighting a war. Likewise, there is no gurantee that marching on Germany over the Rhineland would have led to peace in our time either. It is vitally important to recognize that communism was a very real threat, communist parties were extremly dominant in Germany. Had you marched in and destablized Germany one more time, you stood a very real possibility of facing two communist countries in Germany and Russia. At that time Communism was percieved as a bigger threat than Nazism. So in such a manner Russia was percieved as the bigger threat than Germany. So policy was geared towards being lenient towards Germany in order to stand as a barrier to communism. What can we learn from that? Well notice how we are using other countries as pawns in a war against a big country. And than suddenly your pawn switches sides in the middle of the situation and kinda F's the whole thing up. Yeah its been happening for a while now, and this strategy tends to bite back every now and again. Needless to say this is also somewhat true with the middle east. Maybe that should indicate that diplomatic and millitary relations need to be analyzed very closely and dealt with in a very carefull manner...and that War might not always be the best option...particularly when you don't have Britain, France, and Russia (for that matter Germany)on side. In the case of North Korea having China millitarily on your side. Quote The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. - Ayn Rand --------- http://www.politicalcompass.org/ Economic Left/Right: 4.75 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.54 Last taken: May 23, 2007
moderateamericain Posted March 21, 2007 Author Report Posted March 21, 2007 I have a couple of historical problems I would like to address with your original post.... Germany since 1870 had been increasingly agressive.... Well yeah because when you go from non-existant to existant....you tend to automatically become "more" aggressive. As well you tend to ignore the 1870's context..... Germany wasn't the bad guy, The british hated the French, the French hated the British, and Germans just kicked some French ass...are the british going to get pissed off? The British had been fighting the french for a very long time. Germany is going to get a pat on the back...A new natural enemy for the French....great. Colonies This was a whole game of brinkmanship...and at the time there was no rigid alliance between the British, French, and Russian's. You outlined previously how Prussia destroyed France...do you really think France wants to fight Germany again. Germany was not a country to pushed around with in continental affairs....especially by parties that were not officially allies. Colonization by bismarck was very much a diplomatic strategy...It was hoped that it would prove the British were dependant on Germany, or it would get the British and French pissed off at each other...and under Bismarck it very nearly did both. However, by the 1900's Germany was powerful...a war would have been a war, they had machine guns, they had WW1 technology. So now all you are really talking about is moving the war up in time. When war with Germany was possible for Britain, France and Russia...they were not allies (in fact for a long period of that time Germany and Russia were allies). When the triple entente was formed, Germany was a strong continetal millitary power, and the technology at hand would have led to a fairly bloody war. --------------------- WW2 There was one oppurtunity to stop Hitler without bloodshed....that was when he decided to publicly re-millitarize/march into the rhineland...after such an instance, it is very likely....milltary action would be met with millitary re-action. The difference in time and context between czechoslovakia and poland is not so great as to make germany so much strong then it previously was. Yes, it might have been easier to fight a war at that time, but you would still be fighting a war. Likewise, there is no gurantee that marching on Germany over the Rhineland would have led to peace in our time either. It is vitally important to recognize that communism was a very real threat, communist parties were extremly dominant in Germany. Had you marched in and destablized Germany one more time, you stood a very real possibility of facing two communist countries in Germany and Russia. At that time Communism was percieved as a bigger threat than Nazism. So in such a manner Russia was percieved as the bigger threat than Germany. So policy was geared towards being lenient towards Germany in order to stand as a barrier to communism. What can we learn from that? Well notice how we are using other countries as pawns in a war against a big country. And than suddenly your pawn switches sides in the middle of the situation and kinda F's the whole thing up. Yeah its been happening for a while now, and this strategy tends to bite back every now and again. Needless to say this is also somewhat true with the middle east. Maybe that should indicate that diplomatic and millitary relations need to be analyzed very closely and dealt with in a very carefull manner...and that War might not always be the best option...particularly when you don't have Britain, France, and Russia (for that matter Germany)on side. In the case of North Korea having China millitarily on your side. Good post Slavic, Well like any thought process theres always angles we don't cover, and the reason i post em is to get better angles from other people. SO thanks everyone who posted on it. Looks like I need to rethink my idea a little. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 22, 2007 Report Posted March 22, 2007 I looked up Dolphins. So, is your story now that you were a squid in tin a can? and just how does that make you a spy? as noted, it seems nothing but a pathetic fraud you present - shame on you I don't have time to teach you more American history (i.e. Cold War intelligence gathering by submarines). It's OK that you flunked History...really. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 22, 2007 Report Posted March 22, 2007 1939-1945....World War II Not quite. For the USA, that's 1941-1945. And you are pretty quick to lay claim to ownership of several specifically NATO operations (that the USA generally politically opposed - such as Bosnia). Not really...Americans were fighting as Finns, Brits, or Canadians in Eagle Squadrons earlier in the war. The Merchant Marine also was paying the price earlier than 1941. 20,000 troops deployed by Clinton to Bosnia may not agree with you. Either way, we're not talking pacifist USA over the past 230 years, eh? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
jdobbin Posted March 22, 2007 Report Posted March 22, 2007 Not really...Americans were fighting as Canadians in Eagle Squadrons earlier in the war. The Merchant Marine also was paying the price earlier than 1941. The fact is the U.S. didn't officially enter the war until they were attacked. It is like someone from Canada claiming Canada was in combat in Vietnam because many Canadians joined U.S. forces. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 22, 2007 Report Posted March 22, 2007 The fact is the U.S. didn't officially enter the war until they were attacked.It is like someone from Canada claiming Canada was in combat in Vietnam because many Canadians joined U.S. forces. True....Canada always declares war without being attacked! And Canada officially made a bundle on the Vietnam War. WW2's early Lend-Lease was also official, because without it there wouldn't have been much of a war. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
jdobbin Posted March 22, 2007 Report Posted March 22, 2007 True....Canada always declares war without being attacked!And Canada officially made a bundle on the Vietnam War. WW2's early Lend-Lease was also official, because without it there wouldn't have been much of a war. Citation on Canada making a bundle on the war? Lend-Lease didn't start until 1941. There was plenty of war before that. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 22, 2007 Report Posted March 22, 2007 Citation on Canada making a bundle on the war? Here ya go: http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-71-1413-9128/...r/vietnam/clip7 http://www.cbc.ca/asithappens/vietnam/part3.html http://kerfuffle.wordpress.com/2007/03/10/canadas-good-ene/ Canada continues to profit from American made war....where do you think much of the Depleted Uranium for long rod penetrators comes from? We spread parts of Canada from Hiroshima to Baghdad! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
jdobbin Posted March 22, 2007 Report Posted March 22, 2007 Here ya go:http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-71-1413-9128/...r/vietnam/clip7 http://www.cbc.ca/asithappens/vietnam/part3.html http://kerfuffle.wordpress.com/2007/03/10/canadas-good-ene/ Canada continues to profit from American made war....where do you think much of the Depleted Uranium for long rod penetrators comes from? We spread parts of Canada from Hiroshima to Baghdad! As long as Canada is a neighbor to the U.S. and has trade with it, products are going to end up being used for whatever fight the U.S. is in. I don't consider trade to be official or unofficial support for the Vietnam War not any other fight the U.S. has been in that we weren't. Canada and the U.S. were allies and much equipments and people floating back and forth. It doesn't mean we were in it to make a bundle. By the way, lend-lease didn't start till 1941, two years into the war. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 22, 2007 Report Posted March 22, 2007 As long as Canada is a neighbor to the U.S. and has trade with it, products are going to end up being used for whatever fight the U.S. is in.I don't consider trade to be official or unofficial support for the Vietnam War. So let me get this straight....you believe trade is just trade even when it is specific war materials, known to be used as such? Logically then, you would have no problem with the US and other nations selling chemical weapons precursors and rotary wing aircraft to Saddam Hussein to gas Kurds. You believe that testing Agent Orange/Purple defoliants at Gagetown was just normal "trade"? If there is to be criticism for selling steel to Germany, then Canada can take its lumps too. From the CBC: Some of the many Canadian-manufactured products destined for Vietnam included: ammunition, aircraft engines, gun sights, grenades, boots, green berets, napalm, TNT, rye whiskey, Agent Orange, generators and passenger vehicles, to name just a few. • While the sale of these items is by no means illegal, many believed it was morally wrong to profit from sales of war materials. NDP leader Tommy Douglas called it "blood money." Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Guthrie Posted March 22, 2007 Report Posted March 22, 2007 I looked up Dolphins. So, is your story now that you were a squid in tin a can? and just how does that make you a spy? as noted, it seems nothing but a pathetic fraud you present - shame on you I don't have time to teach you more American history (i.e. Cold War intelligence gathering by submarines). It's OK that you flunked History...really. It is not ok that you post a fraudulent vitae -- as noted, dust bunny spies, such as yourself, are a dime a dozen Quote “Most middle-class whites have no idea what it feels like to be subjected to police who are routinely suspicious, rude, belligerent, and brutal” - Benjamin Spock MD
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 22, 2007 Report Posted March 22, 2007 It is not ok that you post a fraudulent vitae -- as noted, dust bunny spies, such as yourself, are a dime a dozen But you still pay me every month.....and the month after that. Those "Dust Bunnies" are made of gold. Dive! Dive! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Guthrie Posted March 22, 2007 Report Posted March 22, 2007 you seem to be fixated on it --- but personally, I don't care if you get benefit checks - I would rather have you in mom's basement than wandering the streets at night, you might get hurt on the concrete sidewalks and paying your hospital bills would be more expensive still so, go ahead and reach for another chocolate easter bunnie and do your ritual bite the head off --- you're safe Quote “Most middle-class whites have no idea what it feels like to be subjected to police who are routinely suspicious, rude, belligerent, and brutal” - Benjamin Spock MD
jdobbin Posted March 22, 2007 Report Posted March 22, 2007 So let me get this straight....you believe trade is just trade even when it is specific war materials, known to be used as such? Logically then, you would have no problem with the US and other nations selling chemical weapons precursors and rotary wing aircraft to Saddam Hussein to gas Kurds. You believe that testing Agent Orange/Purple defoliants at Gagetown was just normal "trade"? If there is to be criticism for selling steel to Germany, then Canada can take its lumps too. From the CBC: Some of the many Canadian-manufactured products destined for Vietnam included: ammunition, aircraft engines, gun sights, grenades, boots, green berets, napalm, TNT, rye whiskey, Agent Orange, generators and passenger vehicles, to name just a few. • While the sale of these items is by no means illegal, many believed it was morally wrong to profit from sales of war materials. NDP leader Tommy Douglas called it "blood money." Are you comparing the U.S. to Saddam Hussein? I think our trade with the U.S. was and is normal trade. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 22, 2007 Report Posted March 22, 2007 you seem to be fixated on it --- but personally, I don't care if you get benefit checks - I would rather have you in mom's basement than wandering the streets at night, you might get hurt on the concrete sidewalks and paying your hospital bills would be more expensive still My "mom" is dead and she never had a basement. However, it seems you know all about such living arrangements! You may have you ass back. Think of it as appeasment. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.