meazza Posted May 22, 2013 Share Posted May 22, 2013 Better place than you. But try reading this: on may 17, who posted "bottom line: consensus is bull****"? Dctom. Again do you understand context or are you really dumber than conner? Yup, still an idiot. I think that's pretty much the consensus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted May 22, 2013 Share Posted May 22, 2013 Dctom. Again do you understand context or are you really dumber than conner? Well in this context you are back peddling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 22, 2013 Share Posted May 22, 2013 So you think it was all about defeating Nazism as a means to an end (a regime that was already in the process of being defeated) , and nothing at all to do with the dominant global theme of communism vs capitalism? And youre going along with a consensus view, even though you think consensus is always wrong? Lol what a moron What...the...!@#$? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 22, 2013 Share Posted May 22, 2013 Well in this context you are back peddling. Sure, and Germany had basically lost WWII in 1941. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 Wow! How do I unlearn what I just saw in this thread? FDR got us into WWII to oppose the communist's domination of eastern Europe! Who'da thunk? So why didn't we join forces with Hitler and Mussolini instead of allying with the British? Wow! Just, wow! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 (edited) Wow! How do I unlearn what I just saw in this thread? FDR got us into WWII to oppose the communist's domination of eastern Europe! Who'da thunk? So why didn't we join forces with Hitler and Mussolini instead of allying with the British? Wow! Just, wow! Yea...the "leftist" view of history may be just slightly off from actual events. Hitler lost the war for numerous reasons. The first of which was having a war against russia in the east and allies in the west. He should have known chamberlin was a kitty and focused on Russia 100%. By diverting his army groups to advance on stalingrad and not Moscow he lost irreplaceable resources nevermind his strategy of not retreating or even equipping his troops for winter battle. Against Britain he could have don if he kept attacking the RAF airfields to establish air superiority but was an idiot and shifted to bomb London and population centers which accomplished nothing more than propaganda and allowed the RAF to refit and repair and train more pilots. And have a thoughtful and appreciative memorial day. Edited May 27, 2013 by drinkTHEkoolaid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 Wow! How do I unlearn what I just saw in this thread? FDR got us into WWII to oppose the communist's domination of eastern Europe! Who'da thunk? So why didn't we join forces with Hitler and Mussolini instead of allying with the British? Wow! Just, wow! So to counter the threat of soviet communist expansion in europe it would have made more sense to support a leader whose fascist ideology was incompatible with ours, against our traditional Allies like UK and alienate them in the drive to counter communism, after Germany was on the wrong side of key turning points, and commit ourselves to engage in most of the front line fighting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 27, 2013 Author Share Posted May 27, 2013 So to counter the threat of soviet communist expansion in europe it would have made more sense to support a leader whose fascist ideology was incompatible with ours, against our traditional Allies like UK and alienate them in the drive to counter communism, after Germany was on the wrong side of key turning points, and commit ourselves to engage in most of the front line fighting? LOL...............you do it in every thread, just change your name to "Joe_the_false_choice" already.................. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 No different here. Roosevelt's motives for entering were to thwart the spread of communism across the continent from a soviet invasion of Europe, keeping trading partners open. Battle of Britain was lost by Nazis early in war in 1940, with the opening of a 2nd front against Russia in 41' further dooming them and opening the door for Russian advances on the continent. That's simply astounding! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 That's simply astounding! You can keep saying that without offering any real analysis, in striking contrast to the fact that immediately after WW2 the US and Soviets began carving up the world with alliances and annexation, prompting the Truman Doctrine of communist containment in March 47'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 You can keep saying that without offering any real analysis, in striking contrast to the fact that immediately after WW2 the US and Soviets began carving up the world with alliances and annexation, prompting the Truman Doctrine of communist containment in March 47'. You're a lunatic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 You can keep saying that without offering any real analysis, in striking contrast to the fact that immediately after WW2 the US and Soviets began carving up the world with alliances and annexation, prompting the Truman Doctrine of communist containment in March 47'. Please share with us your take on the war in the Pacific too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 Please share with us your take on the war in the Pacific too. Shhh. I wanted him to get there on his own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 Hezbollah leader announcing they're involved in backing Assad in Syria. Makes a good point that if Assad falls and the radical rebels win, they will advance on Lebanon next, which will draw Israel back into Lebanon. Nice work Obama and Hillary, supporting the rebels and pushing the region closer to this doomsday scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 Shhh. I wanted him to get there on his own. I was just hoping that the long awaited History of the World Part ll was going to gets its debut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 27, 2013 Share Posted May 27, 2013 Hezbollah leader announcing they're involved in backing Assad in Syria. Makes a good point that if Assad falls and the radical rebels win, they will advance on Lebanon next, which will draw Israel back into Lebanon. Nice work Obama and Hillary, supporting the rebels and pushing the region closer to this doomsday scenario. I'm with you. If we'd just mind our own business and let Assad gas another 100,000 people or so, we can avoid your doomsday scenario. Of course, the people who were murdered might see things differently, but hey...you live in a country that will use chemical weapons to destroy the opposition, that's the way the cookie crumbles, ammmiright, ol' Joey boy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 28, 2013 Share Posted May 28, 2013 I'm with you. If we'd just mind our own business and let Assad gas another 100,000 people or so, we can avoid your doomsday scenario. Of course, the people who were murdered might see things differently, but hey...you live in a country that will use chemical weapons to destroy the opposition, that's the way the cookie crumbles, ammmiright, ol' Joey boy? From a Western standpoint it would appear that we are screwed either way. Hezbollah is supporting Assad while Al Qaeda is supporting the rebels. The Arab Spring hasn't shown me much progress. Both Egypt and Libya have become less secular and moving towards Sharia law. Both Mubarak and Qaddaffi were despots but I don't know if their countries are better off without them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 28, 2013 Share Posted May 28, 2013 From a Western standpoint it would appear that we are screwed either way. Hezbollah is supporting Assad while Al Qaeda is supporting the rebels. The Arab Spring hasn't shown me much progress. Both Egypt and Libya have become less secular and moving towards Sharia law. Both Mubarak and Qaddaffi were despots but I don't know if their countries are better off without them. The only winning play in Syria WAS to normalize relations with Assad and try to convince him to liberalize his regime (i.e. allow more freedoms, teach him to play nice with his neighbors, etc., etc.) Now...we're following the Clinton-Afghanistan policy pattern: sorta-kinda pay lip service to supporting no one in particular, as long as they leave us alone. If the pattern holds, the next step will be to simultaneously court and alienate whoever's in power when the dust settles...ultimately, cutting to the chase, this ends with the creation of yet another pariah state and airplanes crashing in to buildings again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted May 28, 2013 Share Posted May 28, 2013 nice work EU, deepening the crisis further and aiding Islamic extremists .... EU ends arms embargo against Syrian rebels http://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/27/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 28, 2013 Share Posted May 28, 2013 (edited) The only winning play in Syria WAS to normalize relations with Assad and try to convince him to liberalize his regime (i.e. allow more freedoms, teach him to play nice with his neighbors, etc., etc.) Now...we're following the Clinton-Afghanistan policy pattern: sorta-kinda pay lip service to supporting no one in particular, as long as they leave us alone. If the pattern holds, the next step will be to simultaneously court and alienate whoever's in power when the dust settles...ultimately, cutting to the chase, this ends with the creation of yet another pariah state and airplanes crashing in to buildings again. You may be right. The fall of the Shah of Iran hasn't been good for us and I doubt the people of Iran were any better off with his departure. It just might be that democracy is not a good path for people of certain heritage(s). Islam may be a peaceful religion but there is a high enough percentage of radicals in that religion who want no separation of church and state. They (the radicals) are also violent people who only understand and respect strength. In a figurative sense, their vote as they hold on to their rocket propelled grenade launcher, is worth a 1000 times what the shopkeeper's vote is worth. They will be creating more Irans, ruled by fundamentalist Muslims and Sharia Law. So, with all the countries over there that have or will overthrow their rulers, not one will be friendlier to the U.S. Edited May 28, 2013 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts