PDA

View Full Version : History Lesson



Marvin S
03-02-2013, 12:59 PM
As history repeats - :(

"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"
~Adolph Hitler, 1935, on The Weapons Act of Nazi Germany


http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/X.MA1.1362162820@aol.com

http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/X.MA2.1362162820@aol.com

Masters of bullshit using kids as political human shields.

PS: Do we always trust left handed persons?

Dan Storts
03-02-2013, 10:19 PM
They are suppose to be right minded. :)

sick lids
03-02-2013, 10:48 PM
Hmm.. I thought that most if not all firearms were baned soon after WW1, or were at least highly restricted. I think that all the tools/laws that Hitler needed to disarm his opponents were already on the books when he came into power. and he chose how to enforce them.

Dan Storts
03-03-2013, 11:27 AM
As history repeats - :(

"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"
[SIZE=4]~Adolph Hitler, 1935, on The Weapons Act of Nazi Germany[/SIZE




http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/X.MA1.1362162820@aol.com

http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/X.MA2.1362162820@aol.com

Masters of bullshit using kids as political human shields.

PS: Do we always trust left handed persons?


This is a good link To go along with your quote.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/rrjU-H...yer_detailpage

Uncle Bill
03-04-2013, 11:18 PM
This is a good link To go along with your quote.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/rrjU-H...yer_detailpage

That link may have gotten pulled, but it was no doubt a reference to those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it. At this point in life...especially now in the 21st century...there is nothing, it seems, lower on the totum pole than history and the need to return to it for guidence. We are loaded with 'temporal provincials'...especially under the meaning of a narrow-minded, or unsophisticated person...That were frequently associated with the Neville Chamberlain ilk prior to WWII. We see them now following this regime in America...those that I find to be the 'fools' on this nation, willing to completely ignore the past, and take pride in that stand. These 'fools' are the SFN and OWS crowds. They are not only the unprincipled, but they consider themselves "entitled", and wouldn't know how to be an honest American if it jumped up and bit them in the ass.

BTW, just to show how words get twisted out of proportion and meaning, what is today's 'conservative' in America, was definitely bastardized by the so-called British conservative, Neville Chamberlain. He may have been associated with the conservative party in G.B., but he was nothing more than what we would call today, a RINO at best, but also a treasonous coward, appeaser, a cave-in toad, worthy of zero respect and fodder for impeachment. There was no way he could be at any time considered to be a "conservative"...or even by today's standard, a Republican. And heaven forbid if he could be one of Franco's favs...that basterdly neo-con.

Comes now the $64,000 question...Where do you think a politician like Ron Paul would have aligned up in that time warp...and had Franco been alive and of voting age at that time, whom would he have had allegience to then????? Just asking? The answer is the old addage...politics makes strange bedfellows.

UB

Uncle Bill
03-05-2013, 02:54 PM
I'm still looking forward to your answer to my question, Franco. Or mebbe you can have your newest surrogate, Mudminnow give us his views concerning the Neville Chamberlain appeasement philosophy towards Hitler, as he attempted to ignore Hitler's impending war against England. While he rallied a variety of passive constituents, like Obama, his philosophy of "talk and be friendly" had noe effect then, and Obama's sending planes to Egypt as a form of appeasement will have about the same eventual outcome, I fear.

UB

road kill
03-05-2013, 03:41 PM
I'm still looking forward to your answer to my question, Franco. Or mebbe you can have your newest surrogate, Mudminnow give us his views concerning the Neville Chamberlain appeasement philosophy towards Hitler, as he attempted to ignore Hitler's impending war against England. While he rallied a variety of passive constituents, like Obama, his philosophy of "talk and be friendly" had noe effect then, and Obama's sending planes to Egypt as a form of appeasement will have about the same eventual outcome, I fear.

UB
I have always stated that RP was a Lord Chamberlain/Timothy Leary/Angry Old Man combo.

To date that is undisputed.

Franco
03-05-2013, 04:15 PM
That link may have gotten pulled, but it was no doubt a reference to those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it. At this point in life...especially now in the 21st century...there is nothing, it seems, lower on the totum pole than history and the need to return to it for guidence. We are loaded with 'temporal provincials'...especially under the meaning of a narrow-minded, or unsophisticated person...That were frequently associated with the Neville Chamberlain ilk prior to WWII. We see them now following this regime in America...those that I find to be the 'fools' on this nation, willing to completely ignore the past, and take pride in that stand. These 'fools' are the SFN and OWS crowds. They are not only the unprincipled, but they consider themselves "entitled", and wouldn't know how to be an honest American if it jumped up and bit them in the ass.

BTW, just to show how words get twisted out of proportion and meaning, what is today's 'conservative' in America, was definitely bastardized by the so-called British conservative, Neville Chamberlain. He may have been associated with the conservative party in G.B., but he was nothing more than what we would call today, a RINO at best, but also a treasonous coward, appeaser, a cave-in toad, worthy of zero respect and fodder for impeachment. There was no way he could be at any time considered to be a "conservative"...or even by today's standard, a Republican. And heaven forbid if he could be one of Franco's favs...that basterdly neo-con.

Comes now the $64,000 question...Where do you think a politician like Ron Paul would have aligned up in that time warp...and had Franco been alive and of voting age at that time, whom would he have had allegience to then????? Just asking? The answer is the old addage...politics makes strange bedfellows.

UB

What makes this difficult to answer is that the times have changed. No longer do uniformed armies fight against one another.

We are fighting an ideology for ther most part, not another country. No country is perfect and our Foreign Policy has been horrible. Where do you wish to start UB, when we ousted the democratically elected ruler of Iran and replaced him with a tyrant, The Shah or our support of a terrorist regime like the one in Pakistan?

In regards tp RP, he served as a Medical Officer in the Air Force. He very much supported out efforts in WW2 through his writings, yet too young to serve. He often compares the validity of what we did in WW2 to our policy today of imposing our will on the rest of the world.

mudminnow
03-05-2013, 04:53 PM
I think it is weird that, it seems for you, one of the main things that is proof is someone is a conservative or not is their warhawk behavior. I also think it is Ironic that the party that parades Christianity around so much is also the party that starts wars haphazardly and supports policies that can only kill innocents. RP, if i could guess, would be on the side of peace before war. Churchill was ready to jump in and bomb anyone who said Guten Tag.

History is written by the victors, and the victors did not like Chamberlain. Thanks to revisionists we see a different side of the Chamberlain story. One thing that I like about Chamberlain was his commitement to Peace and war after all pathways have closed. This is a principle of the "Just War Doctrine" that civilized nations tried to follow during times of conflict, but since Chamberlain was ousted for what would have been a war criminal if britain would have lost (Churchill) the Just war mentality has gone by the wayside since Churchill targeted civilians when he firebombed Berlin. World War 2 was not started by germany, it was started by the treaty of versaille and any historian would agree with that.

Dan Storts
03-05-2013, 08:00 PM
That link may have gotten pulled, but it was no doubt a reference to those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it. At this point in life...especially now in the 21st century...there is nothing, it seems, lower on the totum pole than history and the need to return to it for guidence. We are loaded with 'temporal provincials'...especially under the meaning of a narrow-minded, or unsophisticated person...That were frequently associated with the Neville Chamberlain ilk prior to WWII. We see them now following this regime in America...those that I find to be the 'fools' on this nation, willing to completely ignore the past, and take pride in that stand. These 'fools' are the SFN and OWS crowds. They are not only the unprincipled, but they consider themselves "entitled", and wouldn't know how to be an honest American if it jumped up and bit them in the ass.

BTW, just to show how words get twisted out of proportion and meaning, what is today's 'conservative' in America, was definitely bastardized by the so-called British conservative, Neville Chamberlain. He may have been associated with the conservative party in G.B., but he was nothing more than what we would call today, a RINO at best, but also a treasonous coward, appeaser, a cave-in toad, worthy of zero respect and fodder for impeachment. There was no way he could be at any time considered to be a "conservative"...or even by today's standard, a Republican. And heaven forbid if he could be one of Franco's favs...that basterdly neo-con.

Comes now the $64,000 question...Where do you think a politician like Ron Paul would have aligned up in that time warp...and had Franco been alive and of voting age at that time, whom would he have had allegience to then????? Just asking? The answer is the old addage...politics makes strange bedfellows.

UB


UB

Another version same result and story.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HuddISPKaOI

Uncle Bill
03-06-2013, 12:46 PM
Dear MM...This is the most ignorant statement you've ev er posted. "World War 2 was not started by germany, it was started by the treaty of versaille and any historian would agree with that." That ranks right up there with the gobal warming advocates thast will be quick to lie that every scientist believes the American people are to blame for all the changes in the weather.

Please don't try your WWII revisionism on here...you will get called on it.

UB

mudminnow
03-06-2013, 02:25 PM
That statement is not revisionism, the treaty of Versailles set up ww2. Excuse me for insulting your no questions asked view of history, you are starting to sound like a libertarian with the whole "if you don't agree with me you are ignorant" argument. Revisionism is important to anyone that seeks truth.

sick lids
03-06-2013, 03:58 PM
I think it is weird that, it seems for you, one of the main things that is proof is someone is a conservative or not is their warhawk behavior. I also think it is Ironic that the party that parades Christianity around so much is also the party that starts wars haphazardly and supports policies that can only kill innocents. RP, if i could guess, would be on the side of peace before war. Churchill was ready to jump in and bomb anyone who said Guten Tag.

History is written by the victors, and the victors did not like Chamberlain. Thanks to revisionists we see a different side of the Chamberlain story. One thing that I like about Chamberlain was his commitement to Peace and war after all pathways have closed. This is a principle of the "Just War Doctrine" that civilized nations tried to follow during times of conflict, but since Chamberlain was ousted for what would have been a war criminal if britain would have lost (Churchill) the Just war mentality has gone by the wayside since Churchill targeted civilians when he firebombed Berlin. World War 2 was not started by germany, it was started by the treaty of versaille and any historian would agree with that.

Dose not the civilian population make the guns, bullets, planes, tanks, and everything else that the military needs for war. This would make them a prime target in my opinion. Some so called revisionists also claim that the Holocaust never happened.

mudminnow
03-06-2013, 04:30 PM
Dose not the civilian population make the guns, bullets, planes, tanks, and everything else that the military needs for war. This would make them a prime target in my opinion. Some so called revisionists also claim that the Holocaust never happened.

So were the twin towers a prime target and there is no problem that terrorists targeted them? What you just stated is a scary example of the moral decline of our culture where it is ok and commonplace to kill non-combabtants, women and children in warfare.

The holocaust did happen, there is good revisionism that is based on fact, and there is bad revisionism

sick lids
03-06-2013, 05:11 PM
Had we carpet-bombed mecca it might have been an example of our cultures decline, we did not. What they did to the towers defines their culture not ours. People have always killed people, the fact that most of our crime rates have gone down in the last few decades would not reflect a population in moral decline.

Franco
03-06-2013, 05:31 PM
That statement is not revisionism, the treaty of Versailles set up ww2. Excuse me for insulting your no questions asked view of history, you are starting to sound like a libertarian with the whole "if you don't agree with me you are ignorant" argument. Revisionism is important to anyone that seeks truth.

I'll just ad that the first thing Hitler did when he got to Versailles was to blow up the railroad car that the treaty was signed in. There is zero doubt that the Germans had some very hard feelings regarding the treaty and what it was doing to the German people and thier economy after WW1.

mngundog
03-06-2013, 05:36 PM
Had we carpet-bombed mecca it might have been an example of our cultures decline, we did not. What they did to the towers defines their culture not ours. People have always killed people, the fact that most of our crime rates have gone down in the last few decades would not reflect a population in moral decline.
If we are using crime rate in determining our moral status in the world, the U.S. is not going to be judged all that well.

mudminnow
03-06-2013, 07:30 PM
Had we carpet-bombed mecca it might have been an example of our cultures decline, we did not. What they did to the towers defines their culture not ours. People have always killed people, the fact that most of our crime rates have gone down in the last few decades would not reflect a population in moral decline.

I'm sure Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have chosen carpet bombing to atomic bombing. We don't have a great track record.

huntinman
03-06-2013, 07:53 PM
If we are so bad, why are you guys here enjoying what the country has to offer? I sure tire of people bashing the country, but wanting more from it.

mudminnow
03-06-2013, 08:08 PM
I am not bashing but trying to ask questions that We should all wrestle with. We try to act like we are morally superior in our foreign policy and everyone else is crazy. We are called unpatriotic when we question our military tactics. And if we question historical "facts" that have force fed since grade school we are called ignorant (see previous posts). I love America, but more importantly I love my faith and if I have to choose between being patriotic and not questioning anything or holding onto the teachings of Christ, I am choosing Christ. He preaches a gospel of peace and liberty, and told others about it. If you want to know why i lean libertarian and question our policies, it's because of the gospel message and grace.

mngundog
03-06-2013, 08:27 PM
If we are so bad, why are you guys here enjoying what the country has to offer? I sure tire of people bashing the country, but wanting more from it.
Bill who is bashing the Country?

sick lids
03-06-2013, 10:09 PM
I'm sure Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have chosen carpet bombing to atomic bombing. We don't have a great track record.

Would you have preferred six months to a year or more of war with heavy casualties on both sides?

I admire your faith but you have to know that we have a separation of church and state for several reasons.

mudminnow
03-06-2013, 10:29 PM
Exactly, we do and the way we fight wars reflects our societies morals.

And the war would have been over before the bombs dropped if Truman would have let Japan keep their emperor. Instead Truman wanted an unconditional surrender and made the order to kill many innocent civilians instead. Hindsight is always 20/20. But no one is taught that the Japanese were ready to surrender with the only condition of keeping their emperor. My grandfather was in the pacific theater, was shot three times at Okinawa and survived. I have all the respect in the world for our vets and present service-members. I don't want any of them to face danger unless it is a just cause in DEFENSE of our country.

mcpoland
03-07-2013, 12:45 PM
MM: The Japanese did in fact keep the emperor. This was not without controversy considering his role in the attack on Pearl Harbor. By the way Berlin was never fire-bombed. Many cities were, most infamously Dresden and Hamburg. Tokyo was also firebombed and suffered tremendous damage due primarily to the construction of the buildings. And finally, Chamberlain was an idiot.

charly_t
03-07-2013, 12:50 PM
If we are so bad, why are you guys here enjoying what the country has to offer? I sure tire of people bashing the country, but wanting more from it.

Ditto ! 'Not supposed to talk bad about the prez but give the country what for'. Seems wrong to me also.

mudminnow
03-07-2013, 01:02 PM
MM: The Japanese did in fact keep the emperor. This was not without controversy considering his role in the attack on Pearl Harbor. By the way Berlin was never fire-bombed. Many cities were, most infamously Dresden and Hamburg. Tokyo was also firebombed and suffered tremendous damage due primarily to the construction of the buildings. And finally, Chamberlain was an idiot.

They got their emperor, but after an unconditional surrender was attained. Sorry about the semantics, berlin wasnt firebombed, but it was bombed heavily. Chamberlain may be an idiot, but churchill is not as brilliant as he is made out to be.

Uncle Bill
03-07-2013, 01:09 PM
Exactly, we do and the way we fight wars reflects our societies morals.

And the war would have been over before the bombs dropped if Truman would have let Japan keep their emperor. Instead Truman wanted an unconditional surrender and made the order to kill many innocent civilians instead. Hindsight is always 20/20. But no one is taught that the Japanese were ready to surrender with the only condition of keeping their emperor. My grandfather was in the pacific theater, was shot three times at Okinawa and survived. I have all the respect in the world for our vets and present service-members. I don't want any of them to face danger unless it is a just cause in DEFENSE of our country.

I applaud your G-Father for his sevice, but you should have spent more time getting HIS views of what he had experienced. I had a cousin that had the H-bomb not dropped on Heroshima, he would have been part of the American fodder sent onto mainland Japan. All is fair in love and war, MM. You are so narrow minded, you can't see the forrest for the trees. How many Japs gave a crap about the civilians they killed at pearl harbor? How many Muslims gave a damn about the collateral damage when they dropped the twin towers. Your disdain for the America you've been given to live in, dispite your libertarian beliefs, your form of appeasement will never get anything accomplished, because the Muslim Jihad thinks you are just wimps and easily killed to further their goal of complete annhilation of what they perceive as being infidels in their lives.

But I don't expect your views of "turning the other check", and your total disregard for the Old Testament history. Wonder where Christianity would be if David had been defeated by the Phillistines? Unlike you and Franco, we don't need to be your view of neo-cons to still know you can't fight for your liberty and safety by 'talking' peace to the Jihadists that see that only as a weakness. When you are dealing with an 'eye-for-an-eye' mindset, you will get your head handed to you with your passive attempts at attempting something conciliatory. It's so nice to be thought of as someone far more compassionate than your fellow Americans that are on the main line protecting your freedoms by putting their lives on the line, knowing they are the only defense when it comes to kill or being killed, and defend your freedom to be a clinging vine of linguini spined indifference. It's one thing to believe what you do, but your arrogance and constant barrage at explaining to all that will listen, how superior your empathy for the enemy is, while all that keep this country safe are put down, except for an occasional thanks for your life you gave away so stupidly.

You and Franco use neo-con interchangeably with a form of 'war-monger'. You are both way off the reservation in that view. Just because some of us may be considered 'hawks' as opposed to the 'doves' that are only interested when their ox is in immediate danger of being gored. Then listen to them squeel because those on the front line haven't done their job protecting their sorry asses. I'm not talking about some of the conscientious objectors that have served this nation. Most had far more 'guts' than the appeasers and wusses that didn't have the nerve or courage to stand up for their U.S. flag and what it stands for.

So take your neo-con attitudes and stick 'em. You are so far off line with what most conservatives in this country do and find important for this nation to survive. And, yes, despite your value system, we will continue to do what is needed to protect you, only because you are among the innocent number of those that need protection, that is why the majority of Americans serve.

UB

road kill
03-07-2013, 01:14 PM
Ladies and Gentlemen,
You fight a war to win.

End of story!


All the trouble comes when you try to fight civilly.

huntinman
03-07-2013, 01:22 PM
MM: The Japanese did in fact keep the emperor. This was not without controversy considering his role in the attack on Pearl Harbor. By the way Berlin was never fire-bombed. Many cities were, most infamously Dresden and Hamburg. Tokyo was also firebombed and suffered tremendous damage due primarily to the construction of the buildings. And finally, Chamberlain was an idiot.

Hey Mark, been wondering when you might weigh in... ;-)

JDogger
03-07-2013, 01:50 PM
Ladies and Gentlemen,
You fight a war to win.

End of story!


All the trouble comes when you try to fight civilly.

RK clear your inbox JD

road kill
03-07-2013, 01:56 PM
RK clear your inbox JD
Done......

sick lids
03-07-2013, 02:29 PM
Ladies and Gentlemen,
You fight a war to win.

End of story!


All the trouble comes when you try to fight civilly.

I hope this comes across right I do not want to offend any veterans or any one who has served. I hold all who served in high regard.

I am the first male on both sides of my family to not have served. This was heavily influenced by a grandfather who served in Korea, and an uncle in Vietnam who told me at a very impressionable age what war should be and should not be. I was clearly told not to enlist unless we were attacked by a foreign army. As I get older I regret not enlisting on Sep.12. In repayment for not serving I have served a few who needed help upon coming home.

Some times I regret asking about it but kids will say the damnedest things.

Trivia question....A man that was on the cover of Time magazine in Korea had a step son on the cover of the same magazine for Desert Storm. Any one know either of these two men?

mudminnow
03-07-2013, 02:41 PM
The japs had no regard for the folks at Pearl Harbor , neither did FDR who knew about it and warned no one there. I am not arrogant, I know I might be wrong about a lot of stuff. In fact being open to other views have made me a lot more humble. I have to question your attack on what seems to be my theology. And equating the Old Testament and David's fighting with today's is dangerous and downright heretical. Israel them was gods army and god used them to execute judgement to nations, god also used other armies to execute his judgement on Israel when they disobeyed. There is no such thing as "god's army" anymore. There is no force in the world that is purely good trying to vanquish a pure evil. I may sound empathetic to the enemy and I will take that as a compliment, that way I can join the long line of other Christians who have turned the other cheek and blessed those who persecuted us. Am I a pacifist though, NO. We should fight in defense of our country, no in the offense in other people's country.

I am sorry but we will have to disagree on the atomic bomb. I cannot morally justify the killing of innocents to supposively save militants. Japan was ready for surrender, we had a few bombs and we were itching to use them. You won't agree with that but there are just as many or more historians that come to that conclusion over than the old it saved more lives than it took argument.

If we are to be a country of high morals, we need to keep our standard high in all that we do. Sorry for my perceived arrogance, but there is little humility ever present in an internet forum. I really do enjoy debating and learn a lot from you and others that think I am as dumb as a brick

mcpoland
03-07-2013, 05:05 PM
MM: You seem to have a very black/white, good/evil view of the world. You look at our role in WWII as somehow tainted by choices made in the prosecution of that war. A war that was brought to us. Should we have turned the other cheek? You said we bombed/murdered innocent civilians. Do you suppose the Germans that lived in the shadow of the many concentration camps were "innocent"? Was their implied knowledge of what was happening behind the wire washed away by the Treaty of Versailles? The ascent of Hitler did not happen without the approval of many Germans. As for the Japanese they proved early on that virtually every able bodied person on the home islands would have fought to the death without any regard for their own lives. There is nothing to suggest that they were in anyway ready to surrender and in fact the first bomb did not do the trick. Even after the second bomb many on the general staff wanted to continue the war. I won't get into the "innocence" of the Japanese in view of their treatment of conquered people, notably but not limited to the Chinese and POW's. The war was brought to us even IF FDR knew of the pending attack. It was then the job of the military to bring that two front war to an absolute conclusion as rapidly as possible. If you don't think that the allies were "...trying to vanquish a pure evil." I will have to lump you in there with Neville Chamberlain.

Marvin S
03-07-2013, 05:13 PM
and others that think I am as dumb as a brick

There's a lot of folks on this forum who are quite patriotic & have served their country so folks like yourself & a couple of others on this forum can have stupid views like you espouse.

I'll ask you, as I did Franco without answer, have you served your country in time of need. I would venture you would have a much different answer if you had been on Omaha Beach, the Battle of the Bulge, Iwo Jima or involved in the Philippine Death March. Several years back I went to the Philippines on a consulting contract, the man who was Executive VP of this Mining Company had been in the death march. He showed me a picture of what he looked like during that march & gave a brief comment of the atrocities visited on the prisoners involved.

To be quite frank with you - your views make me just more than a little agitated :rolleyes:, which is more than a little hard to do.

mudminnow
03-07-2013, 07:19 PM
I have served my country. I grew up here, was educated here, became a productive member of society and employ others. I am serving my country. My ancestors have fought in every war from the French and Indian to WW2. I have seen the pictures of the bullet holes in my grandpa, read the letters he wrote home, and wish I could have met him. I have talked to his friends and other vets who did their job. WW2 was one of the last wars with a clear path to victory. Germans were not completely innocent and neither were the japanese. It was a better war than the ones we fight now with no clear path to victory. Are we going to be at war until terror is gone? Thats impossible. And fightng it with more terror is not the answer. My beef is not with the vets, it is with the people in power that make decisions to send young men into battle for reasons of pride and greed.
I am all for the defense of our nation and ww2 had that going for it. War is never good, but they have gotten progressively worse since 1945. I do not mean to disrespect those who fought for our defense, I mean to question our motives in everything so that we can forge ourselves into once again a great nation.

BuddyJ
03-07-2013, 08:25 PM
Geronimo thought the missionaries were gifts from the Great Spirit.

Franco
03-07-2013, 08:34 PM
I have served my country. I grew up here, was educated here, became a productive member of society and employ others. I am serving my country. My ancestors have fought in every war from the French and Indian to WW2. I have seen the pictures of the bullet holes in my grandpa, read the letters he wrote home, and wish I could have met him. I have talked to his friends and other vets who did their job. WW2 was one of the last wars with a clear path to victory. Germans were not completely innocent and neither were the japanese. It was a better war than the ones we fight now with no clear path to victory. Are we going to be at war until terror is gone? Thats impossible. And fightng it with more terror is not the answer. My beef is not with the vets, it is with the people in power that make decisions to send young men into battle for reasons of pride and greed.
I am all for the defense of our nation and ww2 had that going for it. War is never good, but they have gotten progressively worse since 1945. I do not mean to disrespect those who fought for our defense, I mean to question our motives in everything so that we can forge ourselves into once again a great nation.

That is the best post I've ever read on Potus! Don't you go leaving this place, I'm sure many appriciate what you have to say.

huntinman
03-07-2013, 09:27 PM
I have served my country. I grew up here, was educated here, became a productive member of society and employ others. I am serving my country. My ancestors have fought in every war from the French and Indian to WW2. I have seen the pictures of the bullet holes in my grandpa, read the letters he wrote home, and wish I could have met him. I have talked to his friends and other vets who did their job. WW2 was one of the last wars with a clear path to victory. Germans were not completely innocent and neither were the japanese. It was a better war than the ones we fight now with no clear path to victory. Are we going to be at war until terror is gone? Thats impossible. And fightng it with more terror is not the answer. My beef is not with the vets, it is with the people in power that make decisions to send young men into battle for reasons of pride and greed.
I am all for the defense of our nation and ww2 had that going for it. War is never good, but they have gotten progressively worse since 1945. I do not mean to disrespect those who fought for our defense, I mean to question our motives in everything so that we can forge ourselves into once again a great nation.

Are you saying our military are terrorists?

mudminnow
03-07-2013, 10:07 PM
No, I am saying our drone strikes that kill innocents, non combatants, and American citizens are acts of terror.

Uncle Bill
03-09-2013, 12:27 PM
The japs had no regard for the folks at Pearl Harbor , neither did FDR who knew about it and warned no one there. I am not arrogant, I know I might be wrong about a lot of stuff. In fact being open to other views have made me a lot more humble. I have to question your attack on what seems to be my theology. And equating the Old Testament and David's fighting with today's is dangerous and downright heretical. Israel them was gods army and god used them to execute judgement to nations, god also used other armies to execute his judgement on Israel when they disobeyed. There is no such thing as "god's army" anymore. There is no force in the world that is purely good trying to vanquish a pure evil. I may sound empathetic to the enemy and I will take that as a compliment, that way I can join the long line of other Christians who have turned the other cheek and blessed those who persecuted us. Am I a pacifist though, NO. We should fight in defense of our country, no in the offense in other people's country.

I am sorry but we will have to disagree on the atomic bomb. I cannot morally justify the killing of innocents to supposively save militants. Japan was ready for surrender, we had a few bombs and we were itching to use them. You won't agree with that but there are just as many or more historians that come to that conclusion over than the old it saved more lives than it took argument.

If we are to be a country of high morals, we need to keep our standard high in all that we do. Sorry for my perceived arrogance, but there is little humility ever present in an internet forum. I really do enjoy debating and learn a lot from you and others that think I am as dumb as a brick


You are becoming quite the enigma, MM. You claim to be some form of Christian, but seem to have no respect for GOD in your posts. Is this your idea of a putdown, or are you too inept in realizing the real God you refer to is to be capitalized in the context which you are writing?

I'm sorry, but I find you to be very conflicted. You really need to put together some basic consistant principled beliefs, before you rant about others not having your ideas and affiliations. Lacking real foundations makes you just vacillate among some form of whimsical feel-good philosophy. Once you have gottne past the stage of feeling picked on and abused, you may take that thought of being humble and developing some concrete views that are properly principled and can be repeated whenever they are brought into question. Short of that, you are no better than the linguini-spined MOR type that can flip-flop on a whim, and has no reason for what they believe other than folly.

UB

Marvin S
03-09-2013, 06:34 PM
You are becoming quite the enigma, MM. You claim to be some form of Christian, but seem to have no respect for GOD in your posts. Is this your idea of a putdown, or are you too inept in realizing the real God you refer to is to be capitalized in the context which you are writing?

I'm sorry, but I find you to be very conflicted. You really need to put together some basic consistant principled beliefs, before you rant about others not having your ideas and affiliations. Lacking real foundations makes you just vacillate among some form of whimsical feel-good philosophy. Once you have gottne past the stage of feeling picked on and abused, you may take that thought of being humble and developing some concrete views that are properly principled and can be repeated whenever they are brought into question. Short of that, you are no better than the linguini-spined MOR type that can flip-flop on a whim, and has no reason for what they believe other than folly.

UB

UB - Kudo's for your thoughtful post. I really have an issue with those who have never placed themselves in harm's way postulating about what should have been. & to have the gall to say I served by enriching myself! frigging :(.

mudminnow
03-09-2013, 10:08 PM
Sorry about the capitalization. Usually I do but smartphones and iPads make it annoying. Thankfully I believe in a God who doesn't need capitalization to remain sovereign.