1. We had some issues with updating / uploading the avatars. We _think_ we have fixed the problem. Please try it for yourself and see if you can change your avatar (if you want a new one that is :)) Otherwise, please keep reporting problems in the official thread. Thank you! :)
    Dismiss Notice

Natalie wants you to vote.

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by Jammsbro, Oct 22, 2008.

  1. wtfazzhole

    wtfazzhole Munchin on Pussy Ten Years of Phun

    peace loving people not wanting to stand up to a regime that has expressed a desire to wipe out another nation to me is not acting like a super power. To me that is copping out ones' responsibility. So what else would you call it?
     
  2. wtfazzhole

    wtfazzhole Munchin on Pussy Ten Years of Phun

    and yet you can't bring up a single point as to where i am wrong. ok! :rolleyes:
     
  3. Amethyst

    Amethyst You varging bastiches

    I don't fault you for taking offense to azz's comments on the UK but the above is total shite. As if the Brits have never bombed the hell out of people. Arthur "Bomber" Harris comes to mind since WW2 was being discussed.

    As for us coming late to WW2 (which BS mentioned), it wasn't our war. The European one, that is. Hitler, the meglomaniacal dumb fuck, declared war on us. I don't quite object to our participation in it but every war or "war" since then is another matter.
     
  4. Billy Sastard

    Billy Sastard One thousand brown M&Ms

    Where else was we supposed to go?

    Its called great Britain...its where we live.

    Thanks for winnig the War for us, mighty decent of you old chap.

    I'll just PM all the Brits, Canadians, Jamacians, Australians, Dutch, Norwegians, French, Polish, Indians, e.t.c. and tell them Thanks, but they they wern't needed
     
    MoFoX, arespilgrim and Jammsbro like this.
  5. Amethyst

    Amethyst You varging bastiches


    I only brought up Saddam because I think it is as ridiculous to compare Iran to Germany pre WW2 as it is to compare Saddam to Hitler, which many did before the Iraq war started.

    So it is ok for Israel to have the nukes to blow Iran, Iraq, etc., off the map multiple times but not ok for Iran to have some sort of similar (lesser) capability? Iran is an ancient country and culture. Like any significant country, they have national interests that they need to look out for. Those who want to bomb them into the stone age (or whatever) should consider that.

    I'm not saying I'm sympathetic to Iran's national interests and their president does seem to be a fantasist or worse. Still, I doubt very much he/they would launch a nuclear strike at Israel. Why would he/they? So their country can then be completely destroyed too?

    It would be a good thing for nuclear weapons to not proliferate but it is absolutely not in the USA's interest to go to war with Iran on Israel's behalf.

    The Iraq war has hardly gone swimmingly. A war with Iran would be something even worse then that, to say the least.
     
  6. wtfazzhole

    wtfazzhole Munchin on Pussy Ten Years of Phun

    If your granddad is still alive ask him prior to us coming to your aid where was he at? was he on European soil hitting back at those Germans or was he on the big island hold up somewhere? From what i know about wars getting pummeled without any offensive is not considered winning.

    As for some of the countries you listed, Australia had their hands occupied by the Japanese, the french had already surrendered and you were last and on your own. Like i said, ask your granddad what he was doing prior to us jumping in. ;)
     
  7. Amethyst

    Amethyst You varging bastiches

    The Soviet Union was most responsible for winning the European theater of WW2. I saw a stat once: something like 75% percent of the German soldiers killed in WW2 were offed by the Soviets. Stalingrad was a much more significant battle (to the Germans being defeated) then D-Day was.
     
    Jammsbro likes this.
  8. wtfazzhole

    wtfazzhole Munchin on Pussy Ten Years of Phun


    First off I never said the War with Iraq was the right or wrong thing to do. Like ALL americans we were misled by our government and the ones in charge of the intelligence community to fill us in. I would dare say 99% of americans would agreed to taking on Sadaam if the lies told us about al-quida and his regime were inter-related. No American witnessing 9-11 would say no to such a war. But had we been told the truth as of now the majority of Americans believe that war was not called for and is the wrong thing to do.


    Now as far as Iran and that region is concerned Israel has not threatened anybody with their potential nuclear capabilities. They have not gone out and voiced that Iran should be obliterated. On the other hand Iran has and continue to think so. Do you see anybody in the middle east condoning Iran to have nuclear capabilities? None of their neighbors want Iran to have such capabilities and the rest of the world agrees. Having nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran is a potential disaster waiting to happen.
     
  9. wtfazzhole

    wtfazzhole Munchin on Pussy Ten Years of Phun

    I remember their strategy called the Blitzkrieg. It wouldn't have to even be a strategy if they didn't have to deal with a war on both fronts. We can sit here and second guess all we want now if the Russians and the remaining hold-out Brits could have defeated the Germans but I am certain we played a major role in ending that war.
     
  10. Jammsbro

    Jammsbro Finally

    Clearyl azz is a historical and military expert and not a right wing american who wouldn't know his history if it slapped him right across the face.

    The rest of us imbeciles can only hope that if war starts in teh future that the rest of us coward can only pray that he and america bail us all out as we can clearly do nothing, and will do nothing to defend or protect ourselves or any othjer nation.


    Oh, and where are american military forces right now? spearheading the long term invasion of land it had no right to. And for what? Not the just retribution of the twin towers atrocities but something simpler, money and power. And still you'll vote for the war monger.
     
  11. wtfazzhole

    wtfazzhole Munchin on Pussy Ten Years of Phun



    so much rhetoric and not a single thread of truth disproving anything i have said. What a lame way to go about an argument.

    And for the record i voted for Kerry not george bush, so you can continue making all your assumptions as you please. ;)
     
  12. Amethyst

    Amethyst You varging bastiches


    No, Israel has used its US supplied conventional forces to do its damages. Which is not to say Israel doesn't have the right to defend itself. And I think much of what the Iranians say is bluster.

    Look, the US survived 50 years of the Soviet Union having enough nukes to destroy us a thousand times over. We can survive the Iranians having them. Again, have you considered what the price of a war against Iran would be in lives and money? Actually, at this point, there is no way we could sustain one. As for bombing them, if Israel wants to, that is their business. We should having nothing to do with it. Though anything Israel does will be blamed on us.
     
  13. wtfazzhole

    wtfazzhole Munchin on Pussy Ten Years of Phun

    What you are expunging was the same sentiment we had back in 1930 when congress passed The Neutrality Acts. What you have failed to realize is other worldly conflicts usually always involve us in one way or another. This is a global problem, not just a matter between 2 countries. Eventually it will spread throughout the region and the world has to get involved.

    As far as your assumptions that Iran is all talk is the lives of millions of jews something you want to chance with? Should we take the chance that one side can be completely wiped out by 1 deranged maniac? I quite frankly don't want to take that chance.

    Now as far as affording another war, i highly doubt that would be necessary. If Iran wants nuclear ambitions and the world has agreed that they shouldn't and negotiations fail, then all we have to do is strategically bomb and destroy their facilities and render them inoperable. Once Iran gets one then how are you going to stop all the other nations from wanting to obtain such a weapon? Doing nothing in my opinion is not an option.
     
  14. Amethyst

    Amethyst You varging bastiches

    The lightening war (blitzkrieg) was a military tactic. It doesn't apply at all to Germany having to fight on two European fronts.

    Try finding a map of the European theater on D-Day; you'll see that the Russians were already well on the way to kicking the German's asses back to the fatherland. True, we had fought them in Italy before D-Day and that helped.

    I certainly don't want to minimize the military accomplishments and sacrifices made by the Allies in WW2. Not at all. But, again, the Russians were the ones most responsible for beating the Germans. It isn't even a close call.

    I think the total losses of the US for all of WW 2 was about 300,000. The Russians lost 20 million.
     
  15. wtfazzhole

    wtfazzhole Munchin on Pussy Ten Years of Phun

    I will have to look that up. I know they were stretched thin with having to fight two fronts.

    As far as the Russians losing so many, how was that total comprised? Was it only military or civilians included? And was that the amount included when the Germans were marching towards st petersburg?
     
  16. Amethyst

    Amethyst You varging bastiches


    Is that some iron law of physics or something: the US must be involved in every problem anywhere in the world? Global problem? I doubt Iran will bomb Iceland after they polish Israel off.

    Military actions and interventions tend not to go to plan. We have had numerous examples of that from Vietnam to Somalia to Iraq.

    I simply don't believe the Iranians are so crazy as to start a nuclear war that would guarantee the complete destruction of their country just so they can wipe out Israel.
     
  17. wtfazzhole

    wtfazzhole Munchin on Pussy Ten Years of Phun

    Well by the reactions of our fellow Brits here who else would have to intervene? You think they would take the initiative and help out other countries in need? :rolleyes:
     
  18. Amethyst

    Amethyst You varging bastiches


    Of course, D-Day and thus two fronts ended the war faster. But even if D-Day didn't happen and the Germans moved all their western front forces to the east, I think they were done for. However, I'm not as confident on that specific point.

    I think the 20 million figure is military and civilian. And throw in the purges of Stalin for another 20 million.

    Wikipedia isn't always reliable but the chart on this link has the casualty totals of all the countries. I guess we lost 400,000 not 300,000 as I wrote earlier.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties
     
  19. wtfazzhole

    wtfazzhole Munchin on Pussy Ten Years of Phun

    that is 400,000 soldiers that was better equipped and armed vs 20 million of mixed casualties. That does not equate to the Russians being stronger. That was a dirty war where civilians were often times the target more-so than the soldiers.
     
  20. Amethyst

    Amethyst You varging bastiches


    Well, I'm not keen on us being the world's policeman so I don't know that I'd advocate other countries taking the same duty.

    It could be argued that our taking such a central role for the 50 years of the cold war removed the need and desire of Europe to defend itself. That they lost that instinct. That is much too simplistic and, for the record, I'm not calling anyone or any country a coward or cowardly.

    Btw, his name provokes instant revulsion in some (unfairly so, I think) but Pat Buchanan recently wrote a book on the start and causes of WW 2: Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War. Some, of course, dismiss it out of hand but from reviewers I trust, it is an interesting, though flawed, take on that period. A good read if you like popular history/commentary. It is on my list to get to.
     

Share This Page