Anti-Americans Clue Me In Please

[Sixpence]

Stop comparing Bush or saddam to hitler, it's getting to be a broken record.

[ufo_peeps]

Warmongers!

[Hangtime]

Every time US sat tight and defencively and competed economically and socially, it prevailed - witness the crumbling of Soviet empire, drastic changes in China, etc.

Come christmas, I'm gonna stuff a turkey with all the crap you post, miko; and send it to yah as a gift.

Sitting tight defensively crumbled the soviet empire?? LOL! Competeing economicly created drastic changes in China?? Man, you have some pretty wiz-bang history and economics professors where yer gettin programed.

[-tronski-]

There are anti-Americans on this board, I'm sure. In the same way there are xenophobic anti-European types. Swings and roundabouts, I guess.

Don't the anti-americans wrestle for the WWF or something?

 Tronsky

[AKIron]

Originally posted by miko2d
Simple - every time US government did something active/aggressive - it screwed up. Toppling Iranian regime in 53, Vietnam, Somali, support for Taliban, support for Iraq in war with Iran, feew others.

 Every time US sat tight and defencively and competed economically and socially, it prevailed - witness the crumbling of Soviet empire, drastic changes in China, etc.

Defintiely the most ignorant thing I've seen you post Miko. How about WWI, WWII, and yes, the military might of the US was no small factor in winning the cold war. Perhaps a retraction is in order?

[SirLoin]

Is being anti-GWB being anti-American?

[OIO]

Miko, you have a point there.

However, ex-USSR and China have been world powers and significant economic and militarily influential nations in the world stage. They had everything to lose in an economic and military confrontation. One of them already "lost" and the other one has decided to not confront the US on an economic battle and has instead begun to compete rather than confront.

Iraq (I should say hussein, I cant think of the 2 being one) is neither a world power economically nor militarily. Its only real power lies in the potential it has to rattling the rest of the arab nations. With that in mind, a stand by and wait policy is not really something you can use against hussein.

It is however, a very real threat to have this creep in power with the capability to sell WMD's to non-nations (read terrorist cells, rebel groups, etc) that are very likely to be used against millions of innocent people.

Waiting is not an option, acting is an option although it is not exactly one thats preferable...

so what then?

[Sandman]

Originally posted by john9001
i don't think the USA should have made war on hitler, the war costs too much and innocent people died, hitler was no threat to USA .

Let's see... Hitler killed jews.

Hussein threatens jews...

I think I see the connection. It's a bit thin.

[funkedup]

Hitler had a mustache.

Hussein has a mustache.

[hyena426]

i don't think the USA should have made war on hitler, the war costs too much and innocent people died, hitler was no threat to USA

 im glad usa did,,he was building special bombers for the sake of attacking usa,,his next big target,,,that guy was attacking everyone

he would tell poland he wasnt going to attack them,, next day they would invade,,told french the same thing,,we dont want war with french!!,next day he invaded,,he signed a treaty with russian,,broke it too,,lol,,killing millions of russians,,french,,jews,,polish,,english,,that guy wasnt going to stop till everyone was ether dead or under his thumb

[straffo]

Rotfl

Staline too

[Ping]

http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=78947
 
Hortlund said

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who said that? That is one of the positive consequences of taking out Saddam...there are hundreds of other positive consequences too. There is not one positive consequence of leaving him in power though.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



My reply was:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hortlund, this may surprise you but, you are correct. However there is even more to lose by going in without due caution.
#1 priority: War against terrorism
By Unilaterally going in on Saddam you will weaken that #1 objective.
Terrorism is not a State, it is a shadowy entity with no borders. By acting rashly, 1000's more of these shadowy figures will emerge due to an act of aggression.

And please note that I said DUE CAUTION.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Frogm4n]

miko is right, in the long run these countrys attack noone and fail to compete econmically and their dictatorships fall apart. whenever there is violence in a country it tends to bread more dictators to take their place. hell thats what happened to germany, we forced them into democracy and they sure turned out allright after ww1.

[Saurdaukar]

Originally posted by miko2d
[
 Every time US sat tight and defencively and competed economically and socially, it prevailed - witness the crumbling of Soviet empire, drastic changes in China, etc.

Kinda like our posture during that whole September 11th thing right?  I forget exactly what happened that day - but I seem to recall it being semi important... all I know is we were minding our own business, maintaining a defensive posture, competing economically and socially... and then BAM!  Well - whatever it was, who cares, its not like it will happen again or anything, right?

The world is different today Miko.  Defensive posture doesnt work against these types of attacks.  

It is the duty of a government to provide for the security of its citizens and thats exactly what the Bush administration is doing.  None of us are even close to understanding the situation in the world today, let the people we elected do their job - Im willing to bet they're a little bit more informed than a group of political firebrand flight sim junkies.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Frogm4n
hell thats what happened to germany, we forced them into democracy and they sure turned out allright after ww1.

Man, I LOVE learning new stuff.

Can you give me link showing where "we" (whoever that is) forced Germany into a Democracy after WW1?

I missed that in my study of World History. I always thought Wilhelm yielded his throne voluntarily in November of 1918 and the Social Democrats took over and started the Wiemar Republic.