The Flag that Barack Obama won't wear

Palomar · 2008-03-28 07:18:32

Therefore, a judgment made about a person is less likely to be accurate if that judgment was made based on a 10 second sound bite.

Do we grant the same to Jerry Falwell (now deceased) and Pat Robertson?

It is completely disingenuous to say that Wright has "ranted and railed" against the US for 20 years. When watched in their proper context, the two speeches quoted so often on the news don't seem so outrageous.

I think strongly implying America deserved 9/11 is rather outrageous (all those airline passengers and folks in the Twin Towers deserved to die because of Hiroshima & Nagasaki? Osama bin Laden is on video tape saying the same thing). Falwell & Robertson also said as much and they rightfully got into hot water for it. Rev. Wright shouldn't be exempt.

In fact, I've only been able to find two speeches where he says anything even close to "anti-american." There are a great number of things he says in other sermons that I find myself agreeing with. And none of his sermons were the type of racist, anti-American "hate-speeches" that everyone loves to talk about.

I checked the church web site after the story broke. They openly claim to be pro-African and anti-European. Is that a clever way of saying "pro-black and anti-white"? They also don't fly the American flag outside their building.

Also, when I first checked the church's web site it was highly pro-black, pro-black. For blacks. The next day all that was GONE...and now they're "inclusive" towards Hispanics, Asians [everyone but Caucasians apparently; Caucasians aren't mentioned ]

Actions speak louder than words.

It's also worth noting that Ron Paul was automatically trounced for purportedly having made nasty remarks about gays and blacks in the early '90s. Once THAT came to light (via papers), his candidacy was doomed.

Tom Kalbfus · 2008-03-28 13:07:42

A difference should be pointed out, imo: If a person or group criticizes something about the US in a constructive way with the intention of bettering the nation for all...that's one thing.
But otherwise? Yes (regardless of color, ethnicity, whatever) if they're THAT disgruntled with the US and hate it...leave. Who's making them stay? It's a big world out there; surely they can find some place more pleasing/fitting to live.
Consider it like a divorce: If there's irreconcilable differences and animosity, end the relationship.
An acquaintance of my husband's from Mexico has recently become a US citizen. Now all he does is complain and whine. Well, Mexico is still there and only 50 miles away...
::Edit:: What particularly troubles me about the Obama situation is a lot of Americans don't seem to care that he was/is affiliated with an anti-American church for 20 years. Hello??
I really do not understand this. Is it self-loathing/hatred as a result of the ongoing Iraq War?

It has been fashionable among the Left to blame America first, the Iraq War has been simply there opportunity to do so. I also remember them criticising America's involvement in the Balkan War also, and how the Serbs could do no wrong in their eyes, despite all the "ethnic cleansing".

The problem is not the Iraq War, the problem is the American Left and by extension, the International Left. It is a political fad, not too different from the anti-semitism of the 1930s and 40s. Stupid American leftists have jumped onto this bandwagon not realizing that the target of their own hatred is by extention themselves as American citizens. If they are rooting for Kadaffi, and Al Quada, and Iran and what those people want is to kill Americans, the Left wing Americans don't seem to realize that it is themselves as American who are in the crosshairs. I'd rather see liberalism adopt a more positive track. This anti-American, "America must lose" attitude is what really alienates me. I can no more understand them than a Jew could understand a NAZI. Being an American is part of my identity, some Americans think of themselves as "citizens of the World" and not Americans, but America's enemies make no such distinction.

Tom Kalbfus · 2008-03-28 13:10:44

Therefore, a judgment made about a person is less likely to be accurate if that judgment was made based on a 10 second sound bite.
Do we grant the same to Jerry Falwell (now deceased) and Pat Robertson?
It is completely disingenuous to say that Wright has "ranted and railed" against the US for 20 years. When watched in their proper context, the two speeches quoted so often on the news don't seem so outrageous.
I think strongly implying America deserved 9/11 is rather outrageous (all those airline passengers and folks in the Twin Towers deserved to die because of Hiroshima & Nagasaki? Osama bin Laden is on video tape saying the same thing). Falwell & Robertson also said as much and they rightfully got into hot water for it. Rev. Wright shouldn't be exempt.
In fact, I've only been able to find two speeches where he says anything even close to "anti-american." There are a great number of things he says in other sermons that I find myself agreeing with. And none of his sermons were the type of racist, anti-American "hate-speeches" that everyone loves to talk about.
I checked the church web site after the story broke. They openly claim to be pro-African and anti-European. Is that a clever way of saying "pro-black and anti-white"? They also don't fly the American flag outside their building.
Also, when I first checked the church's web site it was highly pro-black, pro-black. For blacks. The next day all that was GONE...and now they're "inclusive" towards Hispanics, Asians [everyone but Caucasians apparently; Caucasians aren't mentioned ]
Actions speak louder than words.
It's also worth noting that Ron Paul was automatically trounced for purportedly having made nasty remarks about gays and blacks in the early '90s. Once THAT came to light (via papers), his candidacy was doomed.

The rainbow coalition is breaking apart. No doubt some of those Europeans that Wright hates would soundly support him and his cause. Stupidity knows no bounds it seems.

Palomar · 2008-03-28 14:35:51

some Americans think of themselves as "citizens of the World" and not Americans, but America's enemies make no such distinction.

Very true.

This anti-American, "America must lose" attitude is what really alienates me. I can no more understand them than a Jew could understand a NAZI.

Also known as "cutting your own throat." Not very smart.

Stormrage · 2008-05-08 09:40:46

What we have is a large peacekeeping mission at the invite of the elected government. Not at all unlike the dozens of operations in the Balkins in the 90's. For some reason, those operations were never called occupations.

No the original poster was right. It is an occupation. It's not a peacekeeping mission because the UN haven't sent any troops. The Iraqis have no choose if they want the Americans to stay or not. The non Kurdish populace want them out and only the Kurds and parts of the Government want them to stay.

What it did do do is force Osama to engage us in Iraq to try to foil our efforts, because our ultimate successes would be a blow to his ideology. If you really think the Osama wouldn't try to do what says he would, please say so.
Again, what is one to conclude if the policies he stands for are blatantly harmful?

No it didn't. What it did was provide Osama a fertile ground to attack Americans. Before 2003 Al-Qaeda was shattered with the remains hiding in Afghanistan mountains and in Pakistan. What the Iraq war did was provide them a population that hated the US. Gave them several thousands of tons of supplies due to American forces focusing on the Oil infrastructure and not the Iraqi Army caches. It also provided them a nice area to radicalise Muslim Youths.

Terrorist don't like competition. Unless they worked for him. Despite not being the Sunni Koran thumper the Osama would liked, he still persecuted the Shiite majority. Ultimately its a different edge to the same sword.

Saddam persecuted people Sunni,Shia and Kurd for one reason and one reason alone. If they challenged his power they had to go. The Kurds in 1980s became treasonous and helped Iran invade Northern Iraq. Saddam killed them and gassed them. During the Iran-Iraq war Shia men were giving their lives to Iraq especially Southern Iraq where they were the majority from Iran.

In the early 90s when the Shia and the Kurds revolted and killed his soldiers,police officers and intelligence agents. He massacred them.

Did he immediately bring all US troops in Europe home immedately after the Germans signed the Surrender Document? Did he leave Europe to the Russians? I'm sure Stalin would have been happy if Harry S. Truman immediately declared victory and brought all US troops home.

There was a difference between Post WW2 Europe and Iraq.

1: Germany officially declared war on USA even though USA were waging war secretly on the Axis nations it didn't declare war.
2: Germany was occupied. Thats why US troops were there.
3: After the Occupation ended the troops stayed to defend Germany from USSR.

Now has Austin said. Iraq IS occupied.

What about Japan, we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the Japanese signed the Surrender document, did all US troops return home right then. Were the Japanese looking around afterwards wondering where all the Americans went?

Ah the biggest war crime in history to go unpunished. Well the Japanese surrendered because the Soviets invaded and defeated their troops not because of the nukes. Besides US couldn't leave. There were two giant Communist nations right next to Japan and several other small ones near by.

I learnt a long time ago that New Mars has pretty conservative posters but even you guys can't still be believing the crap that the Republicans spew after 8 years.

Oh and the Obama thing. Obama has denounced Rev. Wright who speaks 80% truth and 20% crazy talk. The real candidate you should be worrying about is McCain. He gladly accepted the endorsement of John Hagee. The man who hates Muslims like me,Catholics and thinks that New Orleans Hurricane was a punishment from God.

bobunf · 2008-05-09 09:25:37

“the Japanese surrendered because the Soviets invaded and defeated their troops not because of the nukes.”

That is most historically inaccurate. It’s ridiculous to suggest that on August 15, 1945 a Soviet invasion of Manchuria was more of a deciding factor for the Japanese than the imminent possibilities of more atom bombs and a massive home island invasion with the potential for 10 million Japanese deaths.

Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931 and continued aggressive war against China for the next 14 years.

Japan declared war on the United States and others on December 7, 1941.

After pushing the Japanese back from their conquests in the Pacific early in the war, the US was very openly and obviously preparing a massive invasion of the Japanese home islands. An invasion which could have resulted in 10 million deaths, or more, mostly Japanese. On July 11, 1945 the Allies issued a declaration demanding Japan’s unconditional surrender and stating that "the alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction."

Truman had let Stalin know that the U.S. had acquired the atomic bomb. Stalin probably already knew this from Soviet spying activities in the United States, and this knowledge of Japan’s pending “prompt and utter destruction” undoubtedly speeded Stalin’s entry into the war. He was also the recipient of urgent Japanese peace overtures, which he told the Americans about, but not of the urgency.

The Americans, with their code breading abilities, were aware that an internal struggle was going on in Japan, that Japanese cables insisted on the preservation of the imperial institution and contained “fight-to-the-death rather than accept unconditional surrender” rhetoric. After nearly four years of the most bitter war, they concentrated on the later and proceeded with plans to drop the bomb.

On August 6, 1945 the United States dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima; on August 8 the Soviets invaded Manchuria (not Japan). On August 9 the United States dropped an atomic bomb on Nagasaki. On August 15, with the US poised to invade the home islands (and, as far as the Japanese knew, poised to drop more aom bombs), Japan surrendered.

In August of 1945 Manchuria, for Japan, was very much a side show. The complete instantaneous destruction of two major cities on their home islands were the very central focus. It’s ridiculous to suggest that a Soviet invasion of Manchuria was more of a deciding factor for the Japanese than the imminent possibilities of more atom bombs and massive home island invasion.

The story of these conflicts is important enough and difficult enough that it does not need to be obscured with absurdities.

Bob

bobunf · 2008-05-09 09:39:58

“US couldn't leave. There were two giant Communist nations right next to Japan and several other small ones near by.”

In 1945 China was not a Communist nation. Could you name two of the “several other small ones near by?”

The US did leave in 1950. Most US troops went from Japan to South Korea when North Korea invaded the South. The new Japanese government was given sovereignty over its land and people.

Amazing that five years after the end of the largest conflict in human history, the Americans could just send their soldiers away to a new conflict without a worry about insurgency.

Bob

cIclops · 2008-05-09 10:20:02

In 1945 China was divided between the Nationalists under Chiang Kai-shek and the Communists under Mao Zedong. They had been been fighting since 1927 but made a truce after the Japanese invaded in 1939. The truce broke down in 1946 and by 1949 the communists had complete control of mainland China.

Many US forces at many bases were stationed in Japan during the Korean war, including the US Seventh fleet. Japan was (and still is) a highly controlled, mono cultural society. Emperor Hirohito was left in power in order to ensure there was no insurgency.

Stormrage · 2008-05-09 12:10:02

“the Japanese surrendered because the Soviets invaded and defeated their troops not because of the nukes.”
That is most historically inaccurate. It’s ridiculous to suggest that on August 15, 1945 a Soviet invasion of Manchuria was more of a deciding factor for the Japanese than the imminent possibilities of more atom bombs and a massive home island invasion with the potential for 10 million Japanese deaths.

I think to think other wise is just an example of Americans over inflating themselves in their contribution to WW1 and WW2. The use of nuclear bombs in Japan a war crime in my eyes that should have led to Truman being hanged killed less people the the Tokyo fire bombings killed more people then the nukes. If the Japanese weren't willing to surrender to the fire-bombs what makes you think they would surrender to nuclear attacks that killed less people?

Japan declared war on the United States and others on December 7, 1941.

I would like to add after the US acted like an asshole to Japan which pushed it into attacking Pearl Harbour.

On July 11, 1945 the Allies issued a declaration demanding Japan’s unconditional surrender and stating that "the alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction."

By the way, I also consider unconditional surrenders to be war crimes. Giving a nation an unconditional surrender will make it fight to the very end. In fact I was watching the World at War and it turned out that a large segment of Germans were against the war until Roosevelt blurted out the unconditional surrender. This made the remaining non Nazi Germans line behind the war because they had no other choice.

The Americans, with their code breading abilities, were aware that an internal struggle was going on in Japan, that Japanese cables insisted on the preservation of the imperial institution and contained “fight-to-the-death rather than accept unconditional surrender” rhetoric.

That what you get if you give nations an unconditional surrender.

“US couldn't leave. There were two giant Communist nations right next to Japan and several other small ones near by.”
In 1945 China was not a Communist nation. Could you name two of the “several other small ones near by?”

Do you know your history? In 1945 Japan was an Occupied country. The Occupation ended in 1952. In 1945 Americans were to busy raping Japanese women to care about their well being. But in 1952 China and the Soviet Union were the enemy and the Japanese were innocent people who could be invaded and conquered by the Communists.

The US did leave in 1950. Most US troops went from Japan to South Korea when North Korea invaded the South. The new Japanese government was given sovereignty over its land and people.

It wasn't actually. Parts of Japan was ruled by America. Notably Okinawa. They only gave it back in the 70s.

Amazing that five years after the end of the largest conflict in human history, the Americans could just send their soldiers away to a new conflict without a worry about insurgency.

Actually they did worry about it. In fact a rule was sent that any Korean who didn't look like a soldier found in the walking near or to American soldiers was to be considered hostile and be killed immediately. So if you happened to be a Korean civilian walking to Americans for help tough luck.

Commodore · 2008-05-09 12:44:45

“the Japanese surrendered because the Soviets invaded and defeated their troops not because of the nukes.”
That is most historically inaccurate. It’s ridiculous to suggest that on August 15, 1945 a Soviet invasion of Manchuria was more of a deciding factor for the Japanese than the imminent possibilities of more atom bombs and a massive home island invasion with the potential for 10 million Japanese deaths.
I think to think other wise is just an example of Americans over inflating themselves in their contribution to WW1 and WW2. The use of nuclear bombs in Japan a war crime in my eyes that should have led to Truman being hanged killed less people the the Tokyo fire bombings killed more people then the nukes. If the Japanese weren't willing to surrender to the fire-bombs what makes you think they would surrender to nuclear attacks that killed less people?

Because it was done not with an armada of aircraft, but with a single plane.

The Japanese were not getting anything productive out of China, and couldn't evacuate thanks to US subs. The Soviets outmatched the Japanese on the mainland in everyway, but were not a threat to the Japanese home island because they lacked the naval transport capacity. Only the US had that capability, and until the nukes, the Japaneses thought they could ward off an invasion by making such an operation so expensive in man and material.

Japan declared war on the United States and others on December 7, 1941.
I would like to add after the US acted like an asshole to Japan which pushed it into attacking Pearl Harbour.

By denying them the resources to rape mainland China? You can't be serious.

On July 11, 1945 the Allies issued a declaration demanding Japan’s unconditional surrender and stating that "the alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction."
By the way, I also consider unconditional surrenders to be war crimes. Giving a nation an unconditional surrender will make it fight to the very end. In fact I was watching the World at War and it turned out that a large segment of Germans were against the war until Roosevelt blurted out the unconditional surrender. This made the remaining non Nazi Germans line behind the war because they had no other choice.

Yeah, because ceasefires and armistices have worked so well ever since.

bobunf · 2008-05-09 13:59:33

Since the fire bombing of Tokyo killed more civilians than the atom bombs, wasn’t it an even worse war crime? Shouldn’t Roosevelt have been hanged?

But even before that, there was the bombing of Dresden in which the British were no shy participants. Shouldn’t Churchill have been hanged? Churchill could also be charged a whole of lot of earlier bombings; mostly at night when they even see what they were bombing. How can you get more indiscriminate than that?

Stalin, of course, had a plethora of things to be hanged for.

I imagine we could also get Gandi for something. Hang him too.

I think your understanding is ridiculous and disrespectful of the more than 60 million people who perished in this greatest conflict in human history.

Bob

Stormrage · 2008-05-09 14:09:46

The Japanese were not getting anything productive out of China, and couldn't evacuate thanks to US subs. The Soviets outmatched the Japanese on the mainland in everyway, but were not a threat to the Japanese home island because they lacked the naval transport capacity. Only the US had that capability, and until the nukes, the Japaneses thought they could ward off an invasion by making such an operation so expensive in man and material.

The Soviets did have the military capacity to attack Japanese Islands. In fact they attacked several small Islands. How ever the Japanese surrendered before the Soviets got to big Islands (not counting Sakhalin). Besides several colonies in the mainland were considered part of Japan. Especially Korea. To take Korea would be to take Hokkaido.

By denying them the resources to rape mainland China? You can't be serious.

Denying them resources so that America could commercially exploit China. America had the same problem with UK and France who had large colonies. The only differences between the British and the French was that they considered Japanese lower then Europeans.

Yeah, because ceasefires and armistices have worked so well ever since.

Much better then bombing cities and killing thousands of innocent civilians so that their morale can be reduced. YEAH!!!! In the end we can accuse them of war crimes and ignore our own.

The greatest injustice in the world wasn't letting the Emperor go. It was that British,Soviet and Americans were hanged like the war criminals they were along with the Nazis and the Japanese.

Since the fire bombing of Tokyo killed more civilians than the atom bombs, wasn’t it an even worse war crime? Shouldn’t Roosevelt have been hanged?
But even before that, there was the bombing of Dresden in which the British were no shy participants. Shouldn’t Churchill have been hanged? Churchill could also be charged a whole of lot of earlier bombings; mostly at night when they even see what they were bombing. How can you get more indiscriminate than that?

All indiscriminate attacks on civilians should have been punished by hanging. The Luftwaffe reduced Rotterdamn and Eastern European cities to rubble. The people responsible for it should have been hanged and only one died that I know of (Goering). The Allies should have also hanged their own leaders like Eisenhower,Truman and Churchill.

Believe me. I have no love for Churchill. He was one of the greatest assholes in the history of the world. The fact that idiots in this country I live in celebrate him is sad. The fact that Americans glorify him is even sadder.

Churchill was there when Stalin and the poles planned to ethnically cleanse the Germans. When he didn't like Soviets he managed to make that an issue.

bobunf · 2008-05-09 16:33:46

"The Allies should have also hanged their own leaders like Eisenhower,Truman and Churchill."

What about Roosevelt and Stalin?

Bob

Stormrage · 2008-05-09 16:57:55

"The Allies should have also hanged their own leaders like Eisenhower,Truman and Churchill."
What about Roosevelt and Stalin?
Bob

Those were examples. Eisenhower was only General so I thought by adding him and some leaders it would make it obvious that I wanted them all to face justice. Roosevelt and Stalin should have faced justice. In fact I can't think of two non Axis leaders who deserve to be hanged other then these two. Stalin for his ethnic cleansing,persecution and allowing his men to rape 2 million German women. In fact he encouraged it.

Roosevelt for being not knowing the what neutrality actually means and allowing the ethnic cleansing of Germans. Oh and interning Japanese,Italians and Germans who haven't done anything during the war. The last one was released in 1948 If I remember properly. 3 years after the war ended.

Commodore · 2008-05-09 17:09:03

The Japanese were not getting anything productive out of China, and couldn't evacuate thanks to US subs. The Soviets outmatched the Japanese on the mainland in everyway, but were not a threat to the Japanese home island because they lacked the naval transport capacity. Only the US had that capability, and until the nukes, the Japaneses thought they could ward off an invasion by making such an operation so expensive in man and material.
The Soviets did have the military capacity to attack Japanese Islands. In fact they attacked several small Islands. How ever the Japanese surrendered before the Soviets got to big Islands (not counting Sakhalin). Besides several colonies in the mainland were considered part of Japan. Especially Korea. To take Korea would be to take Hokkaido.

The strength of the Soviet Army was in its mechanized armor forged in Europe, which was used to great effect in Manchuria, but of little use in amphibious landings. What landings did occur were a diversionary landing in Korea, and landings in Sakhakin and Kuril. The former was largely pointless given the success of the land based advance, and the latter didn't get very far until after the Japanese surrender in mid-August, after which the Soviets gleefully took the rest for sport unopposed.

An invasion of Hokkaido, would have been next to impossible given the size of the Soviet Pacific Fleet.

By denying them the resources to rape mainland China? You can't be serious.
Denying them resources so that America could commercially exploit China. America had the same problem with UK and France who had large colonies. The only differences between the British and the French was that they considered Japanese lower then Europeans.

None of the Western Allies had large colonies in China, or colonies at all. Only a few offshore trading posts like Hong Kong and Macou. And by 1941 they were probably welcome in providing aid in defense from both the Moaists and the Japanese.

Yeah, because ceasefires and armistices have worked so well ever since.
Much better then bombing cities and killing thousands of innocent civilians so that their morale can be reduced. YEAH!!!! In the end we can accuse them of war crimes and ignore our own.

Take about any conflict since WW2, and the only ones that decisively conclude the issue in question are the ones fought untill the other side gave up completely. The rest involve the two sides going back to their corners and rearming to fight another day, resulting in more death and destruction in the long run.

Since the fire bombing of Tokyo killed more civilians than the atom bombs, wasn’t it an even worse war crime? Shouldn’t Roosevelt have been hanged?
But even before that, there was the bombing of Dresden in which the British were no shy participants. Shouldn’t Churchill have been hanged? Churchill could also be charged a whole of lot of earlier bombings; mostly at night when they even see what they were bombing. How can you get more indiscriminate than that?
All indiscriminate attacks on civilians should have been punished by hanging. The Luftwaffe reduced Rotterdamn and Eastern European cities to rubble. The people responsible for it should have been hanged and only one died that I know of (Goering). The Allies should have also hanged their own leaders like Eisenhower,Truman and Churchill.
Believe me. I have no love for Churchill. He was one of the greatest assholes in the history of the world. The fact that idiots in this country I live in celebrate him is sad. The fact that Americans glorify him is even sadder.
Churchill was there when Stalin and the poles planned to ethnically cleanse the Germans. When he didn't like Soviets he managed to make that an issue.

It's statements like this that show a complete lack of understanding of warfare of the period. It was TOTAL war. That means everyone from the GI in France, to Rosy the Riveter in Seattle, was a vital part of the war machine, and thus a legitimate military target.

Furthermore, most of those tried faced charges not related the execution of military action, but for crimes against humanity of their own populations or those already conquered. The same of course can be said of the Soviets, and any other leaders who do not derive their sovereignty from the consent of the governed.

This is a far cry from the complexity of modern military hardware, were it takes a decade to develop systems, months to build it, and weeks to deploy it, and its a tiny fraction of the civilian population that is involved the process, and all of them are just as fiercely guarded as military bases.

It's a shame that such ignorance and misguided anger is aimed those who responsible for the very survival of our way of life.

Stormrage · 2008-05-09 17:42:44

None of the Western Allies had large colonies in China, or colonies at all. Only a few offshore trading posts like Hong Kong and Macou. And by 1941 they were probably welcome in providing aid in defense from both the Moaists and the Japanese.

I didn't necessarily mean China. I was talking about the Empires the Europeans had.

The strength of the Soviet Army was in its mechanized armor forged in Europe, which was used to great effect in Manchuria, but of little use in amphibious landings. What landings did occur were a diversionary landing in Korea, and landings in Sakhakin and Kuril. The former was largely pointless given the success of the land based advance, and the latter didn't get very far until after the Japanese surrender in mid-August, after which the Soviets gleefully took the rest for sport unopposed.
An invasion of Hokkaido, would have been next to impossible given the size of the Soviet Pacific Fleet.

No. If I remember correctly the Soviet Union was very serious about invading the Japanese Islands. It was the surrender that stopped them. I don't know why they planned it since the Japanese were resisting fiercely in the smaller islands (what the Americans feared).

Take about any conflict since WW2, and the only ones that decisively conclude the issue in question are the ones fought untill the other side gave up completely. The rest involve the two sides going back to their corners and rearming to fight another day, resulting in more death and destruction in the long run.

I'm thinking at the moment of the Colonial wars that happened in the 50s-80s. Especially Rhodesia. That ended with a peace agreement. The Blacks wouldn't kill the white settlers and the White Rhodies would yield to majority control.

Treaties are only has strong has they are made to be.

It's statements like this that show a complete lack of understanding of warfare of the period. It was TOTAL war. That means everyone from the GI in France, to Rosy the Riveter in Seattle, was a vital part of the war machine, and thus a legitimate military target.

This statements shows that your trying to reason burning to death innocent civilians. The Axis declared Total War and they were the bad guys. The good guys are meant to act good. There is no point of parroting about freedom and respect of human dignity if you don't respect others.

Furthermore, most of those tried faced charges not related the execution of military action, but for crimes against humanity of their own populations or those already conquered. The same of course can be said of the Soviets, and any other leaders who do not derive their sovereignty from the consent of the governed.

There were several people charged. For example Doenitz was sent to prison for practising unrestricted warfare on enemy ships while at the same time the Allies were doing it.

It's a shame that such ignorance and misguided anger is aimed those who responsible for the very survival of our way of life.

I find that statement actually funny. The way of life in the UK and USA was never threatened. Hitler never cared for UK and USA. They didn't involve in his master scheme. They only became part of it once the UK declared war on Germany and USA started to supply UK.

bobunf · 2008-05-09 17:58:55

I don’t see the consistency in your reasoning about unconditional surrender (it discourages surrender) and your advocacy of hanging leaders, which, it seems to me, would perhaps even more powerfully discourage surrender.

In any case what about Portal, Peirse, Baldwin and Harris who ran Bomber Command, commanded, organized and directed bombing of civilian targets not only in Germany, but in occupied countries as well, particularly France?

DeGaulle who’s air force escorted the British and American bombers?

George Marshall, Chief of Staff of the US Army and Hap Arnold, the man who commanded US bombing?

MacKenzie King, Canada’s Prime Minister who sent his air force and trained pilots to help the British bomb Germany, Arthur Coningham, who commanded the 2nd Tactical Air Force?

Then of course there would be the guilty Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans and others.

We’ll get to Gandi yet.

But, with comments like “Hitler never cared for UK and USA...They only became part of it once the UK declared war on Germany and USA started to supply UK” we may not get Hitler hanged.

If those British and Americans had just minded their own business, everything would have been peachy; except maybe for the Jews and gypsies.

Do you any have Israeli candidates for hanging? Sharon’s no longer available.

Bob

Stormrage · 2008-05-09 18:29:03

If those British and Americans had just minded their own business, everything would have been peachy; except maybe for the Jews and gypsies.

Well actually the Nazis didn't think about exterminating the Jews until the 41' offensive on Russia failed. I'm not pulling this out of my ass. An Israeli holocaust expert said this in an interview to Der Spiegel. So If the Americans and the British did mind their own business the germans would have invaded Russia and conquered it easily.

Do you any have Israeli candidates for hanging? Sharon’s no longer available.

Just about every leader they have had.

In any case what about Portal, Peirse, Baldwin and Harris who ran Bomber Command, commanded, organized and directed bombing of civilian targets not only in Germany, but in occupied countries as well, particularly France?
DeGaulle who’s air force escorted the British and American bombers?
George Marshall, Chief of Staff of the US Army and Hap Arnold, the man who commanded US bombing?
MacKenzie King, Canada’s Prime Minister who sent his air force and trained pilots to help the British bomb Germany, Arthur Coningham, who commanded the 2nd Tactical Air Force?
Then of course there would be the guilty Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans and others.

Well there is a one thing to consider. Did the person give orders or did they take it? If they refused to take orders would they have been in danger and could they have changed the objective? The allies didn't try the actual nazis who did the crime. Only those who gave the orders. Despite public perception "I was only following orders" worked for many people.

I don’t see the consistency in your reasoning about unconditional surrender (it discourages surrender) and your advocacy of hanging leaders, which, it seems to me, would perhaps even more powerfully discourage surrender.

It's not inconsistent. During WW2 Goebbels printed propaganda after propaganda saying that the Alies came to tear done Germany piece by piece. Well in the end He turned out to be right. The Americans discovered the effect of the propaganda when in every single German town they entered they had to face well dug in Germans who refused to surrender. If those soldiers knew that the only people who would be affected if the war was over was the government then they would have surrendered easily. After all at their height the Nazis only got around 40% of the vote.

bobunf · 2008-05-10 01:06:22

“Nazis didn't think about exterminating the Jews until the 41' offensive on Russia failed. I'm not pulling this out of my ass. An Israeli holocaust expert said this in an interview to Der Spiegel. So If the Americans and the British did mind their own business the germans would have invaded Russia and conquered it easily.”

Either the Israeli Holocaust expert wasn’t such an expert or was misquoted. Also, the Germans would not have found the Soviets an easy conquest in the absence of Britain. The US wasn’t significantly involved until years later.

Oh, and how does failure of an invasion translate into wasting resources killing harmless people?

As for exterminating the Jews, Roma, homosexuals and the mentally unfit:

Buchenwald began operations in 1937 gradually getting better and better at killing; Auschwitz opened in 1940. Chelmo, Janowska, Majdanek, Maly Trascianiec, Sajmište and numerous other smaller camps began killing operation in 1941. There are records that in August 1941 Himmler personally witnessed 100 Jews being shot. Work commenced on the Belzec death camp in November of 1941.

Now follow the dates carefully:

Germany invaded the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941. The Germans didn’t suffer a serious reverse until November 21, 1941 (at Rostov). They didn’t suffer a serious (but by no means fatal) defeat until late December 1941 (at Moscow). By this time Germany had irrationally declared war on the United States. Up to this point the Soviet Union had received very, very little in the way of supplies from Britain or the United States, but more than a million Jews, Roma, homosexuals and the mentally unfit had been killed by the Nazis.

Even beyond this, I don’t think the invasion of the Soviet Union could be said to have failed until at least the end of 1942 when the Battle of Stalingrad had turned. Before then thousands of extermination facilities had been established, and millions of people killed.

Some expert. Some re-writing of history, pretty much ignoring all facts.

Bob

Stormrage · 2008-05-10 07:47:52

Either the Israeli Holocaust expert wasn’t such an expert or was misquoted. Also, the Germans would not have found the Soviets an easy conquest in the absence of Britain. The US wasn’t significantly involved until years later.
Oh, and how does failure of an invasion translate into wasting resources killing harmless people?

Nope. Due to the barely existing war with the UK. The Germans had to divert troops to Denmark,Holland,France,Belgium and other countries they occupied. They couldn't get their troops out and focus 100% on the Soviet Union.

The Germans managed to destroy and capture a waste amount of Soviet soldiers and their equipments even with their faulty planning. During the the war with Germany the Americans and the British were supplying the Soviets with everything they needed. That was their biggest contribution to the Eastern Front.

After the invasion they realised that the war wasn't going to be has quick has they thought.

They thought the Jews were supervise and would help their enemies.

Buchenwald began operations in 1937 gradually getting better and better at killing; Auschwitz opened in 1940. Chelmo, Janowska, Majdanek, Maly Trascianiec, Sajmište and numerous other smaller camps began killing operation in 1941. There are records that in August 1941 Himmler personally witnessed 100 Jews being shot. Work commenced on the Belzec death camp in November of 1941.

Thats not the full picture. Concentration camps existed in Germany way before the war. A lot of people including Germans were sent there for being gay,communist and one case for animal cruelty. The concentration camps people are thinking about when they say Concentration camps are extermination camps.

Chelmo started to operate at the Winter of 1941 when the offensive in Russia had already stalled and the German High command were fearing a Napoleon styled rout. Can you show me any extermination camp that existed before the invasion on the USSR?

By this time Germany had irrationally declared war on the United States.

It wasn't irrational. The Americans were most likely going to declare war on Germany. Even before the attack on Pearl Harbour the Americans were allies all but in name.

Germany invaded the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941. The Germans didn’t suffer a serious reverse until November 21, 1941 (at Rostov). They didn’t suffer a serious (but by no means fatal) defeat until late December 1941 (at Moscow). By this time Germany had irrationally declared war on the United States. Up to this point the Soviet Union had received very, very little in the way of supplies from Britain or the United States, but more than a million Jews, Roma, homosexuals and the mentally unfit had been killed by the Nazis.

The Germans actually ran into trouble early in the campaign. They underestimated the Soviet Union and were running out of supplies. While at the same time the Americans were supplying the Soviets in significant quantities. The supplies was one of the reason Hitler declared war on USA.

By the way it's hyperbole on your part to say that millions died in 6 months. That makes the Germans look lazy from 1942-1945.

I still stand by the opinion that the stalled invasion of Russia was the main cause for the holocaust. Before the Winter of 1941 the Germans sent their Death Squads in Eastern Europe to kill Jewish men,Partisans and Communists. After they decided to that they shouldn't bank on an apartheid and they decided to exterminate them.

bobunf · 2008-05-10 09:17:56

The scenario you suggust is like Alice in Wonderland. "Kill the King. Marry the Queen."

Invade Russia. Exterminate the Jews and Roma.

It's not worth discussing such issues with someone who has such a totally distorted understanding of reality.

Bob

Stormrage · 2008-05-10 11:22:31

Well I personally gave up discussing with people on New Mars cause they tend to be the kinda people who put their heads in the sand a long time ago.

Looking at your post is a good example. Wow. It's absurd that a regime would kill it's civilians when they hit a snag. Oh horrors. Lets ignore the opinion of someone who actually studies the holocaust every single working day (not me the israeli guy). I'll think I trust a bunch of guys on the net.

Edit:

I would also like to mention that anyone who actually thinks that Obama is unpatriotic because he refuses to wear the American Flag shouldn't be taken serious. I would never want to live in a country where you can't be patriotic without having to wear a flag. It's sounds like a shit country and thank God that not all Americans think like that. Those people sound like they don't actually like their country but try to rectify it by overdoing it. Jesh. Expect for the Anti-English in parts of the UK most people keep their flags at home or don't even have one. They buy it and show it off when it's football season.

Also calling Obama unpatriotic because of Wright is also stupid. Obama is a grown man and he can make his own decision. If you don't call out John McCain on his nutcase then I'll consider you racist. The only problem with Obama is that he barely attacks Hillary,his repetitive speeches and his plan to cut NASA down.

Terraformer · 2008-05-11 03:14:53

Quote:
Do you any have Israeli candidates for hanging? Sharon’s no longer available.

Just about every leader they have had.

Why are you anti Israel?

Quote:
It's statements like this that show a complete lack of understanding of warfare of the period. It was TOTAL war. That means everyone from the GI in France, to Rosy the Riveter in Seattle, was a vital part of the war machine, and thus a legitimate military target.

This statements shows that your trying to reason burning to death innocent civilians. The Axis declared Total War and they were the bad guys. The good guys are meant to act good. There is no point of parroting about freedom and respect of human dignity if you don't respect others.

Those 'Innocent Civilians' were the people manufacturing Warplanes, Shells, bombs, tanks, growing food for the front... It's called 'strategic bombing'. The aim is to get rid of the supporting infrastructure to make the country surrender.

Stormrage · 2008-05-11 06:47:16

Why are you anti Israel?

I'm not exactly anti-Israeli. I just think their political situation is one of the dumbest thing I have seen in my life. The ring wingers in that country have to much power. They never want to take the high ground. They continue to help Settlers ruin the lives of Palestinians (who even to the average Israeli see has crazy). They want to show the world that Israelis are innocent victims of terrorism yet they don't seem to understand that people will link their actions to the Palestinians.

The current crap going on in Gaza can be solved right now if they just took the bloody peace deal offered by Hamas. But they refuse to talk to them calling them calling them a terrorist organisation (ignoring the fact that Fatah was a terrorists organisation when they talked to Israel and still are tills this day). How can they complain about rocket attacks on civilians when there isn't a reason for Hamas to stop attacking? They consistently make the lives of Palestinians in the West Bank harder just to help the settlers. People who even ordinary Israelis consider crazy.

That whole situation is a stupid mess. What they need is a Nixon.

Those 'Innocent Civilians' were the people manufacturing Warplanes, Shells, bombs, tanks, growing food for the front... It's called 'strategic bombing'. The aim is to get rid of the supporting infrastructure to make the country surrender.

I was raised has a muslim. Despite what people think about Islam there are strict rules in warfare. One of them is that if an attack can't discriminate against civilians (people who aren't fighting in the way but may be helping with the war effort) and soldiers then you shouldn't attack. Strategic bombing is one of them. Bombing an entire city to take out war factories in immoral and evil. I realise at that time the bombs in use weren't smart bombs.

Another thing that gnaws on me are attacks for reason of morale and training. Lubeck was bombed to pieces by the RAF to lower the morale of the Germans and to train the British pilots

Terraformer · 2008-05-11 10:40:58

Ah, you're a Muslim. Now I see why you're so anti Israel.

What did those 'Palestinians' (Palestine is just the whole area, so Israelies are Palestinians as well) do when Israel left the Gaza Strip? Tore down all the buildings, then complained that there was nowhere to live. I have no sympathy for such idiotic behavior.

Despite what people think about Islam there are strict rules in warfare. One of them is that if an attack can't discriminate against civilians (people who aren't fighting in the way but may be helping with the war effort) and soldiers then you shouldn't attack. Strategic bombing is one of them.

Unless those Civilians are non-muslims. Then it's all fine and dandy. I've read the Quar'an. I know what Old Mo' taught.

Don't try saying Islam wasn't building an Empire. History is against you if you do.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2008-03-28 07:18:32

Re: The Flag that Barack Obama won't wear

#52 2008-03-28 13:07:42

Re: The Flag that Barack Obama won't wear

#53 2008-03-28 13:10:44

Re: The Flag that Barack Obama won't wear

#54 2008-03-28 14:35:51

Re: The Flag that Barack Obama won't wear

#55 2008-05-08 09:40:46

Re: The Flag that Barack Obama won't wear

#56 2008-05-09 09:25:37

Re: The Flag that Barack Obama won't wear

#57 2008-05-09 09:39:58

Re: The Flag that Barack Obama won't wear

#58 2008-05-09 10:20:02

Re: The Flag that Barack Obama won't wear

#59 2008-05-09 12:10:02

Re: The Flag that Barack Obama won't wear

#60 2008-05-09 12:44:45

Re: The Flag that Barack Obama won't wear

#61 2008-05-09 13:59:33

Re: The Flag that Barack Obama won't wear

#62 2008-05-09 14:09:46

Re: The Flag that Barack Obama won't wear

#63 2008-05-09 16:33:46

Re: The Flag that Barack Obama won't wear

#64 2008-05-09 16:57:55

Re: The Flag that Barack Obama won't wear

#65 2008-05-09 17:09:03

Re: The Flag that Barack Obama won't wear

#66 2008-05-09 17:42:44

Re: The Flag that Barack Obama won't wear

#67 2008-05-09 17:58:55

Re: The Flag that Barack Obama won't wear

#68 2008-05-09 18:29:03

Re: The Flag that Barack Obama won't wear

#69 2008-05-10 01:06:22

Re: The Flag that Barack Obama won't wear

#70 2008-05-10 07:47:52

Re: The Flag that Barack Obama won't wear

#71 2008-05-10 09:17:56

Re: The Flag that Barack Obama won't wear

#72 2008-05-10 11:22:31

Re: The Flag that Barack Obama won't wear

#73 2008-05-11 03:14:53

Re: The Flag that Barack Obama won't wear

#74 2008-05-11 06:47:16

Re: The Flag that Barack Obama won't wear

#75 2008-05-11 10:40:58

Re: The Flag that Barack Obama won't wear

Board footer