majorspark;930970 wrote:Same argument I use in other places of the world. And the correct one I might add.



Do you think if we would have huddled on our strip along the east coast all would have been well?

Quite different because well, there's no one still fighting about it. And isn't a really good comparison to our current occupations because the world was quite different in a number of ways. While I can recognize our actions as wrong now it wasn't necessarily believed that then (even though as I've said, it's still wrong even if everyone thinks it's right). The thing about Iraq and Afghanist and some of the other places we're militarily active is that we realize it's wrong now. Morally, strategically, economically it's not the right thing to do for our country to be nation building.

It's shocking how little we learned from Europe's follies with colonialism.

I Wear Pants;930982 wrote:Quite different because well, there's no one still fighting about it.

The middle east has gone long periods of time with no one fighting about it. You don't think the Mexicans want the American southwest back? And with Americans like you saying it was wrong you mightily encourage them. They will bide their time. When they have their chance they will move on it. By that I mean when someday we lose the power we possess today. They will make their move That is the history of the world.

I Wear Pants;930968 wrote:If an aggressive country starts having a problem with the United States selling things to another country they can fuck off. It doesn't go against my ideology at all.

What did we sell to the Germans. What about selling weapons to their enemies? Don't shit yourself.

I Wear Pants;930968 wrote:I believe that Germany and it's allies in WWI did pose a real threat to the US should they have been allowed to take Europe which they may have without our intervention.

Germany and its allies were in no position to take Europe. The war was locked in the trenches in Eastern France. They were killing themselves in mass for a few kilometers of ground (by the 10's of thousands). Taking Great Britain was impossible for the Germans and their allies. Their economies were faltering under the expense of war. They were locked in a war of attrition. The feigned isolationist president Wilson with his idealist view of a league of nations did not want to be left out of the negotiation table. Wilson knew he had to get in the game and wanted a seat at the table. I understand why. Our intervention in WWI goes against your anti-interventionist policies.

It cost the US about 120,000 dead Americans to get a seat at the negotiating table. A far greater price than all the recent wars combined. Yet for some reason you herald this American intervention. Germany and its axis allies possessed no direct threat to the North American continent. Yet you argue for American intervention. Why? Don't get me wrong I understand the world. I just can't wrap my brains around your hypocrisy.

I Wear Pants;930968 wrote:Very different then "we like the shit that's buried in their ground so we'll just carpet bomb the fuck out of them and say the place was covered in terrorists."

Before we knew about the shit underground we liked the shit above ground. The potential of the shit underground was just becoming a reality to the nations of the world during this war.

You're saying we didn't know there was oil in Iraq until after we started the war? I call bullshit on that.

I Wear Pants;931488 wrote:You're saying we didn't know there was oil in Iraq until after we started the war? I call bull**** on that.

I think he was talking about WWI- at least that's how I read it.

Before we knew about the **** underground we liked the **** above ground. The potential of the **** underground was just becoming a reality to the nations of the world during this war.

jhay78;931493 wrote:I think he was talking about WWI- at least that's how I read it.

Winner!

Then why did you quote my thing there? I was talking about Iraq.

I Wear Pants;931512 wrote:Then why did you quote my thing there? I was talking about Iraq.

Just pointing out that before there was oil we were after things above ground. Just ask the American Indians and the Mexicans.

majorspark;931517 wrote:Just pointing out that before there was oil we were after things above ground. Just ask the American Indians and the Mexicans.

I was talking about Iraq. Not other situations. And like I said, were were in the wrong in those situations, the United States does not have any right to resources, land, whatever that are not ours and we have no right to force anybody to trade with us.

majorspark;931015 wrote:What did we sell to the Germans. What about selling weapons to their enemies? Don't **** yourself.



Germany and its allies were in no position to take Europe. The war was locked in the trenches in Eastern France. They were killing themselves in mass for a few kilometers of ground (by the 10's of thousands). Taking Great Britain was impossible for the Germans and their allies. Their economies were faltering under the expense of war. They were locked in a war of attrition. The feigned isolationist president Wilson with his idealist view of a league of nations did not want to be left out of the negotiation table. Wilson knew he had to get in the game and wanted a seat at the table. I understand why. Our intervention in WWI goes against your anti-interventionist policies.

It cost the US about 120,000 dead Americans to get a seat at the negotiating table. A far greater price than all the recent wars combined. Yet for some reason you herald this American intervention. Germany and its axis allies possessed no direct threat to the North American continent. Yet you argue for American intervention. Why? Don't get me wrong I understand the world. I just can't wrap my brains around your hypocrisy.



Before we knew about the **** underground we liked the **** above ground. The potential of the **** underground was just becoming a reality to the nations of the world during this war.

Wilson entered the War because the bankers ordered him to do so. All the other nonsensical reasons are window dressing. Only WWII was worth fighting in the 20th Century.

World War II would have never happened if we didn't get involved in World War I.

Cleveland Buck;931774 wrote:World War II would have never happened if we didn't get involved in World War I.

I admit I don't know all that much about WWII. However, what's the reasoning behind this?

Once the United States entered WWI and amassed their numbers in Europe, the stalemate that had been going on for years was finally broken and the Allies pushed the German lines back into Germany and were able to call for Germany's unconditional surrender. The Germans were forced to accept blame for the entire war in the Treaty of Versailles and were forced to pay heavy reparations to the countries involved and to disarm and concede territory.

This heavy debt burden placed on them contributed a great deal to the economic meltdown Germany faced in the 1920s, which along with the humiliating terms they were forced to agree to after the first world war, led to the rise of National Socialism and Adolf Hitler.

If we don't get involved, the stalemate probably would have continued for a while before they gave up and decided to negotiate a peace that wasn't so one sided. it wouldn't have been so easy for Hitler to take power if the German people weren't so destitute. Also, much of Hitler's motivation for the Third Reich was to undo the devastating terms Germany had to swallow in the Versailles Treaty. Chances are good there would have never been a Nazi Germany.

I can certainly agree, then, that it would have been less likely, but it still would have been possible, I would think.

O-Trap;931855 wrote:I can certainly agree, then, that it would have been less likely, but it still would have been possible, I would think.

It would have been possible, but the German depression in the 20s wouldn't have been as severe and Hitler wouldn't have had the motivation himself or the rallying cry to recruit followers. It would have been very unlikely.

Cleveland Buck;931868 wrote:It would have been possible, but the German depression in the 20s wouldn't have been as severe and Hitler wouldn't have had the motivation himself or the rallying cry to recruit followers. It would have been very unlikely.

Fair enough.

Footwedge;931765 wrote:Wilson entered the War because the bankers ordered him to do so.

Statements like this make you look like a loon. If banks had the power to order Wilson to enter the war, why not do so in 1914 and maximize profits? Wilson asked congress to declare war. He and the US congress are the only ones who gave the order. Your ilk never cease to amaze me. Government just can't be blamed. It must be that government was merely following orders from some behind the curtain evil capitalist banker seeking to maximize his profits.

majorspark;932028 wrote:Statements like this make you look like a loon. If banks had the power to order Wilson to enter the war, why not do so in 1914 and maximize profits? Wilson asked congress to declare war. He and the US congress are the only ones who gave the order. Your ilk never cease to amaze me. Government just can't be blamed. It must be that government was merely following orders from some behind the curtain evil capitalist banker seeking to maximize his profits.

Get over yourself there champ. I never blame the government? Where did that come from? The bankers funded both sides of the war. War is BIG BUSINESS....and if you think for one lousy stinkin minute that they didn't control Wilson, well then I can't help you.

U Boats Shmu Boats. Wilson sent those supply boats knowing full well Germany would sink them. He needed an excuse...and he orchestrated one.
The US had no dog in that fight. Many, many Americans thought if we entered the war, we should side with Germany...not the Allies.

Blinders....

I Wear Pants;931526 wrote:I was talking about Iraq. Not other situations. And like I said, were were in the wrong in those situations, the United States does not have any right to resources, land, whatever that are not ours and we have no right to force anybody to trade with us.

Not accoirding to the band of neocons who put into place the Project for New Century America. It was all about kicking ass all over the world.

Footwedge;932029 wrote:U Boats Shmu Boats. Wilson sent those supply boats knowing full well Germany would sink them. He needed an excuse...and he orchestrated one.
The US had no dog in that fight. Many, many Americans thought if we entered the war, we should side with Germany...not the Allies.

Then why not enter the war in 1915 with the sinking of the Lusitania? Many Americans were killed. Instead Wilson negotiated with the Germans. You claim the banks ordered our intervention. Our declaration of war was overwhelming in congress. You expect us sane people to believe that some capitalist banker boogeymen ordered Wilson to ask for a declaration of war. And those same capitalist banker boogeymen ordered hundreds of congressmen to vote to declare war. Whatever you are smoking I would not mind trying it. I'd like to know how it feels to divorce oneself from reality.

Footwedge;932029 wrote:The bankers funded both sides of the war. War is BIG BUSINESS.

If this is the case then why would they want our military involved to bring an end to their cash cow. A war of attrition for many years longer. US supplying the military stalemate. Getting the US involved does on look good for the war business.

majorspark;932043 wrote:If this is the case then why would they want our military involved to bring an end to their cash cow. A war of attrition for many years longer. US supplying the military stalemate. Getting the US involved does on look good for the war business.

The Federal Reserve was formed in 1913...under Woodrow's watch. Coincidence? The Federal Reserve printed money in cahoots with the 12 Central Banks...formed under Woodrow's watch. Coincidence? War bonds were sold by the gazillions...in preparation for the entry into WWI. The Bankers collected money {interest) from these War Bonds. Coincidence?

Woodrow was against intervention before he was for it. Coincidence? Call me a loon any time you want to.

The most decorated Marine of his time....must have smoked the same stuff as me, eh? LOL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3_EXqJ8f-0

Footwedge;932050 wrote:The Federal Reserve was formed in 1913...under Woodrow's watch. Coincidence? The Federal Reserve printed money in cahoots with the 12 Central Banks...formed under Woodrow's watch. Coincidence? War bonds were sold by the gazillions...in preparation for the entry into WWI. The Bankers collected money {interest) from these War Bonds. Coincidence?

Woodrow was against intervention before he was for it. Coincidence? Call me a loon any time you want to.

I have my issues with the creation of the fed. I'll save that for another day. You are asking sane people to believe that these bankers can order not just the US president, but hundreds of members of congress to do their bidding. I have no doubt they could twist the arms of a few, but the whole damn federal government? With vast majorities of congress voting for it on order of the banks. Lunacy.

Footwedge;932051 wrote:The most decorated Marine of his time....must have smoked the same stuff as me, eh? LOL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3_EXqJ8f-0

You have my argument concerning our involvement in WWI. The dude in the video acts like a loon. Thats right I said it. I agree with him on some points. Mainly WWI. This idea that war is nothing more than corporations pulling the strings for profits is idiocy. People fight wars. They are not just sheep going off to the the slaughter. Most believe in the cause. I don't know about you but I will not kill or die for something I don't believe in.

You think posting someone who has served in the military and his opinion should be without rebuke. History is full of warmongers who donned the uniform. Hitler faced death on the battlefields of WWI. Hitler put his life on the line to over through the German government. Point being not everyone who has been in the shit is right nor does their opinion carry any greater weight in politics. The exception being military tactics on the ground in a current military engagement.